FOCUS online: Mr. Pohl, Til Schweiger is said to have verbally and sometimes physically harassed employees on the set. A case for #MeToo?
Rolf Pohl: Yes, but not a prototype. #MeToo describes an abuse of power through sexual assault. Here there was only one case of an actress who had to bare her breasts on the set for an autograph.
It’s not an act of sexual violence, but it’s sexist – including the way Schweiger put women down. What is added in this case is apparently an addiction problem. Schweiger is said to have often been drunk on the set.
Does alcoholism excuse such failures?
Pohl: No, on the contrary. Alcoholism is a disease. For this very reason, the cloak of silence must not be spread over it and it must not be said: “He’s just like that.” Someone who abuses his power from his position must be checked or taken out of circulation.
Because drinking lowers the inhibition threshold for assault?
Pohl: Exactly, this addiction is also about the confirmation of masculinity, which always tends to include sexual assault. Alcoholism turns such behavior outwards. That’s what makes it so dangerous.
“The film industry is a male-dominated sphere”
The fact that Schweiger has alcohol problems has been an open secret for years and cannot have remained hidden from the film company. He is said to have even slapped an employee of this film company. So why didn’t anyone stop him?
Pohl: The film industry is still a largely male-dominated sphere, in which it is considered a sign of weakness to complain about something like this. The focus is on the economy.
In other words: as long as Schweiger’s movies become blockbusters, can he do whatever he wants?
Pohl: Exactly.
Would such a slap have had no consequences if the perpetrator had been a woman?
Pohl: No, many just wait for women to turn out to be at least as violent as men.
Unlike in the case of the shot editor-in-chief of Bild, Julian Reichelt, this time there was no outcry. On the contrary: on Twitter, Schweiger even received support from the right against the “media hunt” or “smear campaign”.
Pohl: I think it lacks the sexual assault character. On the other hand, it was clear to Reichelt that he had abused power in order to get sexual favors – even if this was covered up and hushed up for a long time.
Was it really just about sex, or did Reichelt also use sex to cement his position as an alpha gorilla?
Pohl: The discussion is often reduced to one-sided “either or”. Either, it’s all about sex, then he’s a slave to his instincts. Or it’s about power. But Reichelt is about both. He was in a position where he could tie one to the other. He sees women as prey.
“They find themselves naively falling into the trap”
However, chat exchanges indicate that the initiative for sex also came from the women. Can one still speak of “abuse”?
Pohl: If a climate is created in which women first get the idea that it could be useful for their careers, that is fatal. And you can also criticize women for falling for this system.
However, the perpetrator-victim question cannot simply be reversed. That is gladly done. Like some men say, “It’s her own fault, why is she wearing such a short skirt too?” It’s the same logic.
Well, maybe that’s an exaggeration. But isn’t it about time to question the old patterns: man = perpetrator, woman = victim?
Pohl: Statistically, men are far more likely to be perpetrators. It is male-dominated structures that repeatedly produce male-dominated perpetrators.
How can women feel betrayed when, as in the Reichelt case, they have been rewarded with a promotion?
Pohl: In a moment they feel like they are the one chosen one. But at some point they realize: They are only part of a series. And that’s depressing. They find themselves naively falling into a trap.
In the meantime, however, Julian Reichelt has been less criticized than the man who covered the abuse at “Bild” for years: Springer boss Mathias Döpfner. Right?
Pohl: I think so. It’s an expression of such an unholy alliance of business interests, power and masculinity. It only stopped working when Reichelt’s affairs met with resistance from the American Springer shareholders. Only then did Döpfner pull the ripcord.
“There are strong counter-movements”
In his new book, Benjamin von Stuckrad-Barre settles accounts with Reichelt and Springer boss Döpfner. Does his novel advance the #MeToo movement?
Pohl: I’m not quite sure whether it’s not more of a personal reckoning with his former friend Döpfner. But I don’t think it will help the #MeToo movement. It wasn’t his intention to expose the structures of sexism. He even reproduces the image of the women who fell victim to the sex trap.
In the US, the film producer Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to 39 years in prison for rape and coercion. In Germany there has long been a competition between the Time and the “Spiegel” to present a similar case – so far without success. Director Dieter Wedel died shortly before charges were filed. What does it say about our society that criminals are still walking free?
Pohl: Everyday sexism is not only widespread here, it is also still covered up. This distinguishes us from the US, where there is a moral sensibility when it comes to sexuality.
This goes so far that in Florida books are banned that address the fact that there are other forms of sexuality than heterosexuality. This is a climate in which sexual assault is more pilloried. Thank God we don’t have a climate like that here.
Because we are more tolerant?
Pohl: No, there are strong counter-movements that try to reverse the perpetrator-victim relationship or demand men’s right to sexuality – like the Incel movement. Groups that protest against feminism or against gendering have become very strong. They also do not promote the willingness to identify sexual assault as a structural problem.
“Outwardly, men show willingness to turn the perpetrator into the victim”
Conversely, women can also destroy livelihoods with false accusations, as campaigns against Jörg Kachelmann, Andreas Türck or Luke Mockridge have shown.
Pohl: However, these false accusations are only in the single-digit percentage range. And you must not infer the general public from the high-profile cases, unfortunate as such examples are.
Unfortunately, we live in a state where the hurdles for women to bring up abuse are incredibly high. The dark figures are dramatic. Why do so few women dare to go public? Because they still have to fear discrimination.
On the other hand, we’re not that far removed from American conditions. In this country, too, superiors now protect themselves against possible reports of alleged assaults by only holding discussions with employees when the door is open – or even better with witnesses. What’s wrong?
Pohl: Here, too, men show a willingness to turn the perpetrator into a victim: I have nothing to hide, but I am deeply insecure and ultimately the women with their accusations have ensured that we can no longer deal with each other normally in business or academic matters .
Unconsciously there is something else behind it: As a professor, I could actually become a victim of my own desire if I was sitting in my office with an attractive student.
The man as a victim of his instincts. Isn’t that a bit primitive?
Pohl: Yes, the hunting of male alpha animals for female prey, which is still widespread in male-dominated territories, already gives the appearance of primitive instincts lusting for power and sex. But let us not be deceived: this is not about unavoidable biological control, but about the social creation of superior masculinity in a society that is still male-dominated.
Just think of Trump bragging that he can grab any woman’s privates if he feels like it. Men have the power, women are the prey!
