- Why a Saudi blogger faces a possible death sentence for three tweets
- America's big wealth gap: Is it good, bad, or irrelevant?
- Xi Jinping, future Chinese president, faces test on first White House visit (+video)
- Iran accuses Israel of setting up attacks on its own diplomats
- Valentine's Day: cost of romance rising for flower delivery, 4 other things
- No budget? No problem! The strange politics behind a budgetless America.
Amid schadenfreude, sympathy for Martha
A move to save Stewart - and her products - draws on old anxiety about women's roles.
(Page 2 of 2)
"Whenever you have someone who has really devoted themselves to a celebrity, a lot of their own self-concept is wrapped up in that person," he says. "It's psychologically very difficult for someone in that position to turn around and say, 'I was wrong, she's no good after all.' "
YET MANY women academics see more support across the board and particularly among women - not just among the old devotees. It's not because they necessarily like Stewart or approve of what she did. Rather, they say, it stems from anger over the nation's still-conflicted feelings about powerful women.
Stewart was the über-homemaker, according to Shirley Wajda, an expert on domestic material culture at Kent State University in Ohio. And that made her a very controversial figure.
"Here's a woman who takes the gentle labors of homemaker, the domestic arts that we're supposed to think of as the province of the meek, the unsung, and the unpaid, and she makes it into a more than billion dollar industry," she says. "She comes across as a gentle mom, but she's really a very good businesswoman. That's gender bending, that makes some people uncomfortable."
Others are skeptical of a sexist streak in media coverage. They see the apparent delight of newscasters and others as part of a long media tradition of relishing its role in bringing down the rich and powerful. And then there's the question of timing: The alleged stock tip took came in the wake of some of the worst corporate scandals in a decade, from Enron to WorldCom - debacles which cost average Americans millions in pension and stock losses. And though Stewart was acting as an individual and hers wasn't a case of corporate wrongdoing, there's been a widespread tendency, of both the public and the media, to conflate the two.
"People are looking for someone to take the fall to collectively pay for all of these indiscretions that these executives have been accused of, and she's a very public target," says Professor Solomon. "She picked the wrong time to do this. If it was five years ago, she probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist."
Indeed, Stewart was charged for lying about an alleged stock tip that garnered her about $50,000. Prosecutors never brought the actual charge of insider trading, and Stewart supporters contend that's because they knew they couldn't prove it. Stewart continues to maintain her innocence - feeding the feeling that an injustice has occurred.
"A lot of women see this as a very powerful backlash and overreaction to a wrongdoing that pales in comparison to what the Enron guys did," says Professor Douglas. "I didn't like her before, I'm not crazy about what she does - the standards she sets are preposterous for most women - but that's separate from the concern about the delight with which a powerful woman is brought down."
Page:
1 | 2



