David Letterman’s Dalliances Are Not A Feminist Issue
Posted by: Jessica Wakeman
Filed in:
celebs
1:00PM, Thursday October 8th 2009
One of the country’s largest feminist groups, National Organization for Women, has weighed in on the revelations that “Late Show” host David Letterman slept with several of his interns and assistants. In a statement released on Tuesday, NOW said:
“The latest Letterman controversy sheds new light on the widespread objectification of women in the workplace. Most women can attest to the fact that many workplaces are plagued with inappropriate behavior by men in power. As ‘the boss,’ he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace — and he did that with sex. In any work environment, this places all employees — including employees who happen to be women—in an awkward, confusing and demoralizing situation. The National Organization for Women calls on CBS to recognize that Letterman’s behavior creates a toxic environment and to take action immediately to rectify this situation. With just two women on CBS’ board of directors, we’re not holding our breath.”
Usually, I agree with NOW’s pro-women’s rights stance on lots of subjects—for what it’s worth, I was president of the NOW chapter at my college. But I only have one thing to say about the stink they’re making about Letterman’s employee-diddling:
Bitch, please.
Until any truly exploitative wrongdoing is proven, let’s not assume Letterman’s former lovers are victims of “objectification” in the workplace. There is such a thing as sexual attraction between older men and younger women.
If we found out Letterman promoted women with no discernible talent to reward them for sexual favors, then NOW will have a point.
If it turns out Letterman explicitly promised, or strongly insinuated, that these women would advance in their careers if they slept with him, then I will eat my hat. I mean, my bra.
But until any truly exploitative wrongdoing is proven, let’s not assume Letterman’s former lovers are victims of “objectification” in the workplace. Maybe you didn’t get the memo, NOW, but there is such a thing as sexual attraction between older men and younger women.
I staunchly call myself a feminist. But two of the things I don’t like about some feminist lines of thought are: 1.) the assumption that women are always victims of men’s behavior, and 2.) that sexual attraction is always objectification. Yes, women can be victims (being raped, dealing with sexual harassment, being “mommy tracked,” etc.). But women also make decisions and give their consent for things which turn out to have messy results, which are partially our own fault. Letterman may have been unprofessional as a boss by engaging in sexual relationships with his employees; he may have been crappy as a boyfriend/husband by two-timing his wife of five years, Regina Lasko. But nothing I’ve read has shown me his dalliances weren’t consensual.
Look at the evidence: Holly Hester, a former intern at the “Late Show,” told TMZ, “I was madly in love with him at the time ... I would have married him. He was hilarious.” Furthermore, The New York Daily News reported one of the comedian’s paramours, Stephanie Birkitt (whose ex, Robert Joe Halderman, is the one who tried to extort Letterman for two million), wrote her boss “trashy” love letters. Letterman allegedly used to even drop Birkitt off at home in his car after work! So far, no woman has come forward to say she told her boss, randy ol’ Mr. Letterman, “No, leave me alone, Dave!” and that he threatened to fire her. No woman who worked for Letterman has come forward to say she was penalized for rebuking sexual advances by him. No, it sounds like he was having consensual love affairs. Ill-conceived, stupid and consensual love affairs.
Women should have the right—nay, the duty!—to make stupid choices and consent to stupid things. It’s just patronizing to assume the Big Bad Men are taking advantage of us women all the time, that we’re too naive to know what we’re getting ourselves into. Furthermore, how, exactly, does one ascertain whether Stephanie Birkitt or Holly Hester only had their jobs because they shtupped the boss? You can’t. You just can’t. And it’s offensive to assume that’s the only reason they had their jobs unless we have proof they were unqualified dingbats he kept around and promoted for sex.
