Breaking: Men cannot keep their goddamn dicks in their pants
I’m never going to write about politics again. I won’t have time. The Dicks Gone Wild news is all-consuming. We got incest, we got rape, we got pedophilia, and now we got David Letterman screwing around with his employees and being blackmailed for it. Jesus.
Some of you will say, “But Violet! How can you compare extramarital sex to crimes like rape and incest?” I’ll tell you how: because they all involve men putting their dicks wherever the hell they want to put their dicks, no matter what. No matter who. Mighty is the dick, and its will is sacred! Nothing must stand in its way! Neither loyalty nor law nor compassion nor basic goddamn human decency shall stay the dick from the swift completion of its desired rounds. All hail the goddamn dick.
58 Responses to “Breaking: Men cannot keep their goddamn dicks in their pants”
-
quixote says:
Yeah. Now the whole Letterman thing. And not one squeak (except on blogs like this) saying that sex with employees is a gross abuse of power.
And I do mean gross.
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm EST -
elaine says:
Female employees are put in the situation of quitting or submitting. It’s nothing more than rape, even if she “willingly” acquiesces.
-
Alison says:
No wonder Letterman is such a grossfuck to women like Palin. He’s pathetic, she’s not.
I honestly think men have a deep seeded guilt in regard to how they treat women/ have treated women and this makes them more aggressive in the way they speak about women. I’ve seen some of my arty farty male friends make excuses for Polansky, and perhaps this is not fair of me but I’m thinkin’ - what the hell did THEY do to women during their lifetime to make them feel that they should defend Polansky?
-
elaine says:
And as with Polanski, there’s a pattern of abuse evident in the Letterman situaiton. (In Polanski’s case, we know he also had sex with 15-year-old Nastasia Kinski; Letterman’s long-time girlfriend/now wife was also a staffer on his show.) Moreover, at least one friend of Polanski’s when he first arrived in Hollywood described RP’s personal life as “like a cesspool,” which makes you wonder if he was diddling little girls even then…
Kinda explains all Dave’s misogyny, doesn’t it? Women employees are to be used in ways he’d never use a man; so why wouldn’t he figure it was funny to joke about Palin’s 13-year-old daughter being raped by an adult man?
In his world — and also in Polanski’s — women are a commodity with a limited shelf-life. Sad…
-
Against Rape says:
I laughed at the title. Breaking? No, Old News. Sad Old News.
Letterman really is a sleaze, should be fired for this and the sexist comments he made about Sarah Palin and her daughter, among other offenses.
Men who defend these creeps should be asked “So, are you a pig who can’t keep his pants zipped, too?”
-
Sameol says:
Not sure about the extramarital part as Letterman’s only been married a few months and this was apparently a while back, but this poor woman’s just surrounded by losers. The extortionist apparently stole her diary and personal correspondance after they broke up and planned to use the money for his unpaid child support. It’ll be a tossup as to which one tries to drag her name through the mud harder.
-
janicen says:
I have been appalled all day over this. I watched the YouTube of his explanation on his show and I was sickened that the audience applauded him at times. Then I read the stories and comments on the web and it looks like about forty percent of the commenters think Letterman’s the victim here and was “classy” and “honest” about his explanation. Once again, celebrity and wealth trumps all. Most places would fire a manager for something like this but Letterman just makes too much money for Viacom. What an effin hypocrite. He still makes “Clinton/Lewinsky” jokes while he’s sexually harrassing his own employees.
-
yttik says:
“All hail the goddamn dick.”
Well that’s about as profound a statement as anybody could make. It’s perfect. I have nothing to add.
-
elaine says:
Men who rape children or sexually abuse their female employees do so because they can’t relate to women who are on an equal footing with them. They victimize women because they’re scared of women having any power. This also explains why Letterman goes after Palin and Hillary Clinton, because they’re women who upset his power ans “scare his weiner.”
-
Aspen says:
Don’t forget Edwards, Sanford, Spitzer — the list goes on. And on. And on. And on.
-
SYD says:
I hate to rub this in… for the Leftie Feminist Palin bashers…. but it looks like there are SOME men who know how to behave:
http://syd4.blogspot.com/2009/.....etcha.html
Just sayin’.
-
Kiuku says:
Not surprised.
-
myiq2xu says:
I must respectfully disagree with you Violet.
