By Jo Page
a first step toward my goal of watching more television, I
caught two TV shows recently.
The first was Cybill Shepherd’s cartoonish incarnation of
Martha Stewart in Martha, Inc. The second was the last
10 minutes of Barbara Walters’ interview with Hillary Rodham
It’s strange timing, in a way: Martha’s media mayhem coinciding
with Hillary’s hefty History.
It’s strange timing but maybe fortuitous, as well. Because
it throws into stark relief the sorry truth that no matter
what these women do, an ornery public pisses and moans about
There are a few voices—but really, just a few—who want to
press the case that the pillorying of these two has a lot
more to do with a public’s discomfort with powerful women
in general than it as to do with Hillary and Martha, in particular.
I’m one of those few voices. And the coincidental timing of
their renewed media spotlighting seems only to underscore
the fact that in the court of public opinion, these two can’t
get anything right.
Only, what’s curious about that is that these are women radically
different from one another.
In some ways they each embody an extreme side of the two directions
in which many, if not most, contemporary women feel themselves
pulled—to career at the expense of home life or to home life
itself as the career.
I mean, nobody takes Hillary Clinton’s chocolate-chip-cookie
recipe seriously, except as joke fodder. And while Martha
may have a trusted word on furnishing a bed chamber, in the
Senate chambers her words would mean nothing. One of them
is dedicated to bettering the public weal, the other to bettering
the private domain.
And for all that, their detractors paint each of them with
the same old broad (so to speak) brush, the same tired old
cliché that gets slapped so easily on women wielding economic
or political power—spheres in which white males still hold
by far the greatest sway.
But the tired old cliché, applied equally to Hillary and Martha,
goes like this:
That they are each are power hungry, bossy and more ambitious
than Lady MacBeth.
That they can’t satisfy their men.
That they lack enough maternal instinct to have more than
That since they have power, they must lack tenderness.
That they are never satisfied.
That they are greedy.
That they don’t like sex, aren’t sexy or can’t get any.
It’s a pretty damn insulting cliché.
But what’s most baffling about it is how it gets tailor-fitted
to each of them.
During the White House years Hillary had been alternately
portrayed as a harridan, tossing lamps and calling the shots,
or a First Lady faking it badly, standing behind her man,
but with itchy feet and a pasted-on smile.
Her low-profile, nose-to-the-grindstone, junior senator image
has been no more to public liking either. Her insincerity
is assumed—that her earnestness is just a savvy tack designed
to court public opinion in order to wield more political power
down the road.
Then out comes Living History, and, so far, I’ve heard
mutually contradictory theories about why she wrote it (apart
from the obvious reason—see tired old cliché above—greediness).
It’s either a pre-emptive strategy for a White House run,
well-timed to coincide with Bill’s increased public presence,
or an it’s-my-turn gesture aimed at uncoupling their public
And then look at how the conservative right, normally staunchly
in support of marriage, has vilified Hillary for staying with
Bill. What kind of self-respecting woman takes her husband’s
fidelity lying down—particularly if he didn’t? Her staying
with him must indicate a secret insecurity, a latent lesbianism
or an avaricious hunger to crawl her way into higher and higher
So no matter what she does, there’s a problem. Can’t win for
losing, as my mother used to say.
Martha fares no better and really no differently.
There is no disputing that she hails from the working class,
that the business that would become Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia really did begin as a modest, from-the-home catering
business, that she continues to include family members and
friends in projects. On one level hers is the ultimate local-boy-makes-good
But maybe the problem is that she is a local girl.
Her moxie, her ability to transcend social class, her success
have always been seen as suspicious—no one could have
gotten where she has gotten without being a two-faced social
climber, a raging perfectionist, a sexless insomniac more
to be parodied than praised.
So her personal troubles evince a kind of public shadenfreude.
Somehow it’s assumed that of course Andy would leave
Martha. And if it was for one of her staff members, well those
are her just desserts for not being a better wife.
Her financial woes are seen as a kind of comeuppance for having
made, however briefly, the billionaire club. That’s not what
we expect from our home-ec teachers.
And let’s talk about home ec for a minute. What could be less
threatening to women—or to straight men, who seem to be her
biggest detractors—than a woman who actually re-introduced
a sense of dignity into what 20 years of pop-culture feminism
so consistently demeaned?
No, Martha Stewart is not about tatting doilies at all. Sure,
there are some pretty far-fetched projects and a few over-the-top
recipes. But James Beard had some doozies, too.
I suppose it’s kind of corny to be an apologist for Martha
and Hillary. And it’s true, I am. But there’s more to their
pillorying than meets the eye.
It’s not just about the two of them. In fact, I don’t really
think it’s much about them at all.
Because the broad brush that paints a jaundiced portrait of
each of them says a lot more about a public view of women
in general than it does about those bold enough to step outside
the Jell-O mold.
can contact Jo Page at firstname.lastname@example.org.