But I am biased about sex among co-workers, as well as May-December romances. In college, I interned at a magazine and kept in touch with one of the editors in a mentorship capacity. I graduated and moved back in with my parents, but this editor and I kept in touch, eventually becoming friends. Then, when we both happened to be single, we started hanging out more and more, and eventually began hooking up. By that point, I’d gotten hired at the website of that magazine, so this got kind of awkward for us. I fell deeply in love with him, but—maybe because of my age, maybe because of my maturity level—he didn’t reciprocate my feelings, and he ended things with me. Eventually, I found another job and quit. It was awful and it sucked and yes, it was unprofessional of both of us, but no one can convince me that for that short period of time, we didn’t have something between us. And I’m sure I felt as flattered and starstruck by my former paramour as Birkitt and Hester did with Letterman—but more to the point, I don’t believe I was objectified, exploited or taken advantage of one bit.
I know NOW means well. I know gender and power dynamics in the workplace is a feminist issue. But there’s so many holes in their argument against Letterman and his “abuse of power leading to an inappropriate, if not hostile, workplace environment for women and employees,” it’s not even funny.
- Today’s Lady News: Polanski’s Lawyer Says He’s Been Punished Enough For Drugging, Raping Teen
- Today’s Lady News: Conan O’Brien’s Fat Jokes Get Him In, Uh, Big Trouble
- Today’s Lady News: Jaycee Dugard’s Family Speaks Out Against Proposed Porn
- Nicole Richie is Hospitalized! (Us Weekly)
- Sneak Peak at Brad & Angelina on Date Night (PopEater)
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
bogart4017
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:03 pm: [report]
I never heard anyone complain of being victimized—except for David.
novavariations
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:07 pm: [report]
This is what I have been trying to explain to people all week.
Letterman is guilty of nothing that extends beyond himself and his wife. It was not a wise decision but he certainly didn’t do anything that warrants him losing his position at CBS.
Please.
chasingstars
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:09 pm: [report]
I totally agree with you- NOW is pulling the Big Bad Boss Man card and it’s not right. These women knowingly engaged in sexual relationships with Letterman.
I know a woman who engaged in a sexual relationship in order to move up in the company she was in. It worked- now if THAT’S not girl power, I don’t know what is.
Raugiel
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:15 pm: [report]
Yes! And pushing the situation as a “feminist issue” when it clearly doesn’t fit just hurts the organization and all of us who would/do benefit from their work.
tigerstripe
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:22 pm: [report]
I’m pretty sure you said in your previous post about your personal experience that you did feel somewhat used although you also accepted a lot of responsibility for what happened. Half of your story was called the Older Man with More Life Experience Should Have Known Better than to let the Younger Intern fall in love with him version, and you said at then end that you felt used and it stung for years. I don’t know what the dynamic was between Letterman and his interns but it sounds similar, he allowed them to fall in love with him when he shouldn’t have.
lea322
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:23 pm: [report]
Well said, Jessica. Feminism means women can be equally as stupid as men, and equally as responsible for their actions. It’s a double-edged sword…we can’t cry “equality now!” but be victims any time things don’t go our way, either.
portisheart
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:26 pm: [report]
I agree completely.
tigerstripe
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:32 pm: [report]
Umm I’m thinking I should clarify, I agree that Letterman’s situation isn’t a gender or feminist issue. The same thing could have happened with the gender roles reversed. But relationships with workplace superiors are just an all-around bad idea.
H. Blue
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:33 pm: [report]
I agree with you, Jessica except for one thing. Letterman was in a position of power. By sleeping with his employees, whatever the circumstances, he was abusing that power.
moonblossom
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:37 pm: [report]
I agree with tigerstripe’s posts. I have to add that although I think NOW is taking a hard line on this, I don’t entirely disagree with them. Letterman owns the production company, he’s the boss, he sets the standards for acceptable behavior. In this situation there was a big disparity in power…that alone makes it not sit right with me.
Hopefully this was all consensual workplace nonesense and theres’ no harm, no foul. My gut and my experience tell me its rarely that way in the real world.
Keeper
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:44 pm: [report]
I agree with tigerstripe….the tone of this article and the authors other article don’t seem to jive.