Not all men are dicks.
OTOH, all dicks are men.
-
Hammer of the Dyke says:
But *all* men benefit because *some* men are dicks.
-
Violet says:
Please, no threadjack. Myiq2xu, feminist references to “men” mean men-as-a-group. Not necessarily all individual men, anymore than references to white people enslaving blacks means all white people everywhere, or references to the British colonizing India means all British people participated. This is basic, basic, basic terminology. I’m not going to have this thread hijacked.
-
Hammer of the Dyke says:
I don’t know, Violet. I think individual men do benefit because of Letterman and other like dicks of the world. Fewer women, given the casting couches and dick-raid behavior of men in the entertainment industry, will pursue careers in television production. Women are vastly under-represented in these fields, largely due to the presence of hostile work environments. Certainly, I doubt the men who, therefore, took those jobs are losing any sleep. Lettermans come a dime a dozen in nearly every occupation. For Letterman, there will be the usual soupcon of opprobrium opposed by admiration for his roguery, but the structure of the institution will go unchallenged. Dick business as usual.
-
Violet says:
I think individual men do benefit because of Letterman and other like dicks of the world.
All individual men benefit because of their class privileges as men. But not all of those individuals are guilty of the same kind of exploitation. Just like all white people have white privilege, even individual white people who are completely non-racist and even devote their lives to the cause of racial equality.
-
yttik says:
I do find it depressing that exploiting and extorting sex out of your female employees is not a crime, but trying to exploit and extort money out of a late night comedian is.
-
bruce nahin says:
I am reminded of all those people who attacked Palin while she was defending her child from Letterman’s foul mouth- Did she know something about him then or was she just prophetic- for clearly she was on to Letterman back then as the left side bashed her for doing so
-
Hammer of the Dyke says:
I don’t think that all men are guilty of the same type or degree of exploitation, but I do think they are all guilty of exploitation simply by virtue of their privileged status. I don’t say that every individual is positively gratified by his unmerited advantages; I’m sure that some few are horrified by it. Unfortunately, the vast majority don’t even understand what is meant by privilege or by how they share in it. This is why blogs like yours are desperately needed. Of course, they attract Dudz who are very worried that women might not get enough experience and understanding of men through accommodating to the patriarchy. Probably, I waste time by trying to engage the ignorant and out-of-touch. Still, I am neither white, nor straight nor male - what choice do I have?
-
octogalore says:
Sameol, although they got married recently, Letterman and Regina Lasko have been in a committed relationship since 1986. While it may have been an open relationship, his references on his show to his embarrassment and his family suggests it probably wasn’t.
“We kind of got the cart before the horse here. But I’m just seeing how much I can get away with.”
Apparently, not as much as he’d hoped.
-
Sevesteen says:
Putting our dicks wherever they are welcome isn’t the same as putting them wherever we can, regardless of welcome. There is at least a reasonable chance that Leterman’s dick was welcome, and that the welcome wasn’t based on keeping a job. Bad idea? Yes. Certainly wrong? No.
Far cry from Polanksi or Phillips, where it was plain flat putting their dick where it doesn’t belong, with no mitigating circumstances.
-
Alison says:
I don’t think that all men are guilty of the same type or degree of exploitation, but I do think they are all guilty of exploitation simply by virtue of their privileged status.
Yes, and men have a hard time seeing their privilege because to point it out would be a constant affair, no pun intended. Watching a Jackie Chan movie tonight, husbando and I experienced this as I had to gristle at the casual use of “bitch” and “bimbo” and the watching of Jackie eyeing a hot woman undressing (through his telescope no less) without a counter image of hot Raoul undressing. Watching movie after movie of whomever is the brilliant, the talented or the outrageously funny one being the male characters.
Sometimes I just want to relax without constantly pointing out the patriarchy but it’s hard to because it’s always there. I mean, unless I’m retreating from society that is…
-
Violet says:
Far cry from Polanksi or Phillips, where it was plain flat putting their dick where it doesn’t belong, with no mitigating circumstances.
I agree that it’s not the same level of badness by any means, and indicated that in my post. But the commonality is the male tendency to do whatever they want, regardless. Cheat on the wife, hire a hooker, fuck the child…
I loathe Dan Savage with a passion, but he once said something that I wish I could find again, because it was disturbingly accurate: that men will do whatever is necessary to “get the sex they need.” They just will. Whatever they want, they will buy/beg/cheat/rape to make it happen.
