When a few actresses in Germany spoke out about being sexually exploited by one director, there were immediate cries of witch-hunt. Well-known legal journalist Gisela Friedrichsen even called it “an execution by the media”. The interest in the case quickly disappeared and no one else dared to make similar allegations against someone.
Another German journalist, Ruth Berger, wrote a long article in which she looks at sexual exploitation from a legal point of view. In her article she uses personal experiences and those of friends as a reference. An older man (at least 20 years) propositions a woman who needs a reference, or is applying for a scholarship, or hopes for a role in a film. If, Berger argues, the woman plays along, it amounts to a form of corruption and the woman is equally to blame, because it has become a quid pro quo situation. If, on the other hand, the woman doesn’t play along, she is not to blame. According to her own sense of justice, Berger adds, the initiator is probably more to blame than the woman. – “Probably?” A lesser form of corruption with colluding parties? – There’s no threat of a witch-hunt from Berger, that’s for sure. Berger even says she hasn’t a shred of pity for the women who didn’t turn Weinstein down. The women had a choice and they made theirs.
First of all, I don’t understand the harsh condemnation of the women. After all, the “initiator’s” actions are not held up to such high moral standards. In fact, his actions aren’t judged at all. Why not? – Berger also happily recounts the negative consequences for the women who behaved “honourably” without seeing the irony of her own argument. If the woman behaved “honourably” she didn’t get what she wanted/needed. In one of Berger’s own examples the woman never even tried again, because she was so ashamed of what happened, although she behaved “honourably”. Berger also says that as soon as she herself becomes aware of a potentially difficult encounter, i.e. with a man she suspects to be a sexual predator, she has developed various ways of avoiding such an encounter. Berger’s message to women is clear: This is life (for a woman). Stop whining. Grow up and deal with it (the way I do). She clearly doesn’t care that behaving “honourably” can cost a woman her career or seriously hamper it. Neither is Berger willing to admit that “avoidance strategies” can make life very complicated and are generally not the best way to deal with a problem.
Maybe many Germans agree with Berger. Or they find it harder to identify with actors than Americans. When I watched Oprah Winfrey’s speech at the Golden Globes, I realized I couldn’t relate to anything I saw or heard. Sexual harassment, it suddenly seemed, is something you can only afford to get worked up about if you’re a beautiful, rich celebrity. The rest of us are more likely to worry about our jobs, pensions, healthcare, a decent and affordable education for our children, the environment, etc. Sexual harassment by film moguls is, I realized, actually way down on my personal list.
Since Catherine Deneuve and the other French signatories of the open letter demanded that men should have the right to ‘hit on women’, the debate has become even more elitist. Their open letter has succeeded in weakening the #metoo movement, however, by starting an absurd catfight. I doubt that it’ll help that Bardot has had her say as well.
Fortunately all that needn’t concern us here in Germany. Georg Dietz was wondering why the #metoo debate fizzled out here before it even began, but Til Schweiger knows the reason: “We don’t have a problem, because Germany doesn’t have much of a film industry.” No film industry, no problem. Is there life outside showbiz?