What I noticed is that Letterman confessed to be a skeezy sexual harasser and made himself the victim. Just when I thought I couldn't like him less....
But wait! Letterman's team fights back: It seems that his blackmailer was also a skeezy sexual harasser!
Another issue to consider in the power imbalance is that it doesn't just affect the boss and the underling. It creates a hostile work environment for everyone else. Trust me I've been there and it is tremendously annoying to have the boss use the department's salary increase allocation to award his girlfriend.
Jealous? In a sense, but I wouldn't have f*cked that fat bastard for a measly $5,000 a year more. Not even once.
I'm surprised that so many people see nothing ethically questionable about an affair between a superior and an underling. (Notice the lack of gendered language, because it's not about man vs. woman, but rather powerful vs. powerless.) The power imbalance is so massive, and if anything goes wrong, guess who is the one who gets fucked, metaphorically speaking? Certainly not the boss, that's for sure.
And this is without even taking into consideration just how flat out skeezy the situation is. I mean, having an affair with an assistant? Really? I thought Letterman was better than that. It's very disappointing.
It's an abuse of power by virture of the fact it happened between a boss and his employee, a person he can FIRE.
So, what if it did start out consensual? The power he wields over her livelihood is stilll there. What if she tired of giving the old coot BJ's but was afraid to stop because of fear of losing her job?
You people act like quitting or losing a job is no big deal. Glad you're all so well off.
That's the abuse of power here: the fear she could lose her job if she didn't put out. The fear she could lose her home, her car, her medical insurance, etc.
"And while Letterman's affairs with employees appear to have been consensual, fucking your assistant while she works for you is still an abuse of power."
But what if your assistant fucks you?
I don't like language that implies women are only capable of being the recipients of fucking and not actually a equal participant in the said fuckfest. When you word it like that, it makes ALL SEX sound creepy.
If it was coerced and against her will, then he fucked her. But if it was consensual (and it seems from the information provided in this case it was), then they fucked each other. Was it in the best of taste? No. Is fucking people in your office a good idea? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that we can derive from any of the information given that it was an abuse of power. If he had pressured her, yes it would very clearly be. But what if she had a big ol' crush and WANTED to sleep with him? we just dont have that information and I'm not comfortable calling it an "abuse of power" without knowing if it actually was.
Polanski fucked a child. Letterman and his assistant fucked. There is a difference.
@KATE!: Excellent point. Is it only the man that does the fucking, is it only people with power that do the fucking, hmmmm?
If Birkitt is getting screwed over by anyone it looks like it's her ex-boyfriend who went out of his way to humiliate her so he could fatten his pockets.
@KATE!: You're assuming the assistant is always female. The other way too look at it is whether the assistant is male or female, the boss/employee dynamic makes a sexual relationship iffy.
@clevernamehere: no im not, its just that in the case we're discussing the assistant is female. if chelsea handler and one of her male assistants fucked, i would objecte to the phrasing of it as "he fucked her" or "she fucked him" and instead promote the phraseing "they fucked"
unless a misuse of power or coersion is proven (and in this case it is not), i dont like framing heterosexual sex as a man fucking a woman, because it takes away her agency in the situation. it would be one thing if she had no agency in the situation, but this assistant was a consenting adult whose livelihood wasn't at stake by refusing his advances (assuming she wasnt the one make advances, which is also possible!), then we can derive that she was complicit in the bumping of the uglies.
i just think that "he fucked her" is a patriarchal way to frame heterosexual sex.
There's no real evidence of quid-pro-quo here, or of hostile workplace, unless you assume that a woman sleeping with her male employer automatically constitutes abuse of power or hostile workplace.
Making that assumption would be simplistic, IMO, and possibly paternalistic as well. Both parties were consenting adults, and Stephanie Berkitt has never given any indication she was unhappy with the situation. The details here are too sketchy to conclude that sexual harrassment or abuse of power occurred.
Considering she was a grown woman, with a mind of her own and an employment situation in which she couldn't get fired if she said No, I'm gonna go with:
I have a problem with this post. Yes, what he did is unethical, perhaps. But he did not break any laws.
I find that this post infantilizes women. We are not babies. Women can choose to sleep or not sleep with their bosses. If they so choose, the consequences involved are their problem.
This woman is now getting dragged through the mud because her ex-boyfriend decided to try and extort her old boss.