Of course most men aren’t pedophiles or incest-rapists, so they don’t have to commit crimes to “get the sex they need.”
-
Against Rape says:
Another example of the mighty dick in action:
Joseph Cannon over on Cannonfire put up a video of a movie trailer, apparently of “2012″ and wrote:
“I have never put a movie trailer on this blog before and never will again. But these five-or-so minutes made me smile on a day when nothing could make me smile. And it works even better if you replace the sound with the really loud bits of the Berlioz Requiem.”
“(If you feel inclined to masturbate, remember to use a hanky.)”
I wish I could bold that last sentence. How did his brain go from the movie to the Berlioz Requiem to masturbating? I know, I know, thinking with his small head. But do any men really need to be reminded about using a hanky?
What a dick.
-
Cyn says:
Letterman used his power or standing as a weapon to get sex. To the female staffers of his show, he is the boss with the power to make or break careers. It is Anita Hill all over again. Whether it is actually fucking or lewd, crude remarks, why is it that we haven’t made great strides regarding sexual harassment in the workplace?
-
petrova says:
On newsrealblog they discuss the Free Polanski movement. And show parts of the list of petitioners. Talking about “men”, all men, it seems, talking about the right/wrong issues here. Other than the View, which was mentioned (don’t watch it, but the mindboggling “rape-rape” soundbyte plastered everywhere now). Three points made recently in various virtual newsrooms: if it were Father Polanski (and not film maker), if sufficient time has passed, why were/are Nazis sought to bring to justice, and several chaps returning from Thailand (?) recently arrested for buying 13 year old girls from their impoverished parents for…you guessed it, sex.
-
Swannie says:
Men ,all men , in a patriarchal system benefit from the system that keeps them in power .They benefit from every aspect of it , and especially from the double standard for sexual behavior . They benefit from all types of behaviors in almost every way, monetarily, with power, more freedom to act independently etc etc ad nauseum… but especially in regard to sexual behavior .For centuries they have had carte blanche in that regard .
I absolutely believe that is why we saw the intense misogynist reactions to Hillary and Sarah, during the presidential campaigns.
Electing a woman to the most powerful position ; or even the second most powerful position , in this country would have so damaged the patriarchial hold on the social norm , that men would have had to deal with such tectonic shifts in their world view and their power structure that the reaction to a womans bid for power was even subconsciously misogynist at times .
Men who would not now even consider the things they said and did as misogynist so freely made mysogynist statements, jokes, and posted them on blogs ; wrote them in magazines and newspapers blurted them out freely on tv … it was rampant, as we all remember. and it continues to this day.
Misogyny is not received with the same horror or repugnance generally as racism, even tho it does more widespread and long lasting damage , to the entire world .
Hell ..it isn’t even recognised .We are still in the ” Amos and Andy” days of misogyny . We are still in the slavery/ rape / sexual harassment is just barely NOT socially acceptable stage , and that is only in some western countries.
Sharia law in Islam is an example of a partiarchal belief system that equates religion with slavery , not terribly different than the Caste System in India did and still does, and women cannot be priests in the Catholic Church because “god said so” according to the pope. Any catholic who even helps a woman attempt to become a priest can be excommunicated from the church, which according to their rules is the equivalent of eternal damnation. Come to think of it, are there any women leaders of any large religion on the planet?
For some reason Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert particularly come to mind as examples of American misogynists , but there are so many others , and now with Letterman dipping in the office pool , it makes me wonder ” what if” about so many other men who attain fame, power etc . Women are not people after all, they are ” perks ” are they not?
Perks for men in political power , men who have fame wealth or glory . It is a natural thing, isnt it? Only in the Patriarchy, only in the patriarchy, men have the priveldge of acting like complete assholes wuth impunity , and without social consequence …. well.. because that is the way it is , or should I say has been , because things are really, inevitably evolving.
Yes they are ;) Hillary is right, even the run for power at that level has changed perceptions greatly , and will continue to cause those changes. -
SweetSue says:
You know,Roman, Charlie Manson was illegitimate and had a horrible childhood.
