The background for those who haven’t followed the story: West is a Republican congressman from Florida. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a Democratic congresswoman from Florida. They hold opposing positions on cutting government spending.
Wasserman Schultz was speaking before the House and commented on West’s position: “Incredulously, the gentleman from Florida, who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries. Unbelievable for a member from South Florida.”
At the time West was not present. He apparently was angry that his name was brought up when he was not present to respond. He sent Wasserman Schultz an email:
Obviously the two of them have their differences. But it’s now become a larger issue than just these individuals. Because several other Congresswomen are accusing West of sexual harassment based on what he said in the email.
Which, to me, is not an issue here. West clearly doesn’t like Wasserman Schultz (and it appears to be mutual) but all the evidence is that it’s based on political differences not gender.
IMO sexual harassment would take a pattern of like statements.
That was an email? His complaint is she didn’t say things to his face. She should just tell him he has no balls and is not a man for refusing to say that to her face.
If she was speaking before the House what’s his excuse for not being there? Did she know he wasn’t going to be there?
I don’t think it was sexual harassment, any more than the reason Democrats are attacking him for it is racism. I do think it’s an asinine overreaction, though.
Sexual harassment, no. Sexist and degrading, absolutely. Inappropriate beyond bounds considering their relative positions? You’d better believe it.
One thing that arose in the reporting of this is the fact that West doesn’t live in his own district, but in fact lives in Wasserman-Schultz’s. I had no idea that this was possible. Can someone actually represent a district that they don’t live in, or is this a result of recent redistricting, does anyone know?
Personally, I’m not even seeing sexism in this email. “You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!” is just the direct equivalent of “You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Gentleman, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!” West is saying Wasserman Schultz is ill-mannered (along with being vile, unprofessional, despicable, and a coward) but he isn’t saying or implying that she’s these things because she’s a woman. In fact what appears to be the situation here is West treats Wasserman Schultz the same way he would presumably treat a man who he was mad at.
The bottom line is you have to decide: do you want equality or do you want respect? Because if you ask for equality, you’d better understand there are plenty of people I don’t treat with respect and you might end up being one of them.
Link? Because that didn’t happen here. This sounds more like a guy taking as hostility when none was offered.
Though I have to admit that anyone who claims this is sexual harassment is going way, way out. I think the Congresswoman, in the interview linked above, has it right. He’s being pulled two different directions: one by his constituents, and one by his party and/or people who donated to his campaign.
I’m idly wondering what a capital-L Lady is, what is the “due respect” afforded to one, and how Rep. West believes women who are not a capital-L Lady ought to be treated.
Reading that email, I’m not inclined to call him a Gentleman.
It’s legal everywhere. The only residence requirement to be a member of the House of Representatives is that you be a resident of the state your district is in. Politically, though, it becomes difficult if you’re running in a district you’re not a resident in. In 2009, for instance, Jim Tedisco ran in my district in the special election to replace Gilibrand, who had become a US senator. He did this in spite of the fact that he didn’t live in the district, but my district leans Republican, and the district he lived in was solidly Democratic (so he couldn’t run there). His lack of residency became an issue in the campaign, and he lost to Scott Murphy.
The sexism is inherent in two things. First, the “greeting.” West is not Wasserman-Schultz’s friend. They don’t speak. They have no personal relationship, and yet he calls her by her first name with no honorrific. This is a very old and easy way to diminish women, assuming use of their names without regard for their position or titles. The second is the reference to her “failure” in West’s eyes to be a lady. The presumption that she has an obligation to meet his standards of lady-like behavior, the presumption that he has a right to determine what is and isn’t lady-like behavior, and the presumption that she is only due respect if she meets his standards of lady-like behavior is pure sexism.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, whatever you think about her, isn’t some chippie on a street corner. She’s the chair of DNC and therefore the 2nd most powerful person in the party (after the president) and an esteemed senior member of the House. She’s also West’s representative. Whatever West thinks of her (completely non-objectionable) comments, he doesn’t get to diminish her that way, and certainly doesn’t get to do so on a gendered basis without being called out for being a rampant sexist.
By the by, West tried to cover his ass by saying that he was trained in the military to talk to dishonorable women without respect. Think on that one for a minute. This guy is so full of it, his eyes are brown.