David Letterman: Feminism, Equality, and the Abuse of Power

One does not have to be a prude about sex in order to find rather stunning the deafening silence on the part of feminists regarding the David Letterman scandal of having sex with subordinate females who worked for him. This is a paradigm example of the abuse of power—the kind of abuse of power that has been deemed definitive of sexism.
I sharply distinguish between having sex with one’s subordinates and having sex with individuals who are not one’s subordinate. However morally inappropriate a sexual liaison may be in terms of showing disrespect for marriage vows (or an otherwise committed relationship), such a liaison nonetheless falls short of being marred by an abuse of power. Sexual immorality need not involve an abuse of power.
What we have with Letterman, though, is indeed none other than an abuse of power. Accordingly, it is disconcerting that there has not been an outcry on the part of feminists and the public generally.
In an article entitled “Where is the Outrage Over David Letterman?” by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Ali Hamoudeh of New York is quoted as saying “We love Letterman no matter what he does. He brings us joy. And that’s all that counts—he brings joy. Besides, who cares?”
Again, one might ask: Where is the feminist outrage to such a statement? More poignantly, one might ask what has happened to even a semblance of moral decency on the part of human beings. There is a stunning moral numbness to behavior that is unequivocally wrong—a moral numbness that bespeaks a very, very, very deep decline in the very moral fabric of society.
What is particularly interesting in this case is that it is not all clear that Mr. Letterman is even contrite about his morally inappropriate sexual behavior. Being contrite would not excuse Letterman. Nor would it be a reason not to penalize him. Just so, the lack of contrition on his part—the lack of even the appearance of contrition on this part—is most revealing of an indifference to brazen forms of wrongdoing.
Once more, in “Where is the Outrage Over David Letterman?”, it is noted that the National Organization for Women does not even list sexual harassment in the work place as one of its top concerns. By contrast, standing up to those on the Right is said to be one of the top concerns of NOW.
What makes the preceding paragraph so utterly disconcerting is that would seem to imply that rape is somehow more wrong when it is done by a Conservative than when it is done by a Liberal. And it is my view that an organization automatically loses its moral legitimacy if implies such a view or has a policy that invites such an interpretation.
I understand, of course, that it is with an adult woman that Letterman had sex. Accordingly, there is a drastic difference between his case and the case of Roman Polanski. But precisely what we all know is that horrendous sexual harassment can involve two full-fledged adults with one being the harasser and the other being the victim. In fact, sexual harassment generally has presupposed adulthood on the part of both individuals; otherwise, what we have is statutory rape.
Now, I am of the old school that rape is wrong regardless of the color or ideology or economic standing of the person who commits it. There is no alternative view that even has a chance of being morally defensible. This is why the case of Roman Polanski is obvious: He committed a wrong for which he should do the time.
The same holds for sexual harassment in the work place: It is wrong. And in the case at hand, there is no issue that we have sexual harassment here or, in any case, quit inappropriate behavior—an abuse of power. For Letterman he has admitted this.
Now, this much is clear: When organizations in a society are effectively deciding that the moral gravity of sexual misconduct is a function ideology of the permits who commits the act, then that society has lost its moral bearings. Or, in any case, the society is well on its way to doing so.
The United States is well on its way to being a society that is without moral bearings. The only thing that seems to matter nowadays is that one utters a racial epithet or one shows brazen disrespect for a minority member. As wrong as racism is, there are also other wrongs of equal or greater gravity. Between sexual harassment in the work place and various forms of racial disrespect, surely there are forms sexual harassment that far surpasses a white person’s yelling “You lie” to the President of the United States.
And if the United States cannot see this decline, then the failure to see this truth is unquestionably a sign that the country has lost or is quickly losing its moral fiber.
The case of David Letterman increasingly makes me think of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I would love to see just 10 famous celebrities take Letterman to task morally for his inappropriate behavior.
I noted above that Hamoudeh made the following remark: “We love Letterman no matter what he does. He brings us joy. And that’s all that counts—he brings joy. Besides, who cares?” The implication here would seem to be that if a person makes people feel good about themselves, then it does not much matter what he says. Not unlike Nazi Germany.