Enlarge image
Ex "Bild" editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt
Photo:
Jörg Carstensen / picture alliance / dpa
When I talked to some straight men in the past few days, progressive, open-minded, liberal types, I noticed something strange: These men, who call themselves feminists and who mostly appear in public as women-empowering cavaliers, found the whole story round around the former »Bild« editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt, of course, »bad for the women« and considered him to be a pig to be condemned.
However, they expressed their indignation with a sloping head and a deliberate will to relativize.
In doing so, they did not question the entire issue, nor did they question the despicable misogyny.
But there was a kind of brotherly equanimity when they judged whether one should enter into a liaison with a young professional in everyday professional life.
I find this intellectual balancing act as admirable as it is bigoted: Apparently some men do not perceive Reichelt's abusive failures as problematic because they are problematic, but because they do not like the cause.
Otherwise, his case just seems like a typical workplace romance.
Obviously they did not understand how far the problems of this matter stretched. On the contrary. If I investigated, Reichelt's affairs and the nocturnal SMS traffic were considered difficult, but not immediately comparable to Harvey Weinstein. And I realized that some men consider the pressure it exerted on women to be trivial teasing. That such interpersonal dynamics are not perceived in their abuse, but romanticized as erotic adventures and transfigured into a social standard.
The senior physician with the nurse, the boss with the clerk, the lawyer with the legal assistance, the professor with the student - although this kind of huddling between the coffee kitchen, smoking break, office hours and Christmas party is not professional, it is probably not an expression of a sexism problem, if it is everything is amicable.
Three years after MeToo, my reaction to such evaluations of the Reichelt case is less understanding, more like: "What?" At the risk of appearing like a puritanical, lust-hostile governess who wants to rob the world of work of all heterosexual indifference, I have to Disenchant the virile myth of the »job affair« in astonishment.
In a hierarchically organized world of work in which there is an asymmetry of power relations, interpersonal relationships cannot be viewed without this economic dimension.
The possibility that this imbalance could exert psychological pressure and economic pressure on the people who have the shorter hand - in this case on young women and young professionals - must of course be permanently taken into account.
An exchange of affects never takes place in a vacuum, and certainly not at eye level, but always in a relationship of dependency - and to the detriment of those just starting out in their careers.
That leads us to sexism on the one hand and to abuse of power on the other - and how both are related in this case.
more on the subject
Ex- »Bild« editor-in-chief: Why Julian Reichelt had to go
The Julian Reichelt case: The incapacitation of women A column by Bettina Gaus
And yes, there are of course female managers who benefit emotionally and physically from men who are professionally dependent on these women.
Yes, there are intimacies that are completely unproblematic for all parties, including marriages, children and companies, that can arise from asymmetrical relationships.
Of course: Even in the case of same-sex interactions, these unequal relationships can be exploited.
No, this is not about victimizing women.
I do not want to deny any gender the ability for self-empowerment, I do not want to incapacitate self-confident sexuality.
I would like to raise awareness of cases of abuse of power.
They are more common than expected.
They are put into perspective in different ways, the power dispositions on which they are based are not understood.
Therefore, these cases are still declared and talked away as a kind of self-evident occupational risk in professional advancement.
In addition, the attacks, which come to light as a particularly oppressive negative example, are often labeled as individual, unrepresentative failures of the chauvinistic idiocy of power-drunk egocentrics.
In doing so, however, one gratefully fails to recognize the whole subtle omnipresence, all the invisible forces that affect women in economic situations.
And even if Mathias Döpfner uttered a lot of misleading talk in his video aimed at the Springer employees, he inadvertently had an almost accurate point: “This is not a cultural problem for the entire Springer publishing house.
There is this problem with ›Bild‹. ”(I write“ Almost ”because it is a problem for society as a whole and therefore also one of the entire publishing house.)
Even he knows that it's not just about a man, but about the climate in a company.
more on the subject
Mathias Döpfner: Publisher with Fimmel, An analysis by Stefan Kuzmany
The fact that an editorial environment knows these dynamics and accepts them in a normalizing way is part, reason and at the same time the result of systematic discrimination. Sexism occurs between people, but its effectiveness is, on the one hand, institutionalized and, on the other hand, internalized by those involved. What needs to be understood: Sexism, as an abuse of one's own position, manifests itself gradually, as if on a spectrum.
There is no need for the slap on the bottom, the "sexual harassment or coercion" which, according to the first compliance procedure, never took place. This sexism begins with a work environment in which young women can be objectified as a matter of course with "Caution, this is one of Julian's", assessed according to "Fuckabilty" and thus dehumanized. Here an exploitation of power relations is nodded, through which people of one gender experience a disadvantage because of their gender.
If victims do not speak out publicly for fear of revenge, there is obviously an institutional problem.
If actions have to be done clandestinely, the beneficiaries of the system should know that it is apparently illegal.
So we shouldn't just be discussing the asshole-like nature of a single guy, but what this powerful man embodies: the equanimous, professional acceptance of a workplace sexism that has been romanticized to the point of repression.
