knitabit

Meditating on Martha

I'm a person of strong convictions, and it's been hard for me to restrict this blog to knitting-related stuff. On just about any given day, there's more than one topic in the news that tempts me to get up on my soapbox. Maybe someday I'll start another blog where I can offend my readers with my opinions on a regular basis.

But since Martha Stewart dabbles in the fiber arts from time to time, I thought I'd make an exception today.

Now I'm not that much of a Martha fan. I find the "Martha look" to be a bit predictable and formulaic, and I don't particularly care for the shade of green she seems to favor. Her style of decor is a bit too spare for my taste - and I'm not one to want clutter, collectibles and knick-knacks in my house, either.

But I very much appreciate her approach to the domestic arts. There IS a right way to bake a cake, after all. And baking a cake isn't just another household chore - if we bring the right mind-set to it, it's part skill and part art and it's something that we can practice and learn about and improve on over time. My mother, my grandmothers and even my great-grandmothers (who I never met but heard about) are and were all very proud of their domestic skills. My maternal grandmother used to tell stories about her mother, who was a fabulous cook. This was back in the days before thermostats in your oven - you had to stick your hand in there and judge whether or not it was the right temperature. Can you imagine that?

I have some treasures from these ancestors (ancestresses?) of mine - recipes, a hand-sewn quilt, several doilies, a baptismal gown - that mean more to me than just about anything. And I think Martha has done a great job of advocating for the value of these kinds of things, and for the value of perfecting the skills we need to create them.

I never have understood the undercurrent of 'Martha hatred' that so many women seem to have. Many times I've made something I'm proud of only to have someone make the sarcastic and derisive comment "That's so Martha..." And you hear about women that feel intimidated by her books and magazines. Why pick on Martha? Are men similarly intimidated by magazines and books devoted to automotive repair? To home improvements? (Not that these subjects are for men only...)

I'm guessing that Martha's probably guilty of what she's been accused of. I just don't understand why she's been singled out for prosecution for something that I would guess LOTS AND LOTS of executives (men) have done and continue to do every day. I smell a rat. It just goes to show, aggressive and talented men continue to get rewarded in our society, while aggressive and talented women get the 'bitch' label and go to jail.

End of soap box.

Comments

I agree. In the town where I live in an investment company went belly up because of "creative book-keeping" by the firm who bought it several years ago. Thousands of people, many retired, lost their life savings. The money that was used to go after Martha (whose actions didn't destroy lives)would have been better used going after Home Gold, Inc. who made Carolina Investors go bankrupt.

And another thing, I thought the trial was about guilt or innocence and not about "a victory for the little guy" and one juror explained his decision.

Posted by: Susan at March 6, 2004 06:29 PM

Amen, Karen. And Susan. It just fries my gullet that all these folks are "after Martha" when they are perfectly happy to let a lot of big ol' white boys walk.

Posted by: Patricia Tryon at March 8, 2004 11:57 AM

totally agree re: martha. in my group i'm the "martha" and proud of it ;-) what's wrong with being proud of doing something right? even though i think she's guilty, i can't figure out why so many relish in her demise. god forbid there is a smart crafty woman who makes a lot of money!

Posted by: vanessa at March 9, 2004 07:03 PM

Just had to comment. I agree that I think there is a witch hunt for Martha. The media has played its card in bad taste even if she is quilty. It's what I call bad taste. The Rockerfellers and Kennedy's have a lot they should account for because there are plenty of stories that are true about their wrong dealing and how they aquired theyre wealth. Not to excuse anyone else's crimes. But, I really think if is overkill and a media frenzy making a mountain out of a molehill.

Posted by: James at March 11, 2004 07:37 PM

(I'm really late to this thread...just traipsed over to your blog following a search on the "Everyday Cardigan". Then followed the link to this entry.) I couldn't agree more with you. I've never been a fan of Martha Stewart, but she was subjected to this "show" trial because she is a well-known public figure.

And all she ended up being convicted of was lying to a government official and conspiring to lie to a government official. Not admirable, but, still, her actions don't amount to a hill of beans next to what the guys running Enron or Tyco have done.

The most serious charge against her, trying to manipulate the price of her own company's stock, was tossed by the judge right off the bat. The government didn't even charge her with insider trading! (Although you'd havbe thought that was what she was being tried for if you didn't dig deeply into the news stories.)

That guy who just got 24 years in prison (and I can't remember his name although it was just last week) for cooking the books at another company--now that was a story. But who even noticed? If the government wanted to show how tough they could be on white collar crime, that was the trial that should have been covered on CNN every day--not Martha Stewart.

Posted by: Cookie at March 30, 2004 10:50 PM