SHARE
COPY LINK
PORTNOY'S STAMMTISCH

OFFBEAT

Fun and games in the Fatherland

In the latest installment of Portnoy’s Stammtisch, The Local’s column about life in Germany, Portnoy muses on the Teutonic penchant for deriving pleasure from other people’s pain.

Fun and games in the Fatherland
Photo: DPA

I couldn’t help but feel a little schadenfreude that Germany’s big Oscar hope this year, Michael Haneke’s dark period drama Das weisse Band, came up short at the Academy Awards.

Have you seen this movie? It lays the blame for two world wars at the feet of barbaric, turn-of-the-century German parenting.

Beside the fact that it seems a bit rich to have an Austrian director pointing a fat finger at the Germans, I don’t think childhood elsewhere in the world was all fun and games back then. At least not according to my grandparents, who didn’t start any wars, or, in fact, even fight in them.

Unlike Haneke, I refuse to presume what caused the worst conflicts of the 20th century. But I do have my own theory about what may be wrong with modern Germany. It’s one I’ve developed after observing my German wife’s difficult relationship with her father, and my own children’s interaction with their grandfather. He spent his entire military career in the kitchen feeding the Bundeswehr. But as Opa never fails to mention, he was still trained to kill – if he had to.

Early on in our relationship my wife told me of her troubles with this man. It was based around a game of conquest, violence and humiliation. And that childhood pastime recently turned 100: Aggravation. Or Mensch Ärger Dich Nicht in German.

If you ask me, this Teutonic invention, coming as it did at the end of Germany’s tenure as the world’s think tank, is one of the greatest ills plaguing German society. As the daily Berliner Zeitung recently pointed out, Aggravation has but one compelling element – schadenfreude. Of course, this is such an inherently German trait that other cultures have simply adopted the unwieldy German word rather than coming up with their own to describe it.

Think about it for a moment: This game is all about chasing down and knocking your opponents back to the beginning, where they can only start over with great difficulty. This is because you have to roll a six to free a gamepiece from its homebase. The aim of the game is to not only win, but ruin your opponent’s chances at the same time. A classic scorched-earth approach to life.

My father-in-law loves it. When my wife was was little, he often goaded his reluctant daughter into playing Mensch Ärger Dich Nicht with him. But the game always ended prematurely with her in tears. Every time he knocked one of her players off the board, he sang this little ditty:

And they carried,

Another dead one,

Home.

Just some nice father-daughter quality time in Germany. And he still does this. My kids aren’t old enough to appreciate the pressure he’s putting them under. They just think he’s a funny old guy with funny old tunes. My wife fumes. I go get my hair done or pay fictitious bills.

And I can only imagine that this scene repeats itself hundreds, if not thousands, of times a day in Germany. My father-in-law isn’t the kind of guy to have made up that song by himself – someone has to have taught it to him, probably while playing Aggravation.

Germany’s love of this game brings up some disturbing questions. What do children – my children – learn from it? Hunt your opponents down, knock them back to the start, and revel in it? That not only is winning important, humiliating your opponents is a key part of the game of life? The game’s German name speaks volumes – the onus for not getting upset when someone pees in your cornflakes lies squarely on the victim.

This may not sound like modern Germany’s approach to world affairs, but have you tried commuting to work here in your car? It often seems all anyone cares about is getting through the next intersection – first. Or on my bike the other day I had a guy not only overtake me, but also dangerously rub his rear tyre on my front wheel. It wasn’t about simply passing me, he was trying to aggravate me in the process.

So happy birthday, Aggravation! Perhaps Haneke had you in mind while making his other rather disturbing film “Funny Games.”

Since a good German Stammtisch is a place where pub regulars come to talk over the issues of the day, Portnoy welcomes a lively conversation in the comments area below.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

OFFBEAT

Is Switzerland’s male-only mandatory military service ‘discriminatory’?

Under Swiss law, all men must serve at least one year in compulsory national service. But is this discriminatory?

Swiss military members walk across a road carrying guns
A new lawsuit seeks to challenge Switzerland's male-only military service requirement. Is this discriminatory? FABRICE COFFRINI / AFP

All men aged between the ages of 18 and 30 are required to complete compulsory military service in Switzerland. 