Maybe we should just let him go. -
tinfoil hattie says:
Against Rape, that’s disgusting. And as a side note: In Cannon’s world, women don’t masturbate, clearly. Because we don’t need a “hanky” when we do.
-
Nessum says:
“Seduce & Destroy” scene from the movie Magnolia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2IVF9a2IA
Sadly the applause Letterman got was very similar to the one in the above clip.
-
Sis says:
Definitely. Just ask a sexually abused woman (aka “sex worker”) and she’ll tell you: All men. Not just benefiting from male class status, but overt actual abuse, somewhere, to some woman. Some woman who is lesser than human to him because of her job, what class status her husband or father has, lesser because of her colour, race, where she went to school, lives, how she speaks, that fact that she works for you especially. Did you know that? Men think any woman who works for them is fair game. Any woman in his home, ironing his pants. He sees her as sexual game.
Right there, probably in your bed: Your cleaning lady. Your babysitter, your dog-walker and groomer. She keeps quiet because you don’t believe he would just because he can. You think your nigel is above that. Your husband your father your boyfriend your brother. They not only would. They have.
His clerical staff, the woman who brought him his sandwich and drink at lunch, one of his former girlfriends. Shit, his sister. And they hide behind this exclusionary *not my nigel* that you refuse to give up Vi.
“I don’t think that all men are guilty of the same type or degree of exploitation, but I do think they are all guilty of exploitation simply by virtue of their privileged status.”
I’m talking to you.
-
sherry says:
“They victimize women because they’re scared of women having any power. This also explains why Letterman goes after Palin and Hillary Clinton,…”
~ ElaineApparently Oprah scares Dave’s weiner too.
-
datechguy says:
The last word should go to Mark Twain:
Of the delights of this world, man cares most for sexual intercourse. He will go to any length for it-risk fortune, character, reputation, life itself
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Putting our dicks wherever they are welcome isn’t the same as putting them wherever we can, regardless of welcome.
It’s a fine line, if you ask me.
Why is it so important to men to “(put) our dicks wherever they are welcome”?
That’s an example of All Hail The Mighty Dick, righ there.
And I wonder how accurate men are at determining the “welcome”-ness of their dicks.
-
Violet says:
Definitely. Just ask a sexually abused woman (aka “sex worker”) and she’ll tell you: All men. Not just benefiting from male class status, but overt actual abuse, somewhere, to some woman.
Sis, unless you’re positing that sex workers are omniscient, I think you’re misusing the phrase “all men.”
-
Sis says:
Nope. Not at all. First of all, there are only “sex workers” for people who like to euphemize and invisibilize. You know, like Letterman’s rapes were “trysts”. (Saw that on LATimes).
When sexually abused women, or prostituted women talk they know they’re rapists are men of all classes, colours, political parties and stances; men who have wives, girlfriends, lovers and daughters who think “Not my Nigel.”
-
yttik says:
“And I wonder how accurate men are at determining the “welcome”-ness of their dicks.”
I agree. Given the damage that is done to women’s sexuality, given the rape culture we all live in, the burden of determining consent should belong to men. By default, without proof of enthusiastic consent from women, everything else should just be viewed as a form of sexual assault. Men should be required to prove that she said “Yes” instead of her having to prove she said “No” in 30 different languages.
But “consent” is not even good enough, because people like Letterman pressure women into believing they must have sex to keep their jobs, to get a promotion, etc. Polanski claims his victim “consented” after he drugged her and threatened her. Not to mention her age. I’ve heard other rapists try to claim their victims “consented” after they hit her a few times.
“Welcome-ness” is a slightly better term. What I’d really like is for every man in the world to realize the sexual damage that is done to women within the rape culture and to understand that she does not exist to fulfill your sexual needs, she should be participating to fulfill her own.
-
Violet says:
When sexually abused women, or prostituted women talk they know they’re rapists are men of all classes, colours, political parties and stances; men who have wives, girlfriends, lovers and daughters who think “Not my Nigel.”
This shows that men of all classes and types are guilty of sexual exploitation. It does not prove that literally all men — every single adult male on the planet — is guilty of same.
-
octogalore says:
“Putting our dicks wherever they are welcome isn’t the same as putting them wherever we can, regardless of welcome.”
Not all men do either of these things. While it’s heavily slanted in the other direction, there are times the woman wants it and the man doesn’t.
