Larry Mudd summarized my thoughts pretty well. I personally am strangely gleeful over her humiliation. Frankly, I felt much more sympathy for Dahmer – he really was a poor sick fuck.
Was Martha a cook as well as a, er, … decorator? I just had this flash on Matha giving Jeffery tips on food preparation (yes I know he’s dead).
Boyo Jim, I’m glad to see there’s someone else who had sympathy for Dahmer. I felt sorry for him, too…but every time I tell someone that they look at me like I’ve lost my mind.
I think this merits its own thread.
I am so sick of hearing that. No, if a man had the same qualities that lead me to call Martha Stewart a bitch, I would not admire him. I would call him such names as-jerk, prick, asshole, major asshole, shmuck, putz, and so forth.
I dislike Martha because I see her as manipulative, emotionally cold and distant, and pathologically obssessed with every detail. Many people have said it in jest, I say it in seriousness-it just ain’t healthy to be that fixated on centerpieces and pie crusts.
So am I! How this notion ever took hold is beyond me. I would call a man who acted like that an asshole. And there are plenty of them. I’ve said this for years. It’s a fallacy that reprehensible behavior is tolerated and/or admired in a man but condemned in a woman. This notion is vestigal debris from the women’s rights movement, which I was (and am) in favor of. But that doesn’t mean I won’t condemn nonsense just because it comes from a movement I support.
She isn’t being punished for being a bitch, but everyone is delighted in her punishment because she is a bitch…
And btw, pepperlandgirl, my last post wasn’t mean to to be a slam on you. I was speaking of the notion in general. Many good people have heard it and taken it to heart. I just meant to voice my opposition to it in the main, and no offense was intended toward you. 
I phrased that badly.
What I meant was that people are gleefully revelling in Martha’s misery simply because they don’t like her, or have a delight in seeing the “mighty” fall. While people are glad when a violent felon is incarcerated, it usually isn’t treated as something that’s funny or amusing, because we focus on the pain of the victims. People seem to like the idea of Martha being humiliated and brought low, not because she hurt people, but because they think she’s a bitch.
So you compared (in your earlier post) the reaction of people to Stewart’s incarceration with the reaction of people to the incarceration of violent criminals even though (as you take pains to explain here ) they really aren’t the same thing of thing? Why did you make a comparison like that in the first place?
Wow…kind of hard to explain the public fascination with Peewee Herman’s arrest for a “victimless” crime
or Hugh Grant and the hooker.
or George Michael getting a hummer in the john.
or what the hell…knock yourself out.
Yeah it’s only because they’re all powerful women being shamed back into their rightful place.
Oh, wait…
You have the nerve to deride Lissa for making what you claim is an apples and oranges comparison, then do the same thing yourself. There was public interest over George Michael, Hugh Grant and company, but no NEARLY the same level of vindictiveness, nothing LIKE the same level of glee. You’re trying to make it appear as if “interest” were the same thing as “gleeful malevolence” and I’m just not buying it.
Are we pitting MEDIA coverage (like the OP title suggests) or Joe/Jane SixPack’s reaction?
If the former, there has been plenty of media coverage of the examples listed. The Stewart example is a bit different because of the LENGTH of the episode…and the involvement of the feds. There have not been a LOT of non violence related long court trials for other house hold name celebs. Stewarts case was part of a larger case…and involved pre trial motions and appaeals that kept it in the news longer. But certainly Herman and the other cases have had plenty of coverage and glee/laughs from some folks.
I would submit that the media is fascinated with ANY household name (especialy one with distinct personas like Herman or Stewart) and a brush with the law.
If you’re talking about JoeJane SixPack’s reaction…it seems from reading this thread that the reactions and feelings are pretty varied. Some people think she is a mean bitch. Some people apparently don’t like the “message” that she seems to be sending about homemaking. Some people (like me) have no real feelings about her as a person.
So. I assume that it’s ok to have “glee” or make jokes regarding Stewart’s arrest/jail time (since plenty of jokes and glee are associated with the other folks) …it’s just NOT okay for Joe/Jane SixPack to do so with “malevolence”?
"I think she’s freakin’ hot. I’ve got a baaad case of Martha Stewart … I don’t care what mundane stupid minutia thing she’s doin’ – sounds so sexy. ‘Today, we’re going to make a lovely… bundt cake. You can make any flavor you desire. Watch as I knead the dough with my strong, long fingers. Here we have one already hot and fresh and steaming from the oven. As I carefully ladle the icing over the top and it oozes down the side… It’s a good thing.’ YESSSS! …
“You think Martha’s a lesbian? I shouldn’t say it … but I think she’s a big old tramp in from the garden, with her boots still on, throw you across the bed, make you call her daddy dyke top, that’s what I think. Oh, yeah! Bend you over the antique roll top desk, pull your panties down and SPANK YOU A LITTLE! ‘How do you make eggs fluffy??! kshhh HOW???!!’”
It absolutely does not nor has it ever featured anything of the sort. You must not have ever read an issue. Or are confusing her magazine with Baby Vogue or somesuch.
If you want to rag on the magazine, at least get the facts straight.
Perhaps he’s thinking of Oprah’s magazine. There is always lots of high-priced stuff in it.
Disclaimer: This is not a slam against Oprah. I think she’s done a lot of good for a lot of people. But there is a lot of high-priced but relatively useless stuff in it. I mean really, what use is an $800 cashmere jumpsuit?