A lawsuit which worked its way through the Swiss courts has now ended up in the European Court of Human Rights, where the judges will decide if Switzerland’s male-only conscription requirement violates anti-discrimination rules. 

Switzerland’s NZZ newspaper wrote on Monday the case has “explosive potential” and has “what it takes to cause a tremor” to a policy which was first laid out in Switzerland’s 1848 and 1874 Federal Constitutions. 

What is Switzerland’s compulsory military service? 

Article 59 of the Federal Constitution of Switzerland says “Every man with Swiss citizenship is liable for military service. Alternative civilian service shall be provided for by law.”

Recruits must generally do 18 weeks of boot camp (longer in some cases). 

They are then required to spend several weeks in the army every year until they have completed a minimum 245 days of service.

Military service is compulsory for Swiss men aged 18 and over. Women can chose to do military service but this is rare.

What about national rather than military service? 

Introduced in 1996, this is an alternative to the army, originally intended for those who objected to military service on moral grounds. 

READ MORE: The Swiss army’s growing problem with civilian service

Service is longer there than in the army, from the age of 20 to 40. 

This must be for 340 days in total, longer than the military service requirement. 

What about foreigners and dual nationals? 

Once you become a Swiss citizen and are between the ages of 18 and 30, you can expect to be conscripted. 

READ MORE: Do naturalised Swiss citizens have to do military service?

In general, having another citizenship in addition to the Swiss one is not going to exempt you from military service in Switzerland.

However, there is one exception: the obligation to serve will be waved, provided you can show that you have fulfilled your military duties in your other home country.

If you are a Swiss (naturalised or not) who lives abroad, you are not required to serve in the military in Switzerland, though you can voluntarily enlist. 

How do Swiss people feel about military and national service? 

Generally, the obligation is viewed relatively positively, both by the general public and by those who take part in compulsory service. 

While several other European countries have gotten rid of mandatory service, a 2013 referendum which attempted to abolish conscription was rejected by 73 percent of Swiss voters. 

What is the court case and what does it say? 

Martin D. Küng, the lawyer from the Swiss canton of Bern who has driven the case through the courts, has a personal interest in its success. 

He was found unfit for service but is still required to pay an annual bill to the Swiss government, which was 1662CHF for the last year he was required to pay it. 

While the 36-year-old no longer has to pay the amount – the obligation only lasts between the ages of 18 and 30 – Küng is bring the case on principle. 

So far, Küng has had little success in the Swiss courts, with his appeal rejected by the cantonal administrative court and later by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. 

Previous Supreme Court cases, when hearing objections to men-only military service, said that women are less suitable for conscription due to “physiological and biological differences”.

In Küng’s case, the judges avoided this justification, saying instead that the matter was a constitutional issue. 

‘No objective reason why only men have to do military service’

He has now appealed the decision to the European level. 

While men have previously tried and failed when taking their case to the Supreme Court, no Swiss man has ever brought the matter to the European Court of Human Rights. 

Küng told the NZZ that he considered the rule to be unjust and said the Supreme Court’s decision is based on political considerations. 

“I would have expected the Federal Supreme Court to have the courage to clearly state the obvious in my case and not to decide on political grounds,” Küng said. 

“There is no objective reason why only men have to do military service or pay replacement taxes. On average, women may not be as physically productive as men, but that is not a criterion for excluding them from compulsory military service. 

There are quite a few men who cannot keep up with women in terms of stamina. Gender is simply the wrong demarcation criterion for deciding on compulsory service. If so, then one would have to focus on physical performance.”

Is it likely to pass? 

Küng is optimistic that the Strasbourg court will find in his favour, pointing to a successful appeal by a German man who complained about a fire brigade tax, which was only imposed on men. 

“This question has not yet been conclusively answered by the court” Küng said. 

The impact of a decision in his favour could be considerable, with European law technically taking precedence over Swiss law.

It would set Switzerland on a collision course with the bloc, particularly given the popularity of the conscription provision. 

Küng clarified that political outcomes and repercussions don’t concern him. 

“My only concern is for a court to determine that the current regulation is legally wrong.”

SHOW COMMENTS