David Letterman’s public admission that he had engaged in sexual relationships with women who worked on his show, and his concurrent revelation that the threatened disclosure of those trysts formed the basis of a $2 million felony extortion attempt, has been all over the news.  When the story was first breaking, I tuned in to a popular local radio talk show, and Letterman was the lead-off topic. Expecting perhaps an expert in criminal extortion, or someone knowledgeable about the peculiar risks celebrities face (such as Letterman’s past experience with the woman who was able to get an Arizona court to issue an order of protection against him based on his “messages†to her transmitted through the show, or the recent attempt to extort John Travolta in connection with the tragic death of his son), I was surprised when the host introduced his guest – a lawyer whose expertise was in employment law, and particularly workplace sexual harassment.
Instead of commenting on how difficult it must have been for Letterman to so directly and publicly confront the situation, or the frequency with which celebrities face this type of problem, the host then announced that the topic of discussion was whether it was appropriate for CBS to have refused demands that Letterman be taken off the air! He proceeded to ask his guest to outline the types of situations constituting workplace sexual harassment, and to give her opinion as to the liability which could be faced by Letterman and/or CBS.
The host seemed somewhat crestfallen when the attorney eventually declared that she could not say that Letterman was likely to face legal or professional trouble as a result of his admission.  To her credit, the lawyer gave an accurate and unbiased statement of the current law on sexual harassment, outlining the difference between “quid pro quo†(“You’ll do me if you want that promotion.â€Â) and “hostile environment†(“Hey, great knockers, sweet-lips!â€Â) situations, as well as the differing standards of employer liability (co-worker situations require employer knowledge, but in superior – subordinate situations, there is strict liability). She fairly pointed out that sexual relations between fellow employees, including superior-subordinate relationships, were not necessarily inappropriate or actionable, since, no matter what, the conduct had to be “unwelcome.â€Â She admitted that she was unaware of any complaint of unwelcome sexual conduct by a female Letterman employee.
Did that alter the direction or tenor of the discussion? Not a bit.
The host began taking calls.  Most of the callers (primarily men, I was sorry to note) thought that Letterman should be sued, or at least disciplined or reprimanded in some way.  Many recited the standard feminist agit-prop about gender “power dynamics†and women’s “learned helplessness†and “false consciousness.â€Â One caller asked the attorney whether Letterman could still face liability if one of the women with whom he had sex decided now, after the fact, that she felt she had been coerced or pressured. The answer was immediate, unequivocal, and sobering: “Yes.â€Â
An elephant in the room can be ignored for only so long, and I just couldn’t take it. I called in to the show, and was soon on the air.  After first complementing the guest attorney for her accurate and even-handed presentation, I told the host that I found much of the discussion to be nothing more than victim blaming which revealed a sexist, anti-male double standard. In my view, if Rachel Ray or another popular female TV celebrity had been the victim of the extortion, it would be a chilly day in Hades before talk shows were grinding on whether she should be taken off the air and automatically held responsible for workplace sexual harassment because of a “power differential,†all in the absence of any employee complaint. I would instead expect the discussion to focus on her courage in coming forward, and the unfortunate attitudes that still constrain women’s private sex lives!
I told the host that while the harassment laws appear gender-neutral as written, there is certainly anti-male bias in the manner in which they are implemented.  (It all depends on what’s “offensive,†and we have gotten the message that while women are delicate creatures and thus exquisitely susceptible to offense, brutish men figuratively have the skin of rhinos, right?) The lawyer said nothing to contradict me. The host terminated the call as he said, defensively, that he “couldn’t imagine†treating the story any differently if a female celebrity had been the victim of the extortion.
I remain unconvinced, needless to say.
The mainstream media’s coverage of this story could give one the impression that David Letterman’s arguable lack of judgment in having sex with a willing (eager?) subordinate is of greater concern to society than felony extortion! One could also get the impression that men’s sexuality is so overpowering and fearsome whenever there is a “power imbalance†that women exposed to it are deprived of any independent agency, and so must be protected — for their own good — while the offending male is duly punished. (At the same time, the wealthy, predatory “cougar†consorting with barely-legal guys is society’s new star, and, from their behavior, it seems that plenty of women don’t want “protection†from wealthy male celebrities!)
I can’t figure out whether the attitudes reflected in the media are feminist, Victorian, or both. But I do know that we live in strange times, and that, perhaps more than ever, it’s tough being a man, baby!
