In the wee
hours of April 15, 1912, the "unsinkable" SS Titanic settled into
its final resting spot in the depths of the North Atlantic. The nascent
cause of gender equality was dealt a blow on that wintry night. Among
its 425 female passengers, 74% were rescued. But among the 1,667 men,
only 338 - that's a paltry 20% -- survived this nautical
disaster.
First Officer
Charles Lightoller was later called to testify before Congress. One
Senator inquired why women had been favored over men, even while many
of the lifeboats bobbed half-empty in the icy waters. Lightoller's
response: "The rule of human nature."
I don't know whether
chivalry is based more on human nature or cultural conditioning. But
there is no doubt that chivalry is as deeply-rooted in men as is the
maternal instinct in women. Even though feminists will rebuke a man who
holds a door for a lady to pass, chivalry is still alive and well in
our society.
Take the case of Martha Stewart.
Acting on an
insider tip, Stewart sold all 3,928 shares of her ImClone stock in
2001. A few days later, the stock took a nosedive.
Stewart's pre-emptive move saved her the tidy sum of
$51,000.
During the subsequent probe, Stewart made the mistake of
lying to the federal investigators. The homemaking maven was charged on
four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Every day
Martha Stewart emerged from the courtroom, surrounded by her white
knights in shining armor (ahem, lawyers). No matter how badly the case
was going, she was always beautifully coifed, with a scarf serving
as her fashion accessory. The Martha Stewart case, involving
an attractive woman with a comely smile and a vaguely helpless
demeanor, was more than the men in the media could resist.
Over
the course of the trial, I read countless editorials about the
case. All of them asserted Ms. Stewart's innocence - she was being
singled out, lying to a federal agent was no big deal, poor Martha
didn't know any better, and so on.
And all of the columns were
written by men, none of them who had spent a day in law school. The
articles called to mind the chivalrous noblemen of yore who steadfastly
defended the virtue of their womenfolk.
But the jury of four men
and eight women saw things differently. On March 5, claiming a victory
for the little guys, the jury found Stewart guilty on all four
counts.
Afterwards, Stewart's lawyers requested leniency - a term
of probation and community service working with poor women. The obvious
sexism of that offer apparently didn't disturb anyone.
Last
Friday Judge Miriam Goldman sentenced Stewart to five months
behind bars. In announcing the sentence, Goldman noted, "I
believe that you have suffered, and will continue to suffer, enough."
Kinda makes your heart melt.
Media coverage of Goldman's
sentence reveals how chivalry can bias the news. On December 27, 2001,
Stewart had received a message from her stockbroker warning that
"ImClone is going to start trading downward." Stewart later stole
into her assistant's computer and sanitized the message to read,
"Peter Bacanovic re: ImClone." Jurors later said that incident
was the defining moment in the trial.
But this past weekend, the
media didn't even mention that critical event. Indeed, they glossed
over the details about Stewart's well-documented efforts to obstruct
justice.
The lead story in the liberal New York Times quoted one
supporter, Daniel Stone, who said, "If she serves any time at
all, it's going to be a real
pity." The NYT
article didn't mention the fact that the American public does not
like white-collar criminals being sent home scot-free.
Studies
have repeatedly found that when men and women commit the identical
crime, women are less likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and
incarcerated. Legal experts say that Stewart was extremely lucky in
receiving only a judicial slap on the wrist, the minimum allowable
under federal sentencing guidelines.
Was it luck? Or was it the
chivalry of the countless reporters, editors, and columnists who
rallied to Martha's defense?