Because I agree with Violet’s “as a group” analysis, I think it’s fine to talk about “men” doing something. But when we insist it’s “all men,” or make a comment about “all sex workers,” we simply lose credibility.
(For the record, if I had to guess, and it’s just a guess, in this case Dave’s conquests probably did not “want” it in the sense that they did not savor partaking in sex with him. They likely wanted the professional benefits that came with such an activity, or the feelings of power of seducing a powerful man. Both of which they would have more chance at deriving in other ways outside of a patriarchy. He likely knew this in some level and took advantage of it. That among other reasons is why he is a sexist.)
-
Alison says:
Another take on the Letterman scandal, this one at the Village Voice.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/.....p#comments
One can see how (when looking at this rag) so many young and young-ish women today are fucked up. I mean the Village Voice is trendy, liberal and they hate women. What’s not to like?
-
Violet says:
The Voice has always been like that, though. It was one of the first papers I got a subscription to when I grew up. I was appalled.
-
“You are being shagged by a rare parrot” | Reclusive Leftist says:
[...] On the other hand, it could just be an avian example of what we were talking about in that other post. [...]
-
madamab says:
I honestly think that some men do not understand sexual harrassment, because to them, any sex is great. And plus, it’s a big ego boost when someone finds them attractive enough to harrass them.
My colleague, who is a gay man, recently said that his dream job would be to work only with other gay men, and that every day, one of them would pinch his butt and say, “Hi, hot stuff.”
For most women, getting your butt pinched every day would not be high on the list of their “must-haves” for the best job evah.
-
Grace says:
Letterman, like other men with power and money, uses his position to get sexual favors. It’s as old as patriarchy. If he were just a male staffer or clerk, at his age more than likely depending on “blue pills” and being physically unattractive, he wouldn’t stand a chance as a commodity in the meat market. This guy sounds like a narcissist, misogynist jerk with control issues who feels good about himself only with women whom he sees as inferior or being in subordinate positions.
Having said that, I also have some difficulty understanding how any woman could have the stomach to have sex with somebody like this guy. May be after turning off the lights, covering his face with a pillow, and fantasizing about being with George Clooney instead.
I agree with Swannie’s comments (# 28)that this is Anita Hill all over again, and that was back in 1992.
-
slythwolf says:
This shows that men of all classes and types are guilty of sexual exploitation. It does not prove that literally all men — every single adult male on the planet — is guilty of same.
This is absolutely true but I venture to suggest that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter to me whether all men or just most of them are guilty of sexual exploitation of women. They are certainly all guilty of some form of exploitation of women, and when I am meeting a man for the first time (or indeed have known him for twenty years) I certainly have no way of telling whether he has sexually exploited another woman (unless I have seen him do it, in which case I know for sure). So I don’t trust a one of ‘em, no not one.
Except my Nigel. Not because I have any real reason to but because I am married to him and financially dependent on him and to allow myself not to trust him right now would drive me quite insane. And because I love him and love is irrational.
-
LV says:
Madamab, I suspect if your colleague really did land his dream job, he might not stay dreaming for long. I work in a fairly ‘gay’ industry, and a few years back worked in an office where 80-90% of the employees happened to be gay men. The CEO was a sleazebag who fostered a culture in the office that exactly replicated the Letterman situation - guys did get their butts pinched on a daily basis, but it was the young, good-looking guys being pinched by men who were less attractive than, but crucially senior to, them. Having sex with a director was the surefire route to winning a contract or promotion.
In other words, the men who were ‘feminized’ by having less money and power were coerced or bribed into making themselves sexually available to men who they otherwise wouldn’t have looked twice at, because these men were the gatekeepers to that money and power.
-
Against Rape says:
tinfoil hattie says:
Against Rape, that’s disgusting. And as a side note: In Cannon’s world, women don’t masturbate, clearly. Because we don’t need a “hanky” when we do.Exactly! When I realized what a gender-specific comment that really was, I realized that women don’t exist as real people in Joseph Cannon’s world. I won’t be visiting his site again.
-
Against Rape says:
Oh, God, is that where the term “hanky panky” comes from? Ick.
-
purplefinn says:
Word Origin & History
hanky-panky
1841, “trickery,” Brit. slang, possibly a variant of hoky-poky “deception, fraud,” altered from hocus-pocus.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper -
tinfoil hattie says:
Hanky Panky! Eeeeyeewww!
