Martha's tattered image

One of my friends has a T-shirt that says "Free Martha," ironically referring to the imprisonment of home economics entrepreneur Martha Stewart. Recently, my friend got his wish. Ten days ago, Stewart was released after five months in a West Virginia prison. She will complete her 10-month sentence in home detention and will wear an electronic monitoring anklet that tracks her movements. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I feel a little less safe knowing that Martha walks free.

I jest, of course. In fact, the uncertain nature of Stewart's "crimes" is one reason why her conviction was so controversial. Stewart was arrested for insider trading, a crime that involves buying or selling a stock "in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence" while possessing inside information about the stock, according to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. Insider trading violations may also include giving or receiving tips based on such information.

Martha was arrested on suspicion that she had sold $51,000 worth of ImClone stock after receiving a tip from a friend that an ImClone executive was selling his own shares. After a lengthy, public and wildly expensive investigation failed to uncover any proof that Stewart traded stocks illegally, the government arrested her on charges of lying to a federal officer at some point during the 18-month inquiry. Ironically, Stewart was convicted of lying during the investigation into a crime of which she was found innocent.

Some analysts have argued that insider trading, or at least receiving possible second-hand tips from inside traders, really shouldn't be a crime at all. Others have argued that laws should be changed to prevent people from being convicted of lying to the government about crimes of which they are innocent. Although I think these are legitimate questions, I won't be discussing them here.

Instead, I'd like to discuss the unreasonable backlash against Martha Stewart. Although some analysts expressed sympathy for Stewart's plight, public response to her troubles has ranged from quiet schadenfreude to unabashed glee. Financial writer Christopher Byron wrote a best-selling expose called Martha, Inc. in which he interviewed everyone who ever had a gripe against her. Not surprisingly, the book painted her as demanding, irritable and unrelentingly ambitious.

Others have portrayed her as a masculine control freak, a ice queen of domestic perfection or just a "rich bitch" who had it coming to her. Ultimately, none of these images reveals much about Stewart, but they do reveal something about our own society.

For example, the masculine control freak image stems from the claim that Stewart isn't always a nice person. That might be true. However, there are plenty of male executives who are widely reputed to be much nastier than anyone ever claimed Stewart was. For example, former Disney Chairman and CEO Michael Eisner was a tyrannical, purposefully intimidating boss who drove his employees to exhaustion, according to CNN. Even more extreme, Al Dunlap, the former CEO of Sunbeam, Inc., was so infamously cruel that he was nicknamed "Chainsaw Al," according to Business Week. Although both Eisner and Dunlap were fired, neither inspired the derision directed at Stewart.

The "ice queen" image is equally troubling. It has its roots in feelings that Stewart embodies a level of domestic perfection that is ridiculous. People view Stewart's products and programming as an attempt to force her high standards on them or as criticism of their lack of interest in cooking and potpourri baskets. But in fact, Stewart's programming does not force her views on people any more than any other company or TV show does. People who interpret Stewart in that manner only reveal personal insecurity about their domestic skills and life decisions.

Finally, the view that Stewart is a rich bitch who deserves whatever she gets is both concerning and unsophisticated. According to CNN, Martha Stewart grew up in a blue-collar home as one of six children. Overcoming poverty, neglect, and the challenges of an alcoholic father, she made herself a billionaire through her own efforts. Stories like Martha's should be applauded, not begrudged. It's a pitiful kind of patronization and class envy that wishes to drag her down by claiming it's what she "deserves."

Ultimately, despite the challenges Stewart has experienced in the past few years, I know she'll be fine. She has a reputation for rebounding, and despite her conviction, she remains a multimillionaire. Unfortunately, social attitudes towards successful, innovative, self-made women may not recover so quickly. And as Stewart herself might say, that's not "a good thing."

Jennifer Weiss is a senior Linguistics and Theatre Arts major from Los Angeles. War On Error appears on Wednesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.