Philomela's Legacy (In class scholarly)

In the article, Philomela’s Legacy: Rape, the Second World War, and the Ethics of Reading, rape was punishable by death and how russian soilders acted with impunity. It also highlighted the main problem that just because the german was rape and a new problem are we supposed to throw this into the background. The problem was the victims were nazi citizens. The question remains how to address german suffering in the light of the suffering caused by the germans. Or weather german victimhood can even be considered seeing that millions were harmed or killed by germans. In section two, wartime rape stories focus on the victims’ perspectives rather than the perpetrators (Red Army). The mix of alcohol, war brutality and propaganda hatred towards Germans and their crimes against Russia would’ve induced this behavior. Women would “agree” to have sex with these men so that they could receive protection and food in order to survive, which is why they referred to the rape as “consensual”. Section three is about how when it comes females who write books or being interviewed about rape, they tend to shy away from calling the act of rape by it universal name. By doing this they leave room to be critique on their accounts. Woman do themselves no favor by not calling rape for exactcly what it is. In section four, “The Politicization of Rape: Ingo Münch”, the main topic of discussion is how rape and politics are related. She argues that rape is focused on stripping away power from not only the women who are the victims, but also the fathers and husbands that failed to protect them. She also mentions that wartime rape is not specific to only World War 2 because it is a theme in many other big wars that have occurred in the past. It is hard to see which side of a rape story is true because victims and perpetrators can make things up about the attack, and it is hard to figure out who to believe.

Rape was a mutualistic relationship in the second World War because men were able to get pleasure from the women and it’s a type of break from war, and the women benefit from the rape because the men provide them food. The rape that was commited were violations against german women, but they act as blanket to the horror that was commited by the germans. In section two, the authors say politically the german rape takes center stage while the crimes they commited takes the background. I don’t agree that this is a political matter I believe it is a matter of what has happend recently the holocaust already happended and crime that happens now is a diffrent problem entirely. I don’t agree with the idea of “consensual rape”. These women didn’t fight back because they wanted to survive. The soldiers promised protection and food for these women, and in a time of war that was something important for survival. It’s understandable that these men aren’t in a great mindset considering, but it’s no excuse for what they do to these women. We should not hesitate to critique the ideological blindspot that inform the rape victim account. I disagree with this, by doing this we become counter productive. By critiquing their account we are not we assuring them that we are on their side. But letting them know we are taking their story with a grain of salt. That’s bad for healing and will not get us far. I also agree with Krimmer when she mentions how rape is politicized; specifically during war. She made a good point when she said rape is strategic in the way it strips power from civilians. “Where women are raped, the husbands and fathers who failed to protect them are stripped of their authority and power” (Krimmer 95). It was also interesting to read about examples the author gave regarding how rape and warfare go hand in hand. She lists off examples of countries that had mass rapes, and the common theme was a conflict---specifically war. She also mentions how rape stories from a victim and perpetrator

-All of us in class