As noted earlier here, I am troubled by the recent indictment of former HP chairperson Patricia Dunn. I am equally troubled by what happened to Martha Stewart (see here and here). How much of Dunn and Stewart’s troubles are attributable to the fact that they are powerful women in a male-dominated corporate world?
Well, it would appear quite a bit. Earlier this week, the WSJ’s Alan Murray wrote this column ($) entitled Why Gender Plays A Role in H-P Drama in which Murray makes the rather preposterous assertion that Dunn and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina‘s actions at HP were the products of gender — the column suggests that the fact that both executives are women made them less likely to resign gracefully or take responsibility for the actions of others.
What gibberish. Thankfully, Christine Hurt over at the Congomerate takes Murray down a notch or two:

Why do we have to criticize women’s actions not as their individual actions but as actions that reflect badly on their gender? Did [former HP director] Tom Perkins’ actions as a rogue director and mediocre romance novelist reflect badly on his gender? On the venture capital industry? Why would we expect Fiorina and Dunn to be any more supportive of each other than [HP CEO Mark] Hurd and Perkins?

A related question: Was Martha Stewart skewered in the media — and then prosecuted for protesting her innocence about a crime that the prosecution could not prove — at least in part because she is perceived as a hard-knuckled female executive?