@SinisterRouge: What he did was unethical...."perhaps"? And since when are "laws" the end-all and be-all for judging behavior? Wouldn't you consider legality to be completely subordinate to decency?
@beercheck: Ha ha. Yes, perhaps . We can judge all we want and I think what Letterman did was skeezy, but that's as far as it goes for me.
My problem with the post was that it treats women as though we were children. Too immature and stupid to handle our business without being told we're being abused by our bosses when we willingly sleep with them.
This young lady entered a relationship; a consensual one. Since when is that something every other woman has the right to judge as wrong or right? My issue with this post is that it degrades us to the point of being children, unable to do the right and moral thing because of the big, abusive men in power. Puhleeze.
@SinisterRouge: I agree. This woman knew the risks of entering into a sexual relationship with a boss - that things could get messy if they break up, she's not into it, etc. Sounds to me like a consensual relationship that is probably kind of skeezy because of the boss/assistant relationship, and the fact that Letterman seems to have had a girlfriend at the time. I'm disappointed by the infantalizing tone of this post.
Why exactly are we automatically treating Birkitt as if she has no agency over her body and choices? As a website that celebrates empowered women, I find it strange that there is an automatic assumption that this was a pressure situation.
Let us not forget that Lasko herself was once a staff member on Late Night. Should we now judge their entire relationship and subsequent marriage as an abuse of power? If two consenting and enthusiastic adults are involved it's hard to find fault. Really the only problem I can see is that Dave was committing adultery.
@truckasaurus is jackie jormp-jomp: I'm glad you said this, and I'd add that we don't actually know that he was "committing adultery," because we don't know when this took place. We don't even know if he was violating the terms of his own relationship, because we don't know what those terms are/were, nor is it our business. Not everyone insists on sexual exclusivity.
@truckasaurus is jackie jormp-jomp: I don't know, I think the article acknowledged that we don't really know what the circumstances around the situation were for their particular relationship, but that doesn't mean the behavior was appropriate. There is not just the potential for abuse of power in terms of maintaining the relationship BUT even if Birkitt made the choice without either direct or indirect pressure, which is certainly a possibility, there is still the matter of his treatment of her versus his treatment of other staff members. And that part of it has nothing at all to do with her agency and power over her body.
I don't really care about Letterman's sex life, but I'm bothered by the praise he is getting for stepping up. As far as we know, he didn't step up. He announced it on air because he knew it would come out anyway. Maybe he and his wife have an open relationship, maybe they don't but they've worked through it, or maybe she just found out. Maybe the assistant was totally into the relationship or maybe she felt pushed into it.
I don't see anything to praise here, just a lot of seemingly sketchy actions.
@clevernamehere: I guess it's just nice that he's copping to it right off the bat. It's not like the O'Reilly "I would never do that! I'm a good family man! What's that? Oh, you have tapes? Well, then never mind. Falafel."
Another issue is that this fuels the regrettable tendency of some assholes to think lots of women sleep their way to job security and success. Am I the only one here who's had snide comments and unfounded rumors go around because I landed a plum job or client? I hear people, even women, say things like "You know she sucked someone off for that job" about a woman who was a little more successful than they were. And it's really gross. I've encountered plenty of men who think I might be willing to "be nice" in exchange for special treatment and trust me, once that dynamic has been introduced, I'm going to lose no matter how diplomatic I am. So I'll admit that I wince whenever there's a high profile case of female subordinates who sleep with their bosses and score big perks as a result.
bottom line - if you're having sex with someone who has the power to hire you or fire you, then it's a sticky wicket...and that's regardless of whether or not that someone is married, divorced, or otherwise.
letterman said it all on the air, and there's some kudos for that because he could have kept his mouth shut like every other person in power who has slept with their subordinates, but he would never have said word one if he hadn't been the victim of extortion.
There's something else that's important here and nobody is talking about. It's immoral for a male boss to have sex with his female subordinates, and for people to decide it's okay, because that leads to institutionalized sexism. It sends the message that female employees are there to sleep with.
News flash: this was the workplace situation that women have been fighting against for more than half a century. If we succeed in the workplace it should be because we are intelligent, skilled, and good at our jobs - NOT because we are willing to fuck our bosses.
Furthermore, all of the points about the awful power dynamics this kind of thing can create are true, and to everybody saying "well there are always going to be power dynamics, whatever," I cry foul. Just because something happens regularly doesn't mean we shouldn't work against it. Rape happens every day too. Should we just accept that?
