Y’all been keeping up with this Donna Adelson case? No?! It’s ok. I’ll fill you in:
In 2014, Dan Markell was executed — in broad daylight in his own garage. The hit was part of a conspiracy involving his mother-in-law Donna, her son Charlie, his ex-girlfriend Katherine Magbanua, and two hired hitmen — all of whom are now serving life sentences. We’re talking six degrees of conspiracy, here. On Beyoncé’s 44th birthday, Donna was found guilty on all charges. She hasn’t been sentenced yet, but… yeah, it’ll probably be life.
This case is absolutely tragic. And as a mother and a true crime junkie, I find it absolutely fascinating. Was this an extremely distorted example of a mother’s love? Is this the kind of twisted parental enmeshment that destroys your moral compass, makes you an enabler, or compels you to cover up your child’s illegal behavior?
Or was it something darker, something far more strategic and self-serving? Was this about manipulation, legacy, image? Is this the type of controlling personality that, if left unchecked, makes you calculated, exploitative, and drives you to weaponize your maternal hold over your children?
As a mother, I understand the instinct to protect your child at all costs — but where is the line between “mama bear” protection and moral collapse? It raises an interesting question for us to ponder today, and it’s what elevates the case beyond the typical true crime story. It’s a truly layered case study in power, gender, and agency that warrants a more nuanced discussion. Why, you ask? Okay, you forced me. Buckle in. *puts on professor glasses*
In The Second Sex, French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir examines two ways of being: immanence and transcendence. Immanence is associated with being confined to a limited role defined by biology or tradition. This is how I secretly felt while I was breastfeeding my son. At times, I felt that my entire value to the world was reduced to my ability to produce milk and serve others. Transcendence, on the other hand, is about going beyond those limits: creating yourself, shaping your own projects, and living freely.
Beauvoir’s larger point was that human life requires both immanence and transcendence — a balance. But under patriarchy, women are often stuck in immanence — cut off from full self-actualization — while men are given the space to make history, lead, and define culture.
She also explained the idea of situated agency, which for the modern American woman means that, yes, we have “freedom”, but that “freedom” is shaped—and often limited—by patriarchy, race, class, and tradition. To achieve transcendence, we usually need to find ways to act, move, and create meaning in our lives within those constraints.
Let’s take Lady Macbeth as an example. She’s an ambitious character whose agency is “situated” within her unique context. Her gender severely limits her capacity for transcendence, but she still finds a way to move in that direction by manipulating Macbeth into executing her homicidal plan.
This is the tragic twist of Beauvoir’s philosophy in action: Donna Adelson, like Lady Macbeth, exercised her agency in a way that was distorted and confined by her worldview. That worldview being that a woman’s power is tightly bound to maternal identity, image management, and emotional dominance. Instead of using that maternal power to be emotionally present for her newly divorced daughter, she instead used it to orchestrate the death of her son-in-law, while telling herself it was love.
Tragic.
You know who else reminds me of Donna Adelson and Lady Macbeth, even if only at 1/1000th scale? Angela Martin, a character from my favorite show in the world — The Office (USA). In this week’s episode, Angela also uses the manipulative matriarch playbook. No blood is spilled, of course, but a paper salesman is left tragically humiliated. Even in the break room of a mid-size paper company, power still finds its way into a woman’s hands — despite her status — and a man still finds a way to fumble the bag. Let’s get into it, shall we? 🫴🏾
👑 Episode Synopsis: The New King Kenya Version
The episode opens as Michael anxiously hovers around Pam as she pops popcorn in the microwave. It’s “Movie Monday” in the office, and Pam is in charge of the snacks.
PAM: Movie Monday started with training videos, but we went through those pretty fast. Then we watched a medical video. (exasperated look to CAMERA) Since then, it's been half hour installments of various movies, with the exception of an episode of Entourage, which Michael made us watch six times.
Jan strolls into the office, I guess, on a surprise visit. But, she’s the one who’s ultimately surprised. The office appears to be empty. She looks around, confused, until Angela coughs. This catches Jan’s attention. Without saying a word, Angela nods her head subtly toward the conference room, where the rest of the team is eating popcorn and watching Varsity Blues. Jan bursts into the room, visibly pissed. She immediately pulls Michael into a closed-door meeting.
JAN: How would a movie increase productivity Michael? How on earth would it do that?
MICHAEL: People work faster after...
JAN: Magically?
MICHAEL: No... they have to... to make up for the time they lost watching the movie.
JAN: (definitively) No.
Angela sees an opportunity and takes it. Dwight is working quietly at his desk when Angela barrels past, looking straight ahead. She only says one word before disappearing into the break room kitchen.
ANGELA: (low, urgent) Kitchen.
Dwight hesitates a bit, but ultimately follows. Their relationship is still a secret, so they turn their backs and speak in hushed tones to avoid suspicion. In the kitchen, Angela doesn’t waste time.
ANGELA: Michael is going to get us all fired. You sat back and let him play that dumb movie, and now Jan is peeved off. We’re all going to lose our jobs.
