Equality in the release of hostages

What do you agree with about what he said?

That there is a contradiction between the egalitarian discourse about women in combat roles and the different treatment of women in captivity and their priority in liberation. I just now saw an enthusiastic article by Ben Caspit who solemnly declares that the debate about women in combat roles is over. So absolutely not.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://news.walla.co.il/item/3624714&ved=2ahUKEwiHsorcnuCCAxX2RfEDHQTTDN8QFnoECAkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3xwyjc9LK7VigKj4h8Hy01

There is a reason to prefer the release of women over men that is not related to Israeli feminism, but to Hamas chauvinism. Women who are in the custody of jihadists, members of a society that is much more conservative than Israel, which systematically oppresses women - such women are at a higher risk of suffering rape and sexual humiliation. This is beyond the mental and physical torture that is the lot of all those involved in the war.

I do not think that this is a decisive reason to prioritize the release of women according to the criteria by which it was done in this deal. Here they preferred to release women with their children. Here, I would prefer that they also release the fathers whose wives and children were released, and not a woman whose children are not in captivity.

It's a bit strange to read a solemn announcement whose two parts contradict each other and the first also contradicts itself.
If they will suffer more in captivity, that's a reason not to let them fall into captivity, that is, to prevent them from fighting roles. This is the internal contradiction in the first part.
And if there is a reason to release them earlier, then why aren't you in favor of releasing them earlier? This is the contradiction between the parts.

Mikhi, you have given conceptual confusion and a lot of decisive words about contradictions that do not exist.

“And if there is a reason to release them earlier, then why are you not in favor of releasing them earlier?” You are confusing the claim that a consideration supports the decision with the claim that a consideration tips the scales in favor of a decision. I am arguing the former, not the latter. In the letter I spoke about the preference for releasing female prisoners of war from Hamas over male prisoners of war. In the letter I spoke about specific ways in which women were prioritized in the deal made with Hamas. As I said, I do not think that the consideration in the letter tips the scales in favor of adopting the specific ways to prioritize women in this deal. In any case, there is no contradiction between the parts.

“If they will suffer more in captivity, that is, to prevent them from fighting roles”. Yes, if they will suffer more, that is, to protect them from being captured. One way to do this is to prevent them from combat roles that would put them at risk of being captured, and therefore this is a consideration in favor of excluding them from combat roles. Since I did not speak about placing women in combat roles explicitly, I will now add that I do not think that this consideration will tip the scales in favor of excluding them from combat roles here either.

The diagnosis I made is not foreign to you or any of the readers. An example will illustrate this. Hamas explicitly says that they will treat Israelis with foreign passports more favorably, which would be a consideration in favor of preferring to fill the ranks of our fighters with Israeli citizens with foreign passports. Relying on this consideration, we argue in favor of filling the ranks of the divisions now in Gaza with Israeli fighters who have foreign passports. But any fool knows that this cannot be a decisive consideration in favor of this specific decision. As homework, think about the many other reasons why this decision is utter folly.

Right. I was wrong. The common argument is simply that there are no counter-considerations (the debate has been decided, as Ben Caspit wrote), and so I saw a contradiction here.

By the way, when I talked about "equal discourse" I didn't mean feminism. I'm a feminist too. I meant discourse that factually compares women to men. That's why your words didn't touch on my argument. That's probably what misled me in understanding your words.

I don't know what the "discourse that compares women to men factually" is. It could mean a lot of things. Here are two things I'm sure of.

One, there's some stupid version of feminism that thinks that men and women are generally the same in terms of biological traits that they differ in. For example, men tend to be physically stronger than women. This translates into higher achievements for men when comparing the achievements of the most athletic men to the achievements of the most athletic women. Despite this, some try to deny this fact or at least ignore it when it's inconvenient for them.

Second, there's some equally stupid version of conservatism that denies the fact that there are plenty of women who are athletic enough to perform combat roles and mentally strong enough to survive it. Statistically, when it comes to athleticism, there are fewer of them than men, but they exist and in high enough numbers to be noticeable. And yet, there are those who deny this, even though reality is knocking on their door with a tank full of brave women who did a good job on October 7th. There are people in my life who deny all the stories of the heroism of women fighters on October 7th, because they simply cannot deal with these facts.

I have tolerated these conservatives in the yeshiva for too long and after October 7th, I got tired of them. My formative experience in this regard is what my cousin went through when she wanted to enlist in combat instead of doing national service. She was subjected to a barrage of intimidation that was thrown at her for no reason. People told her that she would get every possible disease related to muscles, bones, uterus and ovaries, if she was combat-related. They took her to talks with rabbis and meetings with “survivors” of combat service in the IDF and fed her complete fabrications, which even I bought for my own clothes at the time. She was all over us and was right in a big way.

Want to be conservative? Have fun. Think God wants a woman to be a womb with legs and hands for washing dishes – Sorry, I mean a pious and modest woman who is in charge of her marriage and takes care of the children while I study Torah and support the family? Your right. Cite halachic sources to show that this is what the halachic dictates it should be. (And I wonder, are there any? Every now and then when the subject comes up, they talk to me about Torah opinion, but it sounds more and more like the opinion of the beloved rabbi about the speaker). Don't tell me far-fetched stories about what women in general can do with a Tabor or a tank caterpillar. There are enough of them who can do the job and want to do it. At least in that, Ben Caspit is right.

I can't believe I just agreed with Ben Caspit on something. Maybe the Messiah is on the way.

Just to clarify: In the closing paragraph, I did not intend to describe the opinion of Michi or the opinion of the questioner. The "want" and "want" were directed at those stupid conservatives I described earlier.

No sane person claims that there is no average difference between women and men. Nor does any sane person claim that every man is different from every woman. These are just stupid claims that ignore facts.
The claim that is made in the discourse is that women should be allowed to integrate into combat roles if they are physically suitable for it. That is, for those women who are endowed with skills that meet the criteria, and clearly there are some. In essence, the claim is that there should be no discrimination between women and men, but rather that women and men should be examined according to the same criteria and, accordingly, a suitability should be determined. This is the claim of the equality discourse to which I referred (since there is no average equality and certainly there is equality in certain individuals). The claim is that women and men should be treated equally according to suitability for the role.
In response to this, the questioner raised the claim that this discourse ignores the sensitivity of women falling into captivity, even those endowed with the fitness and strength of Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) or Maradona. This sensitivity is emerging very clearly these days (and I also mentioned it in my column on breaking paradigms), and he claimed that for some reason it doesn't prevent people from continuing to ignore it in the discourse on recruiting women for combat roles. I completely agreed with that, and I still agree. There is a contradiction here. I brought up Ben Caspit, who writes that the debate is over, and he ignores the fact that the fact that women fought bravely does not answer these claims. By the way, the fact that they fought bravely does not even mean that they can load shells into a tank (the example he himself gave). It also does not mean that they will not suffer from very serious health damage (what you brought about about your relative), and there are many and difficult claims about such damage to many women. I have even seen numbers that paint a very difficult picture. My feeling, without checking the facts that are unknown to me, is that both sides are biased (those in favor ignore the damage and those against emphasize it too much).
In short, the picture you present here, of foolish conservatives and foolish egalitarians, is also simplistic and irrelevant.
You are certainly right to write that there is room for discussion to what extent these differences should prevent women from being assigned to combat roles, or that other considerations reject them. This is a discussion about the weight of these arguments and it is a legitimate discussion. But ignoring these aspects and taking a firm position (as is customary in the discourse) is biased, and in this the questioner is right and I completely agree with him.

I have a few problems with what you wrote.

First, according to what you claimed that no sane person claims, it is clear that there are a lot of insane people in the world. The opinions I described exist, I have encountered them a lot in my life, and they are even quite widespread. Those who claim them are wrong and are flattening the discussion on the subject of recruiting women for combat roles, not crazy. This also answers the conclusion of your words about the picture I presented. It was not superficial, but focused on those who hold stupid versions of positions that have better representatives.