@freakusmcgee: Not all women who have sex--with their bosses or anyone else--are being exploited.
If there was preferential treatment, that's unethical, but the sex itself is not automatically unethical unless she was pressured into it. Maybe she liked him and decided she wanted to have sex with him. She certainly doesn't seem to bear him any ill-will, and she's worked for him for 13 years.
Isn't there a pretty strong parallel to the Monica Lewinsky scandal?
Dave has a lot of influence on how people understand the issues of the day. If he belittles women, the way he belittled and slut shamed Palin and her daughters, people ARE more likely to think it's all "no big deal."
I don't want to see the guy impeached, but I don't want to see him get away with a boys-will-be-boys shrug, either.
@Dizzy8: The reason I don't think this should be compared to the Lewinsky scandal at all, or any other political scandal, is the fact that David Letterman is not a politican. He's a comedian. An entertainer. A television personality. He's not an elected official in charge of policy or paid by tax dollars.
@Newsgirl: And unless a politician was paying his assistant that he was sleeping with with tax dollars (or campaign funds as the case is with Edwards) then THAT is not any of our business either, now is it?
No difference. It's morally reprehensible and morally wrong, imo, but nothing illegal in the act whatsoever.
Regarding Letterman: It's skeezy and gross behavior, for sure. But it's not illegal and institutionalized sexism has been around and promoted long before David Letterman came along.
@SinisterRouge: The majority of politicans who have been busted for these things have indeed used tax dollars to fund their flings in one way or another. Also - politicans notoriously tout their family values and good morals and strong marriages, etc, as reasons to vote for them and put them in office, even more reason to point out their hipocracy. Which is David Letterman's job as a late show host. I'm not saying what Letterman did was excusable, but comparing him to Bill Clinton (et al) is absurd.
@Newsgirl: Not exactly. I don't remember exactly how Bill Clinton used your tax dollars to have an affair. Hmmm...those troopers in AK lied and they found no evidence of him ever having used tax dollars for any kind of affair.
And so? Politicians are hypocrites. So is David Letterman. The comparison is apt. In both cases, it's none of our damn business.
@Newsgirl: Oh, believe me, I know the ins and outs and every detail. And politician or comedian: WHO CARES who is fucking whom. It's none of my damn business. Last time I checked, a blow job wasn't payable with treasury dollars.
Thank you! A boss sleeping with employees? Legal, but grossly unethical. Jesus, he's your damn boss! Most women would fear being punished for saying "No."
I did. A former boss of mine brazenly asked me to sleep over at his place while his wife (and kids!) were away. I laughed, thinking he was joking, and then he said it again. I said, "No." Before I knew it, every day became a fucking nightmare for me with him busting my ass and humiliating me every chance he had. And I was lucky because he didn't fire me!
10/03/09
But wait! Letterman's team fights back: It seems that his blackmailer was also a skeezy sexual harasser!
Another issue to consider in the power imbalance is that it doesn't just affect the boss and the underling. It creates a hostile work environment for everyone else. Trust me I've been there and it is tremendously annoying to have the boss use the department's salary increase allocation to award his girlfriend.
Jealous? In a sense, but I wouldn't have f*cked that fat bastard for a measly $5,000 a year more. Not even once.
10/03/09
And this is without even taking into consideration just how flat out skeezy the situation is. I mean, having an affair with an assistant? Really? I thought Letterman was better than that. It's very disappointing.
10/02/09
So, what if it did start out consensual? The power he wields over her livelihood is stilll there. What if she tired of giving the old coot BJ's but was afraid to stop because of fear of losing her job?
You people act like quitting or losing a job is no big deal. Glad you're all so well off.
That's the abuse of power here: the fear she could lose her job if she didn't put out. The fear she could lose her home, her car, her medical insurance, etc.
10/02/09
But what if your assistant fucks you?
I don't like language that implies women are only capable of being the recipients of fucking and not actually a equal participant in the said fuckfest. When you word it like that, it makes ALL SEX sound creepy.
If it was coerced and against her will, then he fucked her. But if it was consensual (and it seems from the information provided in this case it was), then they fucked each other. Was it in the best of taste? No. Is fucking people in your office a good idea? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that we can derive from any of the information given that it was an abuse of power. If he had pressured her, yes it would very clearly be. But what if she had a big ol' crush and WANTED to sleep with him? we just dont have that information and I'm not comfortable calling it an "abuse of power" without knowing if it actually was.