Assuming Letterman objectified or exploited these woman hasn’t been proven…..although I don’t know that he’s denied it either. I see two bottom lines: He probably used to his advantage his “star power” in this situation and secondly, all parties involved are shmucks…..the woman for getting involved with him when they knew he was in a very long term relationship and him for the same reason…in addition to utilizing his position.
camille905
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 12:45 pm: [report]
@tigerstripe: One other BIG difference between Jessica and David’s interns is that David was in a long term relationship and these interns/underlings/coworkers knew this whereas Jessica’s older man was not initaially involved with someone else and then LIED about it.
Jessica Wakeman
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 01:08 pm: [report]
@tigerstripe & @keeper
Regardless of my personal animosity towards my Older Man (he carried on a relationship with me while he was dating another woman he hadn’t told me about, and when I told him I was in love with him, he told me he was actually in love with HER and ended it with me then), I don’t believe there was as aspect of our relationship that should be a concern of women’s rights activists. His and my drama was heartbreak, love affair-related stuff, but it was not exploitation or objectification. I CHOSE to get into everything I got into with him and he never did anything untoward with me. We both made stupid mistakes and I think we both acted inappropriately. Yes, I was angry at the Older Man for treating me in a douchey way when the relationship ended, but I also realize I was pretty naive to think this established older man would want to marry a young woman who’d just graduated from college. I chalk it up to a love affair gone wrong, not necessarily something NOW needs to take a stance on.
To quote directly from my previous piece, what I wrote was:
“Beginning to date that other woman when we were sleeping together and then telling me about it when I finally verbalized that I was in love with him was just cruel. He knew he was a treasured best friend to me, and he could clearly see that I loved him. Clearly, the Older Man could have handled it better! Nevertheless, as his former friend, I realize why the flawed person that he is just didn’t do that. Maybe he couldn’t do that.”
David Letterman might be a heartbreaker when it comes to his love affairs, but the jury is still out regarding whether he abuses his power, exploits underlings, and objectifies his female employees. This country has laws against sexual harassment in the workplace and workplace discrimination, but as far as I know, none of these women have voiced any sort of complaints in that regard.
Riley
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 01:13 pm: [report]
None of these women have cried foul, does NOW think they are incapable of recognizing their own supposed exploitation?
I agree with the article. There are genuine cases of power abuse/promotion/dismissal in workplace affairs. This doesn’t seem to be one of them and is only garnering attention because of Letterman’s status. Not because it is worthy of real media attention.
bethlynn00
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 01:14 pm: [report]
Since I heard this I have also been against the stance that NOW took and when I read their statement, I also couldn’t help but think Bitch, please Unless Worldwide Pants, who is David’s employer, not CBS, has some implicit policy against inter-office relationships (which they do not), then actually David did nothing wrong and there is no grounds for any disciplinary action. I mean maybe we have our own moral ideals of this situation, but the company did not take that stance. Now all people can do is judge him on the cheating on his partner and dalliances with younger women, so they are latching on to that for their own gains, which is exactly what I think NOW is doing to try to show their relevance and I think it is unfortunate that this is the issue they choose to latch on to. I give Letterman credit for being open about this, when really he did not have to, he could have just not said anything about it and let it proceed or paid the guy off and moved on. He didn’t lie about it to anyone but his partner, so they have their issues to work out, but there is no reason for him to lose his show or anything, this is really a private matter.
retro chic
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 01:34 pm: [report]
It’s a PR opp for NOW. Any good organization would seize a media moment like this to push their own agenda forward whether it’s directly relevant to Dave’s story or not. That’s all it is, imo. Just business.
Recall any other scandal that brings orgs out of the woodwork to gain attention for cause. No different.
Riley
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 01:46 pm: [report]
@Retro - I don’t agree with the notion that all press is good press; being so outspoken on an issue that isn’t an issue to a lot of people damages credibility.
I liken it how PETA takes every opportunity to speak; they tend to be taken less seriously than similar organizations that take stance on more substantial issues. Any good organization knows when to keep quiet and when to capitalize.
retro chic
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 02:37 pm: [report]
Oh, boy, Riley, comparing PETA to NOW? Good thing you don’t live in NYC – you’d get cans of red paint poured on you by both of them.
