The temptation to use the foulest of language when discussing Debbie Wasserman Schultz is oftentimes overwhelming, but it is superseded by a need to be genteel or fall into the trap of becoming just like her. Let us rather use Shakespeare’s description of Kate to describe the Democrat National Committee’s Chairwoman (or is it charwoman?), she is a shrew. That pretty much sums up the woman.
In a previous column, I asked Debbie to leave her husband and marry me. I find her oddly attractive, but though massively tongue in cheek, I envisioned myself taming this shrew, bringing her to heel so to speak. That statement should goad her to no end. It won’t however. She’s immune to any semblance of a romantic overture however steeped in a chauvinism she secretly admires and for which she yearns.
Alas, Schultz is wed to an ideology, one she cannot articulate, one so confused and irrational it suits her shrewish nature for it allows, nay encourages her to rail incoherently in front of other shrews saying things like, “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back. It is not going to happen on our watch.”
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks,” states the Queen.
What does Wasserman Schultz even mean when she says Walker’s “grabbing us by the hair…”? Is it a Freudian slip, a reference to some naughty erotic fantasy? More likely it means nothing. It’s not meant to mean anything. It’s a cry of desperation or maybe one of frustration over being perceived as so wildly incompetent and ineffective she’s become irrelevant in perfect harmony with the Obama administration.
If anything, Schultz is grotesquely emblematic of the that administration, feckless, hapless, incompetent, malfeasant, out of control and harmful to the country. We are so used to her lunacy, no one listens when she speaks with the exception of a minority of disaffected like-minded shrews. She’s angry and bitter, they’re angry and bitter, a whisker of shrews snapping and biting whenever they can. The reason for their being the way they are is not what you might think however. It has nothing to do with politics. Politics is merely the vehicle for Debbie and her ilk for spewing their vitriol.
Not that she is ugly. As stated above and in the past, I find her somewhat attractive and I am an expert in feminine pulchritude, just ask my ex-wife. But Debbie doesn’t think of herself as being attractive in any way. She believes she’s ugly in fact and that belief has guided her along the way to total shrewishness.
I call it the ugly girl syndrome. You’ve seen it, we all have. Take the unattractive girls in the class, ostracized by the good looking girls, ignored by the boys, they find ways to become noticed. Typically, they offer sex mistakenly believing that’s the way to popularity in lieu of being beautiful. This little gift they hand out to anyone who will make a show of taking them seriously. Then, after they’ve been used, abused and discarded, they turn to protesting. They can’t protest the indignity of being used and rejected as a result of being unattractive and making stupid sexual mistakes so they protest the injustices perpetrated on the entire gender by their arch enemy, men.
The reality is they are protesting a world in which ugliness is shunned although they will never make that admission. Their frustration turns to hatred, hatred to intensely strident shrewishness. Since misery loves company, they band together to form a group whose mission is to right the wrongs they believe they’ve suffered at the hands of better looking people. But you can’t right ugly, you can only protest your lot in life by blaming others for every manifestation of its consequences, especially regarding the men who used and then rejected you. That’s enough to make any unattractive woman more irritable than a hungry badger or shrew.
Problem with that is an admission of ugliness, however unmentioned, flies in the face of all the women’s movement is about. Looks aren’t supposed to mean anything, but they do in a big way and that’s what so angers people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Her shrewishness is a result of her frustration and hatred over that reality, but her problem is compounded since no one takes a shrew seriously, especially if she’s not very good looking and more especially if her personality is so prickly as to compliment her looks.
Shakespeare’s universal Kate wasn’t as good looking as her sister Bianca nor was she as demure, but it took Petruchio’s keen insight into women in general and Kate particularly to see her real beauty, a woman of value for her strength as well as her unabashed femininity. Mr. Shakespeare had an unrivaled talent for getting to the absolute essence of the relationship between real men and real women. But Schultz and her followers deny that essence, they see it as knuckling under to the authority of a man, becoming what he wants a woman to be rather than what she wants to be. It must be difficult for women like Schultz, to desperately want love from a man, but to eschew it at all costs since it’s weakness to be a woman who loves men. Men are the enemy, in Debbie’s irrational world they have to be because they are men. How frustrating it must be to want so badly what you will not allow yourself to have. It’s easy to see how that unrequited longing turns into unfathomable self-loathing and bitterness. What a curse to have so willingly placed on oneself.
The plain fact is, women’s liberation is as dead as is the liberalism that founded the movement. Poll after poll finds American women more inclined to the traditional relationship between men and women, equality is not so much an issue as are plain old love and respect for each other. In 2009, according to a Gallup poll, only 23% of women surveyed identified themselves as liberal. Simple extrapolation would indicate that the balance are not so committed to full blown women’s liberation since a woman can’t be a true libber without being a true liberal. It actually comes down to an observation my best friend’s mother made way back in the seventies. A shrewd daughter of immigrant Italians, after surveying the prevailing cultural landscape she said, “I wish we could go back to the era when men were men and women were women.” Sheer profundity for its simplicity and accuracy.
She knew nothing good would come out of the contemporary effort of trying to smash the genders together in a futile attempt to equalize the two. It remains as true today as it will forever, men and women are not the same, therefore they cannot be equal. More than that, real men and real women don’t want the kind of false equality women like Debbie Schultz have concocted out of air. They understand gender equality is a myth, the entire movement uncomfortable from the beginning, a suit that won’t fit no matter how it’s altered.
Nevertheless, we have opened that Pandora’s box and allowed to escape the malady of perception. The Wasserman Schultzs of this world are infected believing that perception is reality, and if it ever appears as if reality will poke itself through the haze of perception, women like Debbie will take to their podiums and denounce men like Scott Walker since he is the embodiment of what she and they hate most, a man’s man. And when she is further marginalized of her own volition she will become increasingly frustrated, bitter, angry, vile and outlandish in that way unattractive girls do for the only real purpose attached to their activities, the attention, but the kind she will garner won’t ever be the kind she desires. She will always be looking through the window at real women with real men.