TS Eiseihei-san no Senjou Nikki - Ch. 8

[Sleeping_Knight]

M200!

 

[TestAddress]

When she said she was being violated she meant being beaten up by Garback in the broad daylight. Cmon "Violated" isn't a word exclusive for being raped.

Well in prison when I heard the perp is violated, he is holding his ass and is sleeping in the corner.

 

[TestAddress]

About this, Weldie seems to be a sheltered guy.

Remember that Galback’s choice of disciplinary action is killing the guy on the spot.
Not giving warning, not physical punishment, not sending him to detention, not bringing it to the higher ups for martial court. Dead.
That Weldie thought it should be done the “civilised” way.

The three stooges, and probably the ones who will out-survive Garback.

 

[Wyrm]

You should learn some history if you think this is a "male thing" as you're trying to say... It would do you good to learn, you'll quickly see that women are as disgusting as men for these things.
Many women were raped because of another women.
Many women who were raped were forced to shut up by other women.

And the list goes on, but well... Retarded that cant get their head outside of the cesspool, that their political belief are, wont try to use their brain.

PS : Do you know that the majority of people who punish rapist are men? No? You dont care cose "menbad"?

I'm not saying that all men are bad, or that only men are bad.

There are indeed women who act violently to women and men (yes, male victims also exist), be it physically, psychologically or sexually, but they were rarely if ever a cultural norm. (Note: male victims have yet another social stigma to contend with, so they tend to be even more underreported than female victims. By official stats, they are very far from negligible but still less than women. Though I haven't found stats on the gender of perpetrators, I'll assume they are comparable.)

But historically, rape culture has mostly favored men. In the case of this manga, it seems to mostly reflect a western battlefield so I'll assume that its culture is also similar. (I might be wrong, but we'll discuss that if we have more hints about this.) And real life history used to have women treated as property, basically owned by their father or closest male kin to be handed to a husband as her new owner for the rest of her life. Even today, there are a lot of men who still have this kind of mindset even as the legal context changed radically.

And this is what I'm criticizing: not anecdotal cases, but the overall culture that, for an extremely long time that still has an impact to this day, has covered up male sexual crimes under excuses that the victim was at least as much at fault as the perpetrator. Extreme cultures even seem to blame the victim more.
And those societies are historically patriarcal, so guess who decided on these abhorrent laws and cultural norms?

Yes, men have also contributed to the change. Because not all men are disgusting perverts. (I think these types are an overall loud minority. Definitely not a majority.) However, it took centuries to overcome cultural and legal misogyny and the change still needs to continue as this mindset is still deeply rooted in some communities. Even in the most "modern" countries.

Your condescending tone feels misplaced, but I'm generally amused by people who talk to me with such arrogance.

 

[parkourse]

more characters to join this fucked-up unit! naruhodo ne.

 

[kaezeribato]

But historically, rape culture has mostly favored men.

There never was any "rape culture" in the west... Rape for the longest time was punished by death for the perpetrator... And the one who made these law were men, because women did not make law at the tame.

And real life history used to have women treated as property, basically owned by their father or closest male kin to be handed to a husband as her new owner for the rest of her life.

This is not what it was. That's what modern people think was happening in the past. All kid, men and women, had to follow what their parent told them do to. whatever their sex, they had to marry someone that was chosen for them and had nothing to say. Why would this be something that favor men but not women?
Women lived their life without having to follow the order of their husband, this is someone modern people made up. Women were going about their daily life normaly, their did their chore, brough things their needed, and did everything by themself.
People today act as if women in the past were some kind of slave either because their look at some specific case, like the Brit aristocracy before their fall, that ended losing their mind and thinking themself as the kind of the world, or at some rare case of local noble abusing their power.

The west, even durring the middle age, was nowhere near what happen in islamist extremist country. Women were not forced to obey their husband. Yes there were law that forced women to follow their "role", but the same kind of law existed for men... And you seem to ignore it. A man that could not proprely provide or protect his family was viewed extremely poorly, and could even be punished by law.

And those societies are historically patriarcal, so guess who decided on these abhorrent laws and cultural norms?

What do you mean patriarcal society? There was none in western Europe... There wasn't any powerfull country in Europe that was patriarcal... Women had an extremly important role in the politic of ALL these country for the longest time. Women had an massive amount of power, they had an influance on everything, from culture to politic. Women spent as much time as men scheming to gain power or keep their power.
In a patriarcal society, women dont have any say in anything... In the west women, even the poor one, had influance on their family. Women could say what their wanted, and they could not be punished by law if their did... There were no law saying that women had to obey their husband or they would be punished.
You can look at Spain, the most extreme catholic country, women, for a long time, had a lot of power in their family. You can also look at Russia, an Ortodox country, that had a woman as a leader, one that was loved because it made their country even more powerfull that it was before. You can also look at France and the UK, during most of their existance, women had a huge impact on their politic.

Seriously, you think that in a patriarcal society there could have been something like the rise of Jeanne d'Arc during the 100 year war? A country bumpkin, a girl, not even 20, a peasant, that made an entire country rise behind her, and win a war that was lost?

Your condescending tone feels misplaced, but I'm generally amused by people who talk to me with such arrogance.