-
Kiuku says:
Bruce Nahin, anyone looking at Letterman can tell he is a pervert. He has the facial features that only come with years of being a lewd animal, pervert, pedo among other things. I can pick them out anywhere. A lot of men have these features when they are that age. Ask any woman to pick them out, actually. They see it when they look into their husbands face and know immediately that he’s been fucking the nanny, waitress, assistant, etc but they don’t say anything because in the Patriarchy women have a financial need to marry men, otherwise they would -all- choose to have nothing to do with them.
When Letterman made that comment about her daughter, in the culture of misogyny people attacked Palin for sticking up for herself, morality, and her daughter against a man because it does not sit well with the misogynist public that a woman call it out. She’s not prophetic. She’s a -woman-.
-
Unree says:
Yeah, I’m with slythwolf:
This shows that men of all classes and types are guilty of sexual exploitation. It does not prove that literally all men — every single adult male on the planet — is guilty of same.
This is absolutely true but I venture to suggest that it doesn’t matter.
I’m not sure why we feminists–myself included–are so preoccupied with being fair, giving guys the benefit of the doubt, and so on. Let’s do what Violet sometimes does and make an analogy to race and racism. White feminists occasionally encounter the view, held by some African-American women and other women of color, that although white women might be okay as individuals, they’re not to be trusted as a group, nor sought out as potential close friends. In reaction, we/they do not become enraged, because the generalization seems fair enough.
I suggest we hold dudes to the same standard. It’s not about you; you’re not being indicted, or convicted of a crime; it’s about a fair enough general rule. If the shoe doesn’t fit, wear another shoe or go barefoot.
-
madamab says:
LV - I agree, it was clearly a fantasy for him. The reality of sexual harrassment is quite different, of course.
But as a man, he has never been on the receiving end of sexual harrassment, so he truly does not understand how demoralizing and humiliating it is.
By contrast, I would imagine that every professional woman on this blog could share a story of sexual harrassment. That is one reason why, I think, some men do not “get” it in a visceral way, while most women do.
-
octogalore says:
“I’m not sure why we feminists–myself included–are so preoccupied with being fair, giving guys the benefit of the doubt, and so on.”
The point isn’t to be fair to guys but to be fair to ourselves. We have to look at the goal of our advocacy. It might be (a) to develop a support group of women who want to speak amongst ourselves about sexual harrassment, or (b) to communicate to women who aren’t actively feminist or to men about this.
If (a), then does it really make sense to refuse to distinguish between “men, as a group on average” and “every single guy, no exceptions”? Some of us have identified that our own Nigels are princelike, or at least have managed to fool smart women like us. Why would we encourage other women who like us are understandably jaded to believe every guy except our own personal exceptions is an unredeemable misogynist? We can get our points across by talking about behavior that is seen in men as a group in an “on average” sense.
If the goal is (b), if we’re trying to communicate rather than exclude anyone coming from a different perspective, being inaccurately absolutist in an attempt to feel rigorous and radical is pointless. The result is a loss of credibility. The difference between “men of all classes and types” and “every single adult man” *does* in fact matter, because the person claiming the latter (when she is not positioned to comment on every single adult man) will be dismissed, before the substance of her analysis can be understood. And so the message doesn’t get out to those who arguably need most to hear it.
-
Comment of the week, by god | Reclusive Leftist says:
[...] on the parrot-on-man shagging video, which I had also wryly proposed as an example of the Dicks Gone Wild phenomenon under discussion in another [...]
-
Tuesday Tidbits « Blue Lyon says:
[...] know, I think I have to echo Violet’s observations about the male of our species…at least those in positions of power and influence. (No, [...]
-
Kali says:
I do find it depressing that exploiting and extorting sex out of your female employees is not a crime, but trying to exploit and extort money out of a late night comedian is.
I was thinking the exact same thing. The question is, how can we change this? The power imbalance does not allow all those affairs to be truly consentual. And if Letterman has been doing this for so many years, I doubt he is the only one at CBS doing it. The only way to hold him accountable for this would be if the female CBS employees brought a class-action suit against CBS for a hostile work environment and used Letterman’s actions as part of the evidence. How can we help in getting this to happen?