DWIGHT: (defensive) That’s not going to happen.
ANGELA: You know she has it out for him now.
DWIGHT: That’s not his fault! He had to follow his heart!
…
ANGELA: Dwight, you should be running this office.
[That lands. He blinks and is in agreement]
DWIGHT: Michael would never let me…
ANGELA: It’s not up to Michael. It’s Jan’s call. Talk to her.
DWIGHT: I could never do that!
ANGELA: Fine. Sit back. Do nothing. Let us all get fired.
[She turns and storms out. Dwight stares off into the distance]
ANGELA (to camera): I know that patience and loyalty are good, and virtuous traits. But sometimes… I just think you need to grow a pair.
Let’s pause and analyze this scene more closely. Why do you think Angela chooses this moment, in particular, to pressure Dwight? I think it’s because Jan’s unexpected visit — and semi-public reprimand of Michael — introduced a rare and temporary crack in the power structure at Dunder Mifflin Scranton. She leverages the moment’s instability to manipulate Dwight, someone who has structural power but no plan (men never do).
Angela doesn’t need to shout, threaten, or get outta pocket. She simply steps into the crack and, like many women whose agency is shaped by constraint, uses the tools available to her to get what she wants. For whatever reason, she doesn’t feel empowered to transcend the system. Still, she can maneuver within it, in the precise way Beauvoir describes, using relational power and gendered expectation to impact the real world.
Ok, now, let’s discuss how she did it. There’s something we can learn here. Not because we want to manipulate innocent people, but because understanding how power flows — and who is allowed to wield it openly — is key to understanding the social dynamics of the modern world. Let’s re-examine her rhetorical arc using Aristotle’s famous appeals.
🧠 Logos – Appeal to Logic
Angela begins by grounding her argument in practical, real world consequences that Dwight, a staunch rule-follower, can’t easily dismiss. She sets the stakes and frames the situation in terms of cause and effect:
“Michael is going to get us all fired. You sat back and let him play that dumb movie, and now Jan is peeved off and we’re all going to lose our jobs.”
She presents the situation as an imminent threat: Michael’s actions (Movie Monday) have consequences (Jan angry), and the outcome would be destabilizing (job loss). Do you see how she makes Dwight feel like not acting would be irrational and irresponsible? This is key to appealing to the audience's logic.
❤️🩹 Pathos – Appeal to Emotion
Logos alone doesn’t work on Dwight. He immediately pushes back, still clinging to his loyalty to Michael. So, Angela shifts tactics. She moves from reason to something much more primal: his ego.
“Dwight, you should be running this office.……. It’s not up to Michael. It’s Jan’s call. Talk to her.”
She flatters him, appealing to his ambition and self-importance. It’s not overly emotional — Angela is too composed for that — but it’s targeted. She knows Dwight sees himself as under-appreciated and more competent than Michael at running the branch. With that one line, she taps into his desire to be seen, respected, and promoted. The compliment is bait, and Dwight takes it. Emotional manipulation disguised as encouragement — subtle, effective, and utterly cruel.
🦸🏾♀️ Ethos – Appeal to Character/Credibility
Then comes ethos. Angela leans into her credibility — not as a boss, but as the office’s moral compass. She doesn’t have official power, but she has a reputation as the one who follows the rules, takes things seriously, and sees through the chaos.
“Fine. Sit back. Do nothing. Let us all get fired.”
It’s an unexpected, passive-aggressive moral indictment that Dwight wasn’t expecting to receive from Angela. She suddenly places them on opposite teams: she positions herself as the one who’s thinking about the consequences while everyone else, including Dwight, is goofing off. And the guilt she lays on Dwight works because it aligns with her moral compass role. She’s not asking him to act for her — but positions inaction as a betrayal of responsibility and virtue.
Angela's authority is deeply internalized by the people around her. Especially Dwight. That isn’t accidental. Angela, like Lady Macbeth, knows that the most effective manipulations aren’t just emotional outbursts — they’re structured appeals tailored to a specific audience. Dwight is logical, loyal, and insecure. Angela hits all three.
So, what do Donna Adelson, Lady Macbeth, and Angela Martin have in common? They each operate within systems that limit their access to formal power — and yet, each finds a way to assert influence anyway. Not by breaking the system, but by bending it. They read the moment, assess the risk, and maneuver with precision. Their agency is situated, as Beauvoir would say — shaped by gender, tradition, and image — but still potent. Still dangerous.
Now, to be clear: I’m not suggesting these women are morally equivalent. Donna Adelson orchestrated the actual murder of an actual human being. Lady Macbeth and Angela Martin are fictional characters. It isn’t the same. However, what I am saying is that it’s worth examining these moments side by side — not to flatten them, but to understand the conditions that shape them.
They were all playing the game that was available to them. However, none of them built the game; they only learned how to move through it. So when we study women like Donna, even when we condemn their choices, we also have to ask: what kind of system creates the conditions for this kind of manipulation to seem like her only move?
Until next time,