Orgs have limited PR opps and budgets and do what they can with them. Is any agenda perfectly befitting of the occasion? No. Some do it better than others. Specifically, will it bring renewed consciousness or case law into effect on behalf of working women, or reverse any previous strides? I doubt it, but, we’ll see, won’t we.
Here in LA, unfortunately, all press is good press, eventually. I don’t think I even need to name a few of those...
fallonthecity
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 02:56 pm: [report]
Great article. I think it’s an important distinction to make, and I think you described it well. Women need to be allowed to take responsibility for their own bad decisions.
bumbler
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 03:01 pm: [report]
Here’s the one stickler for me, and I may have my information wrong feel free to correct me if I do, didn’t this intern get increased on-camera time thanks to her personal relationship with Letterman? I’ve seen numerous clips of her appearing on the show and I don’t recall this being a common practice for Letterman (again I might be wrong I’m not a Letterman devotee or anything). If she’s benefiting thanks to a sexual relationship then this is an issue and needs to be addressed.
Riley
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 03:23 pm: [report]
Yes, I compare the two because the two share similar characteristics as organizations. Try to see beyond your immediate dismissal for the sake of argument. Both organizations rely heavily on donations and membership dues, my point in comparing.
I realize budgets and opportunities aren’t unlimited; which is precisely why they should be chosen carefully.
I doubt we’ll see much positive or negative come from their involvement in this event. Singular events that can push in one direction or the other do not happen that often. Those that do come along are worthwhile to spend money and time on, that is my point. Those that aren’t, tend to drain accounts and dilute image over time.
Let_Love_Rule
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 03:28 pm: [report]
It’s all good when your boss hits on you and you’re into him. When you’re not, it’s a chilly work atmosphere at best. Even Letterman calls himself “creepy.” I’m not saying there were any laws broken, that doesn’t appear to be the case. But his behavior was highly unprofessional and inappropriate. Same goes for a female boss.
nikkiwikki
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 03:44 pm: [report]
Usually I love Jessica’s posts, but I completely disagree with this one. I don’t think NOW’s statement necessarily victimized the women involved, but it served the purpose of putting the blame back on him and calling to attention what he did wrong.
Although there’s been no proof that he promised these women an advance in their career, he was in a position of authority. He is David #&@$% Letterman, and he is their boss.
erikasf
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 05:37 pm: [report]
I, too, was active in my local NOW chapter when I was in my early twenties. I am certainly glad NOW exists, but I would rather they focus on the fact that reproductive rights continue to dwindle and many women are having a very difficult time finding gainful (if any!) employment. NOW needs to face the fact that despite Democratic Party control of the White House and Congress, feminism has not been advancing. What is Nancy Pelosi doing about the lack of social services for women, the high cost of birth control and child care, environmental racism, and a long list of other issues?
roundtripper23
wrote on October 8 2009 @ 06:36 pm: [report]
Just as Letterman objectified the women for their youth/beauty, the women objectified him for his fame/power/status. And just as high-status men have power over women, beautiful women have power over men. Women are not helpless, clueless victims - but active and aware sexual agents who compete against each other for high status men; evidence of this is that such men often have tons of women/groupies throwing themselves at them. I believe this is what likely occured in this case, that the women were actively pursuing him and he just took a few of them up on their offers.
Letterman and other liberals are just as hypocritical as conservatives who do this type of thing, because liberals support feminism, which views this type of behavior to be abusive and disrespectful to women. Liberal men tow the feminist line and constantly chastise other men for objectifying women and being misogynistic, etc. Guys like Letterman and Edwards are just getting a taste of their own feminist medicine. Now maybe they’ll learn to stick by their fellow man instead of automatically siding with the view (also held by conservatives) that women are always the victim.
BlueVibe
wrote on October 9 2009 @ 10:14 am: [report]
Amen, roundtripper23, about the mutual objectification.
I’ve never though this had anything to do with someone being liberal or conservative. I think it has to do with someone having a big ego and a slippery grasp on impulse control, which are failings that have nothing to do with politics. Yeah, we tend to think of them in political contexts because that’s where they come out as scandals, but what all these people really have in common is that they’re ambitious and like the attention.