Martha's "Peers"

Written by Eric Olsen
Published January 06, 2004
page 1 | 2

Both are energetic, independent media and entertainment moguls with fortunes in the hundreds of millions. Both rose from humble beginnings. Parton was one of 12 children in a poor Smoky Mountains family. Stewart (née Kostyra) was one of six born to New Jersey working-class, Polish-immigrant parents. Both rose to extraordinary heights of artistic and commercial success. And both inspire awe — Parton as an entertainer, Stewart as an arbiter of gracious living.
(To the best of my knowledge, I am the first person to link Parton and Stewart. A joint query of their names so alarmed the Google.com search engine that it returned this error message: "Your request caused a problem in our system. This almost never happens, so please try again." When I did, I learned only that both owned Apple Macintosh computers in 2001.)

So why aren't these women seen as bookends, as birds of a feather? Why does Parton inspire love and a few snickers, while Stewart inspires reverence and resentment in equal measure?

Because in our world, style frames our perception so strongly that the fact Dolly and Martha share the same continent seems faintly absurd. Dolly's style is that of woman as sensuous love interest, her physical attractiveness maximized, the differences between the sexes luxuriously emphasized. The snickers come from our slight embarrassment at Parton's intense southern embodiment of this ideal, an ideal itself seen as somewhat archaic.

Martha is the idealized pioneer woman, tough and capable, from a harsh northern terrain where skill and energy can mean the difference between life and death, a practical partner more than a love interest. In this paradigm, the differences between the sexes are downplayed and physical attractiveness is a desirable but not core feature. We revere such a woman, but also resent her exceptional abilities and willful pride.

Ultimately, both women have risen above their stylistic stereotypes and made indelible, substantive contributions to our culture. Dolly has given us lovely and thoughtful music, transcending her chosen genres of country, pop and bluegrass. She has proved that women can be independent, creative and strong, while still reveling in the girlish, as she did recently on NBC's "Today" show, appearing as the CEO of an entertainment empire in a snug red white and blue leather dress, matching red and gold hoop earrings and high heels, and lips of ruby red.

Martha, in her matter-of-fact manner, has lovingly transformed the monotonous drudgery of housework into "the divine magic of making a home," to quote columnist Desiree Cooper of the Detroit Free Press. And she has explicitly invited all willing Americans into this magic circle — one formerly reserved for the gentry — a gesture of great magnanimity. While Martha's vision of domestic perfection is always out of reach, even to herself, her attitude adjustment is available to all, and that is very sexy.

page 1 | 2
Career media professional Eric Olsen is honored to be the founder and publisher of Blogcritics.org, which, quite frankly, rules - as do his wife and four children.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Martha's "Peers"
Published: January 06, 2004
Type:
Section: Politics
Filed Under: Culture: Media
Writer: Eric Olsen
Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
Eric Olsen's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Eric Olsen
Culture: Media
All Politics Articles
Eric Olsen's personal weblog
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — January 6, 2004 @ 16:52PM — bhw [URL]

I really think she's being made an example. She was not indicted for insider tradeing, but she's been indicted for giving a reason for selling the stock that investigators don't believe? If they don't believe it, get her indicted for insider trading!

Her broker may have broken the law, but he's been given a deal. A grand jury refused to indict Martha for insider trading. Now they're trying to get her for obstruction of justice, I think, for lying [as they believe] about why she sold her stock when she did. How did that obstruct justice? Her friend Waskal is in jail and she wasn't indicted for insider trading. So where's the obstruction of justice?

She was also accused -- but I can't remember if she was charged -- of deliberately trying to inflate the stock of her own company simply by declaring her innocence of the initial charges filed.

Now a denial of an accusation can be construed as stock price manipulation? Doesn't a defendant have the right to publicly proclaim his or her innocence without worrying about those words being the cause of another criminal charge?

Yikes!

#2 — January 6, 2004 @ 19:09PM — Eric Olsen

yes, the charges seem to be quite farremoved from any actual crime, and appear to be quite vindictive

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/11494)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments