Rape Hasn't Always Been A War Crime

[debrand]

Today, it's partly thanks to Sivac's efforts to gather testimony from women across Bosnia that rape has been categorized as a war crime under international law. Thirty people have been convicted at the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague and another 30 cases are ongoing. She personally helped put the man who raped her repeatedly during her two months in captivity behind bars.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0 ... 35241.html

This Huffington Post article made me think about our thread on Lori's thoughts on women not suffering as much as men.

I never really thought about it before but I assumed rape was a war crime. It hasn't been until 1995

The effort finally paid off in June 1995 when the two traveled to The Hague to take part in preparations for the first indictment by the Yugoslav war crimes court.

Their collected evidence exposed the magnitude of rape which courts could no longer ignore. According to the United Nations, it was a major "turning point" in recognizing rape as a war crime.

Sivac remembers the sunny July day the two realized their work would be soon rewarded.

They enjoyed a coffee in an outdoor cafe in The Hague and wrote a few postcards back to their torturers in Prijedor.

"Dear Friends," they wrote. "We hope you will soon join us in this wonderful city."

A year later, the tribunal indicted eight Bosnian Serb men for sexual assault in eastern Bosnia – a verdict based on testimonies collected by Sivac and Cigelj.

It was the first time in history that an international tribunal charged someone solely for crimes of sexual violence.

Nerma Jelacic, spokeswoman for the Yugoslav war crimes court, recalls the "shocking" testimony in subsequent cases where some victims were as young as 12.

[Violet]

Well there was no such thing as rape within a marriage until after the 1950s :roll: If you're interested in the topic, read "A Woman in Berlin" (German: Eine Frau in Berlin") It's the diary of a woman living in Berlin at the end of World War II, who like most women and girls was raped repeatedly by Red Army soldiers. They estimate that around 2 million women in Germany were raped at this time, and about 200 000 of them were in Berlin. I didn't know anything about it until I started studying it. Further study showed me that it happens time and again during/at the end of wars :(

[GenerationCedarchip]

Well there was no such thing as rape within a marriage until after the 1950s :roll: If you're interested in the topic, read "A Woman in Berlin" (German: Eine Frau in Berlin") It's the diary of a woman living in Berlin at the end of World War II, who like most women and girls was raped repeatedly by Red Army soldiers. They estimate that around 2 million women in Germany were raped at this time, and about 200 000 of them were in Berlin. I didn't know anything about it until I started studying it. Further study showed me that it happens time and again during/at the end of wars :(

I hadn't known anything about this either until I read a novel called As the Waltz was Ending that's set in Vienna and makes mention of what happened when the Red Army came in. I learned more about it in college, and it was pretty gut-wrenching stuff. One thing I remember reading was a British officer's account of the occupation where he mentioned that while the enlisted might need to "blow off steam" with the local women, officers were supposed to show self-control and not take women by force. Not out of concern for the women involved of course, it all had to do with the dignity befitting an officer. :x

[Violet]

I hadn't known anything about this either until I read a novel called As the Waltz was Ending that's set in Vienna and makes mention of what happened when the Red Army came in. I learned more about it in college, and it was pretty gut-wrenching stuff. One thing I remember reading was a British officer's account of the occupation where he mentioned that while the enlisted might need to "blow off steam" with the local women, officers were supposed to show self-control and not take women by force. Not out of concern for the women involved of course, it all had to do with the dignity befitting an officer. :x

I know, I still can't quite get my head around it. I do remember hearing how a lot of girls were quarantined in a hospital because they had some contagious deadly illness, but in actual fact that was a lie to protect them from the Red Army. It made me feel a bit better, but it still makes me sick that people just stood by and let it happen to their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and neighbours - like it was just something the women had to put up with.

[debrand]

It also belies the fundie myth that men with power will automatically protect the women that they have power over.

It seems that rape was something women were expected-and are still expected- to have happen to them during war. Until recently, it wasn't discussed much or when it was discussed the horror for the women was not really admitted.

The number of Jewish women who were raped has not been acknowledged either. I've read on some sites that the Nazis didn't usually rape their victims but lately more information has come out that Jewish women were indeed raped by their captors. Not only were they raped by their captors but sometimes the people who were helping them escape sexually abused them.

http://www.academia.edu/1545832/And_it_ ... _Holocaust

Furthermore, and again related to the question of ideology, the relative lack of scholarship in this area is the product of an illogical belief that Jewish women could not have been raped because they were classed as sub-human andtherefore not as sexual beings.

6

Anti-Jewish propaganda such as Fritz Hippler’s1940 film

The Eternal Jew

, in which Jews were transformed from people into ratson screen, has been put forward as evidence that Germans would not rape Jewish women. However, Tutsis who were subjected to mass rape during theRwandan genocide were dubbed as ‘cockroaches’ and ‘serpents’ by propagandists.

7

Following the same logic, the notion that dehumanising Nazipropaganda would create a barrier to rape contradicts numerous theorists whoargue that rather than deter rape, the rendering of a victim as sub-humanenables a perpetrator. Katharine Derderian has argued, for example, that rapehelped the Turks dehumanise the Armenians.

8

Conversely, the dehumanisationof the Armenians made it easier for the Turks to rape them.

I think that it is important that the rapist be punished and not excused because of war. Male historians seemed willing to sweep such problems under the rug and ignore sexual abuse as something that women should accept or just not discuss

[Drina Adams]

In Ireland a husband couldn't be charged with raping his wife until the early 1990s.

[desertvixen]

It also belies the fundie myth that men with power will automatically protect the women that they have power over.

Remember, you're only entitled to protection if you're the right kind of woman, according to that man.

It seems that rape was something women were expected-and are still expected- to have happen to them during war. Until recently, it wasn't discussed much or when it was discussed the horror for the women was not really admitted.

This.

[docmom]

Rape has always been a spoil of war. If your side won you got to rape and pillage. When fundies (I'm talking to you Lori) wax sentimental for the good old pre-feminism days they need to be reminded of this and that it happened in "civilized" Western Europe as recently as WWII.

[valsa]

Rape has always been a spoil of war.

Pretty much. I doubt there's ever been a conflict where women caught in the crossfire weren't raped.

I'm guessing that male historians look at rape happening during war as being as widespread and unremarkable as, say, people dying during war.

[Drina Adams]

Any accounts of the chaos during the taking of Berlin should leave no one in any doubt that rape was 'just one of those things' during war time. I also remember seeing a documentary on crime levels during WWII in London. My memory is hazy but one thing that stood out was that reported rape/sexual assault rates rose during the war, but soldiers and other military personnel weren't pursued when accusations were made as they needed to 'let off steam' on leave, so the authorities thinking went.

[Violet]

Pretty much. I doubt there's ever been a conflict where women caught in the crossfire weren't raped.

I'm guessing that male historians look at rape happening during war as being as widespread and unremarkable as, say, people dying during war.

Yeah, except unlike the death it's not widely talked about. I only learned about it in doing a module on Berlin (my lecturer is female, so it might be why she was "happy" to discuss it) and up until that point it never came up in any of our history lessons about World War II. I just find it so disgusting :evil: like rape is some sort of prize, nobody ever seems to care about the women caught up in the conflict. The book I mentioned in an earlier post was first published in the 60s/70s I believe and didn't do well, it was republished a few years ago and did better but is still a taboo subject. People didn't like the fact that the victim talked about it (although kept her anonymity) - it was almost like she was blamed for it happening.

Edited for clarity.

[debrand]

Yeah, except unlike the death it's not widely talked about. I only learned about it in doing a module on Berlin (my lecturer is female, so it might be why she was "happy" to discuss it) and up until that point it never came up in any of our history lessons about World War II. I just find it so disgusting :evil: like rape is some sort of prize, nobody ever seems to care about the women caught up in the conflict. The book I mentioned in an earlier post was first published in the 60s/70s I believe and didn't do well, it was republished a few years ago and did better but is still a taboo subject. People didn't like the fact that the victim talked about it (although kept her anonymity) - it was almost like she was blamed for it happening.

Edited for clarity.

I think also that as women have become equal to men, their stories and experiences are becoming more important. Ironically, when women were less valued, protection wasn't the result; instead, things like rape weren't even acknowledged because it was considered normal. That is the world that women like Lori glorify.

[salex]

In Ireland a husband couldn't be charged with raping his wife until the early 1990s.

Same in the USA, or a least parts of it

Todd Akin (former congressman and senatorial candidate from MO whose campaign died of foot in mouth disease) said that he was against marital rape being criminalized because it would be a weapon a woman could use against her husband in a divorce.... in 1991, early in his political career. Didn't stop him then....

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/ ... pe-bill-0/

[PokaDot]

Same in the USA, or a least parts of it

Todd Akin (former congressman and senatorial candidate from MO whose campaign died of foot in mouth disease) said that he was against marital rape being criminalized because it would be a weapon a woman could use against her husband in a divorce.... in 1991, early in his political career. Didn't stop him then....

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/ ... pe-bill-0/

It never occurred to me until I was in college that spousal rape existed. The first time I heard about spousal rape I went "wtf? you can't rape someone you're married to" before I thought about it and realized being married doesn't equal consent for sex.

[YPestis]

I think the rape as war crime as a slow, evolving process. It's amazing to us now how rape used to be treated as a crime against the husband or father. It was especially egregious if the women was a virgin as it ruined her chances of marriage, even though rape for women, virgin or not, is equally traumatizing.

When women were property, rape was not defined as sex without her consent, it was sex without the consent of her "owner", i.e male head of her household. It was considered bad because a man's property has been tampered with. The women's feelings were secondary.

I think the evolution of rape came hand in hand with raised status of women. As women were seen as separate individuals, people started seeing rape as a crime against women, not against a man's property, and rape was redefined as determined by the victim's consent.

Marital rape was bizarre to many people because sex is assumed in marriage. A wife provides sex like she provides cooked meals or clean laundry. To some, you can't force a wife to have sex anymore than you force her to cook for you....it's just part of her duties. I think there's also the thought it's only traumatizing to women to have sex with a stranger. If it's hubby, then it can't be any different than the other times she willingly had sex. There's this idea that once a women has a relationship with someone, there's a freestanding consent clause for that person to always be allowed to have sex with her.

Rape blame has also changed. It used to be only stranger rape was considered "real" rape. Acquaintance rape, date rape and marital rape was excusable because the women knew the man, and therefore must have given him "signs" to make him want to have sex with her. The idea that someone could rape someone they knew was baffling to society. I think that's why conservatives were more willing to lay the blame on the women for "rape" (i.e legitimate rape). People used to blame the women for being too flirtatious or dressing "inappropriately" for the rape. It's a weird concept to me, as we don't give a burglar a free pass because he broke into a house that was unlocked or if the burglar knows the owner of the house. We defined theft as taking of property without consent by the owner. Anyway, I'm glad society has changed their ideas of rape, and gives it the same serious treatment as other major crimes.

[Kristelle]

When women were property, rape was not defined as sex without her consent, it was sex without the consent of her "owner", i.e male head of her household. It was considered bad because a man's property has been tampered with. The women's feelings were secondary.

I think the evolution of rape came hand in hand with raised status of women. As women were seen as separate individuals, people started seeing rape as a crime against women, not against a man's property, and rape was redefined as determined by the victim's consent.

I've wondered about sexual abuse in previous eras (because no matter what the fundies might say, it did happen). Would a father who sexually abused his daughter still try to marry her off, claiming that she was a virgin, or would he not try at all?

[Widget]

I've wondered about sexual abuse in previous eras (because no matter what the fundies might say, it did happen). Would a father who sexually abused his daughter still try to marry her off, claiming that she was a virgin, or would he not try at all?

Most women picked their own husbands unless they were very wealthy. I think most women probably just crossed their fingers that their new husband was inexperienced and couldn't tell.

I can say with 100% certainty it happened, because there is historical incest resulting in children in my family tree.