Polanski fucked a child. Letterman and his assistant fucked. There is a difference.
10/02/09
If Birkitt is getting screwed over by anyone it looks like it's her ex-boyfriend who went out of his way to humiliate her so he could fatten his pockets.
10/02/09
10/03/09
unless a misuse of power or coersion is proven (and in this case it is not), i dont like framing heterosexual sex as a man fucking a woman, because it takes away her agency in the situation. it would be one thing if she had no agency in the situation, but this assistant was a consenting adult whose livelihood wasn't at stake by refusing his advances (assuming she wasnt the one make advances, which is also possible!), then we can derive that she was complicit in the bumping of the uglies.
i just think that "he fucked her" is a patriarchal way to frame heterosexual sex.
10/02/09
Making that assumption would be simplistic, IMO, and possibly paternalistic as well. Both parties were consenting adults, and Stephanie Berkitt has never given any indication she was unhappy with the situation. The details here are too sketchy to conclude that sexual harrassment or abuse of power occurred.
10/02/09
It's none of our fuckin' business.
10/02/09
I find that this post infantilizes women. We are not babies. Women can choose to sleep or not sleep with their bosses. If they so choose, the consequences involved are their problem.
This woman is now getting dragged through the mud because her ex-boyfriend decided to try and extort her old boss.
10/02/09
10/02/09
My problem with the post was that it treats women as though we were children. Too immature and stupid to handle our business without being told we're being abused by our bosses when we willingly sleep with them.
This young lady entered a relationship; a consensual one. Since when is that something every other woman has the right to judge as wrong or right? My issue with this post is that it degrades us to the point of being children, unable to do the right and moral thing because of the big, abusive men in power. Puhleeze.
10/02/09
10/02/09
Let us not forget that Lasko herself was once a staff member on Late Night. Should we now judge their entire relationship and subsequent marriage as an abuse of power? If two consenting and enthusiastic adults are involved it's hard to find fault. Really the only problem I can see is that Dave was committing adultery.
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
Perhaps Lasko knew all along and it was only a secret because the public finds non-traditional relationship arrangements confusing and/or disgraceful.
10/02/09
10/02/09
I don't see anything to praise here, just a lot of seemingly sketchy actions.
10/02/09
10/03/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
letterman said it all on the air, and there's some kudos for that because he could have kept his mouth shut like every other person in power who has slept with their subordinates, but he would never have said word one if he hadn't been the victim of extortion.
10/02/09
News flash: this was the workplace situation that women have been fighting against for more than half a century. If we succeed in the workplace it should be because we are intelligent, skilled, and good at our jobs - NOT because we are willing to fuck our bosses.
Furthermore, all of the points about the awful power dynamics this kind of thing can create are true, and to everybody saying "well there are always going to be power dynamics, whatever," I cry foul. Just because something happens regularly doesn't mean we shouldn't work against it. Rape happens every day too. Should we just accept that?
10/02/09
If there was preferential treatment, that's unethical, but the sex itself is not automatically unethical unless she was pressured into it. Maybe she liked him and decided she wanted to have sex with him. She certainly doesn't seem to bear him any ill-will, and she's worked for him for 13 years.
10/02/09
Dave has a lot of influence on how people understand the issues of the day. If he belittles women, the way he belittled and slut shamed Palin and her daughters, people ARE more likely to think it's all "no big deal."
I don't want to see the guy impeached, but I don't want to see him get away with a boys-will-be-boys shrug, either.
10/02/09
10/02/09
No difference. It's morally reprehensible and morally wrong, imo, but nothing illegal in the act whatsoever.
Regarding Letterman: It's skeezy and gross behavior, for sure. But it's not illegal and institutionalized sexism has been around and promoted long before David Letterman came along.
10/02/09
10/02/09
And so? Politicians are hypocrites. So is David Letterman. The comparison is apt. In both cases, it's none of our damn business.
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
I did. A former boss of mine brazenly asked me to sleep over at his place while his wife (and kids!) were away. I laughed, thinking he was joking, and then he said it again. I said, "No." Before I knew it, every day became a fucking nightmare for me with him busting my ass and humiliating me every chance he had. And I was lucky because he didn't fire me!