If you think there is anything condescending when i'm stating that you're just pulling nonsense, good for you. Like i said, i expect nothing from political fanatic that rewrite history to their benefit.
The fun part about this is that your even more mysoginitic than most people, simply because you're belitting the role and action of women during entire milena... Because your not even 100 year old political belief tell you that everyone before you was an ignorant slave that needed to be saved... Exactly like how the Lumiére tried to make everyone think that the middle age was a "dark age" by rewriting history, just to make themself look better.

 

[TestAddress]

Thanks for reminding me of Lumiere, that noble killer. Indeed, they did what the Muslims did - if you want to "change history" kill a lot of people - from top to bottom.

 

[nueee]

Thank you!

 

[Wyrm]

There never was any "rape culture" in the west... Rape for the longest time was punished by death for the perpetrator... And the one who made these law were men, because women did not make law at the tame.

I'm a little tired of this conversation, but I will respond once more.

About the status of women in general, they haven't been as oppressed in the west as in some other countries. But even in our most modern countries, they have had no right of inheritance for a long time (substituted with the practice of dowry for quite a while - which is ongoing is some other countries - and said dowry doesn't even go the woman as replacement for inheritance, but to the family she marries into where she has no legal access to it) and no right to vote until the last century (you can count a century and a half for some earlier localized initiatives). How is that not patriarcal? There have been exceptions, both at individual and at country level, but the western world at large was definitely ignoring women as proper persons in their own right. The fact that they were treated comparably well compared to "marry your rapist" countries, and even really decently overall, doesn't mean they were free.
This worked decently well overall because, as I said in my previous message, the large majority of men are mostly decent people, not because women were legally or politically equal to men in any way.

(For comparison, picture this situation: imagine there is a law and social norm that state that anyone has the right to kill anyone on sight. Basically, a version of the Purge. Are the law and culture right to accept this even if, say, only .1% of the population actually killed anyone? And that's low-balling compared to actual rape statistics.)

As a specific example, why do you think we had to wait for the 20th century to have marital rape recognized in some western countries? (Granted, once again, this has happen with men victims too, but there were way less.)
And the laws against rape in general have indeed been in the books at least since Antiquity, but the exact standards and application have changed a lot through history. At times, it has been counted as a "property crime", not even against the victim, but against the men in her family. Because the perpetrator "damaged" their "property", not because he attacked a person. Dark times, but still part of history.

Even though nowadays the legal context has grown a lot better, women have still been hesitant to come up with rape accusations until quite recently. Because society will paint them as promiscuous women who somehow caused the agression. If the defendant is rich, they will add accusations of being in it for the money. And the perpetrator is often portrayed as a poor victim whose life will be destroyed by the trial. (Fortunately, the defense of "I did it but you can't punish me for it" rarely worked once it gets to trial, but that's not to say it never worked. And the smear campaigns still do a lot of damage to the victims.)
Once again, this has improved a lot (even more so in the past couple decades), but I've seen this behavior time and again in my lifetime.

In my book, denying that there has been "rape culture" is just one's blinding themselves to reality. It is not to say that all men were beasts or every alleged victim was truthful. But the overall culture used to be pretty permissive towards (mostly male) perpetrators by pressuring women into hiding the crimes they were victims of. It's a cultural thing, as the name implies, rather than a legal one.

(There is another discussion to be had about different factors that could change the balance of social stigma between the victime and perpetrator, but I don't think they have a place right here.)

I think I'm done with this subject though. In my opinion, that's way too much for a comment thread on a manga chapter.

 

[Phantommemorial]

Set him to frontlines, right next to mr.I'll-kill-everyone

 

[Svelandria]

Just to clarify, Touri is 15, probably going on 16. These newbies are 18, maybe 20 at best. I ain't condoning this shit (if anything, I was hoping he would have been shot immediately. Shame he wasn't.) but the age gap is fairly small. Still doesn't change anything since she's still underage and more importantly it's without consent, but the lack of "options" (horrible choice of word due to lack of more delicate phrasing) and the narrow age gap made her an obvious, or rather only, choice in his head. Which should have been plastered all over the wall behind him by now.

In other news, I can't wait to see how the Commander "makes use" of him since it would be "a waste to uselessly throw away" his life, as Waldie put it. Would make good cannon fodder, I suppose. But like the Commander I wouldn't trust that bastard to have my back if he was willing to assault one of his comrades in the dead of night. Better to cut off the corrupted limb now to protect the rest of the squad, especially Touri.

 

[CalamityCallout]

Come on, show more of her body if you're gonna do this kinda scene.

 

[Elmithian]

See. I told you the commander's entire shtick was an act


You can all stop malding now

Ah yes, "My abuser is a good person because he only learned to be abusive because of his parents. He is a good person deep down" shtick.

That is totally and utterly NOT reasonable man.

He may have standards, but that is like comparing a serial killer that tortures and kills innocent adults but will never do so to children. The person is still doing unspeakable and unforgivable things, just to different demographic.

Him having learned how to lead from an abusive commander does NOT excuse that he is abusive in the first place. It only explains why he is.

He may have positive points, but the matter of fact still is that he is a horrible person, a horrible leader with horrible standards. The fact he doesn't kick puppies should not be the proof that he is good at anything else but being a soldier.