It’s telling that David Letterman chose his show to inform the world he slept with women who worked for him. The audience laughed, and why not. They thought this perpetual joker was joking.
And he was.
He has no inkling that sleeping with a series of underlings at work is dubious.
Well, he did call his behavior “creepy” but it seemed it was all about getting laughs.
Chances are, few women would pay attention to Letterman if they met him on the street. But here he is this famous, rich man throwing his power around in the workplace.
This kind of power trip is exactly what labor laws in this country were designed to protect against. And it’s what many U.S. corporations are trying to quell when they write conduct policies mandating acceptable fraternization in the workplace.
If you haven’t noticed lately, women are still the underdogs throughout corporate America. There are few women in the corner offices, and the entertainment industry is no exception.
I know, women are responsible for their own behavior, and we gals have to start saying “screw you” when guys come on to us and we’d rather not go along.
But we are all naive if we think it’s some sort of nirvana in the workplace today.
Already I’ve gotten angry responses to my power-game assertion from men and women. This from Twitter: “Oh Puleeeezzzze! Women in Letterman case taken advantage of? Puleeeeze! It takes 2.”
It does take two. I agree. But in this case the two people are not on a level playing field. I suspect Letterman knew that.
We seem to be giving certain behaviors a pass these days, and spend all our energies freaking out over what we perceive to be threats.
Recently I wrote about how women who want to help their careers need to stop being consumed by motherhood and I got an outpouring of outrage and criticism from moms. Hopefully I will see the same intensity from all of you regarding this blog post.
Why do we expect so little from people, especially those who have wealth and power?
I know, Letterman is a funny guy, but is this the way you would want your children behaving when they grow up? I’m sure Letterman doesn’t want his son to grow up and be “creepy.”
October 5th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Excuse me…the most powerful man in the world took full advantage of an absolutely powerless young woman a few years ago , if you remember, and was given sympathy. My 19 year old daughter as recently as last year had a conversation with my wife that made oral sex a non-sex issue. President Clinton’s behavior resonates prominently with the young folks today. do you really believe Hillary and Bill have had a relationship since that incident?
Now, Letterman, the single man, could have all the sex he wants with whomever is willing to consent to have a sexual relationship with him. These suitors, I’d assume are adults and were not coerced into having sex with him. To say it was not consensual, then it becomes an absolutely different thing. Letterman is an aging man. He is a comedian. If his auduence is all adult and he were make that statement, and you are an adult and watched it, all is fine.If there were people who are not adults in his audience, and he would have been aware if it, then it is abuse.
The whole thing is, he is aging. Obviously it was as close to a joke as he could muster.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:50 am
For on, Robert, I believe the only reason why the world gave former President Clinton sympathy regarding the Lewinski affair was because of his charisma, but garnering public sympathy did not make his actions any less wrong. Letterman has charisma, too, but of a different sort than that held by President Clinton. He’s built an image of himself as a likeable creepy and often crass humorist. It still neither justifies nor excuses his indiscretions with people under his employ (they may all be network employees, but they clearly were working for Mr. Lettermen in the sense of his executive authority over the show).
I do not believe it fair to assume there was no coercion. There may have been no overt coercion, but place yourself in the position of a woman who works for a powerful man. How easy would it be to say “no” when you know that the other party could potentially fire you, or at least make your job more difficult.
That said, there may have been no coercion at all. These could have been consensual relationships between adutls, but that still leaves the question of the propriety of such relationships in a workplace, especially between any person and a subordinate. Even if the relationships were consensual, there is the issue of what impact that relationship has on others in the workplace. If Mr. Letterman were involved in multiple consensual relationships in the workplace, it is unlikely that his propensity for such would have remained a complete secret (as evidenced, in part, by the blackmail attempt), and other staff may have been made uncomfortable working in such an environment. Would that be considered a hostile work environment under law?
October 6th, 2009 at 2:40 am
I find the people are in general sympathetic to Letterman. His coming out in public about his situation was an honorable (and wise) move, in my opinion, but I do not think he is receiving slack because of his status. I think the sympathy derives from the fact that a personal and private part of his life is being scrutinized by millions.
I’m not aware of all the details, but I do believe that the relations between him and his subordinate were consensual. Rather than see Letterman using his wealth and power as a way to coerce her into continuing the relationship over fear of losing her job, I believe it would be more along the lines of her attraction to a man who holds wealth and power. Letterman’s acts may not be a picture of integrity and morale, but I find her acts far more dubious.
I do agree that many times women are the underdogs in corporate America, but I feel this women gives us all a far worse name. If it were really an issue of feeling coerced and less powerful, why react by using blackmail? If the issue was about empowering women (and not making money), there are far better ways to get the message across.
MissMentor
October 7th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Hey Eve — did you see this article?
http://funnybusiness.typepad.com/funnybusiness/2009/10/letterman-sex-scandal-demonstrates-how-little-we-know-about-sexual-harassment.html
Interesting POV from the legal side.
xo/laurie
October 7th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
What - this is news? No one makes it to the top of corporate anything in this day and age by being a nice guy. Letterman was single for a long time, and to think he was somehow a celibate paragon of virtue during that time, sans publicity, would be naive. I remember his one-time gal pal, whose name escapes me (it was alliterative - both starting consonants the same, like Marilyn Marlow, or something like that) and she was his production assistant (??), saying one time on the show, “Is it O.K. if I tell them that we’re getting married?” To which Letterman agreed, but she was sort of “never heard from again”.
Sure, it’s creepy that he had a private room above the theater, but having crawled around theatrical lofts a time or two myself, it sure is one heck of a fantasy (re: Phantom of the Opera). Alpha males are driven individuals, and they take what rewards are offered - they all know it can end at any time. Was it wrong - I don’t know. Stupid, as in “Stupid Host Tricks”? You bet! But girls will be girls, and they sometimes do things around guys that astonish even me (Flash a backstage pass at a Rolling Stones concert and watch what happens!) The sooner we forget about all this, the better, or we’ll be stuck with Leno (again)and O’Brien, and God knows who else. With liberation comes responsibility - ya can’t have it both ways!
October 8th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Alas Joel if it were only a female problem. Many men I’ve talked to feel victimized when a women boss sexually harasses them, or doesn’t get a promotion because the boss’ lover did.
It’s more than just an issue for women, men end up getting shafted as well.
It’s about abusing your power. We don’t know what happened in the Letterman case, but leaders having affairs with underlings can be a dicey proposition. The military just bans this, and for good reason. Little good can come out of it.
That said, people can meet their soul mate at work. I’m not denying that. Sometimes this can happen among a boss and his or her employee. They just have to be smart enough to handle it diplomatically. Most sensible employers and employees would be cool with a situation like this. But a private sex room above the theater doesn’t smack of sensible to me.