Second, you are again talking about a contradiction between two things: “the sensitivity of women being captured, even those who are endowed with fitness and strength” and the idea that ”women should be allowed to integrate into combat roles if they are physically suitable for it”. There is no contradiction between the two, nor even an internal inconsistency. You can hold both, without a trace of inconsistency. As you have noticed, it all depends on the weight given to each of the considerations in question. I will say something non-exhaustive about these weights later.

Third, the aforementioned are two considerations that push in opposite directions in the decision regarding the recruitment of women for combat roles: the assessment of a woman's physical ability is a consideration in favor of her recruitment for combat, and the sensitivity regarding her capture is a consideration against it. This is perhaps why you see them as a contradiction, although, as mentioned, there is none. Ignoring one of them is something that can be criticized in itself as ignoring a relevant consideration, a consideration that calls for consideration. This ignoring is perhaps worthy of criticism in itself, although it is not an internal contradiction or inconsistency.

Fourth, and this is the important part, I will say something about the weight given to each of these considerations. Before that, I will be precise about what things are supposed to be. I will focus on the public debate surrounding what state institutions, primarily the army, will do with those women who are interested in enlisting for combat roles. In this discussion, the participants make use of two sets of considerations. One is the needs and constraints that the army has as a body with a clear purpose – to fight effectively. The other is normative perceptions of the place of women in society.

The events of October 7, I think, provided overwhelming evidence toward establishing the following fact: the women who enlisted to fight fought effectively. These women were part of all the same units that worked well on October 7 and in the battle for the encirclement in the early days of the war. Clearly, effective fighting is possible with women in combat.

This is the place to talk about the fact that women are more vulnerable to sexual abuse in captivity than men. This falls under the second category of arguments, because the premise behind this claim is that it is society's duty to protect its women. My cousin rejected this argument in disgust (I called her and asked). She said she was willing to take this risk on herself, and saw this defense as a very exaggerated one, one that treats women as vulnerable creatures who need to be protected (I describe her opinion in my own words). She was upset, really angry, at the very idea that she needed to be protected like this. She said something like “You won't protect me, I'll protect all of us” and she said that this argument was an attempt to “suffocate in hugs” (The exact quote is “Stop suffocating in hugs” and it was said with immediate disgust as a first reaction to the argument).

My interpretation of what she said is that in a sense, she did not solve the question of balance, but rather superseded it. She rejects the idea that society should protect itself by preventing combat service, without rejecting the basic premise that society in general has a duty to protect its members from what endangers them, including women. In fact, it sounds to me that the duty of society to protect its members, including women, is the reason she enlisted. She wants to do her part to contribute as directly as possible to the defense of society, and sees the benefit that society can derive from her service as something much more important than the risk she takes on herself. Furthermore, she says that she herself is better protected with weapons and training in warfare. I hadn't thought about it until I spoke to her, but the risk of being kidnapped is very slim, while the chance that this knowledge will help her protect herself in operational service and her fellow citizens is much greater.

This is not an exhaustive discussion of the balance between these considerations, but it is a start. For example, opponents could try to establish the idea that the willingness of my cousin and others like her to take on this risk does not matter. From past experience, I don't think I am likely to acquire this experience, and I assume I am not alone.

Furthermore, a word about the treatment of captives in this transaction. I have a problem with the way you characterized what the questioner said. In addition, I disagree with the connection you made between the treatment of captives in this deal and the opening of combat roles to women, and in particular the way you see the set of considerations through which the deal is examined and the connection between them and the set of considerations through which women's service in combat roles is examined. There are important gaps between these two sets of considerations, although there are common considerations. I will not go into that for now, because I have already written too much. That will wait until tomorrow.

You're just insisting. There aren't many insane people. No one really thinks either of these two extremes. When you say such statements, you don't mean them literally. And doesn't anyone agree that there are different women and different men? And doesn't anyone agree that, on average, men are stronger?

The same goes for the contradiction. I explained it well and will come back to it one last time. Some people claim that there are no counterarguments and the debate was decided when it turned out that they fought bravely. This contradicts the preference for women in liberation. Logically contradictory. This is not the claim that one argument outweighs the other, but rather the claim that the other side is talking nonsense and has no case at all.

Ziza, your cousin is willing to accept this for herself. My grandmother is interested. After she falls into captivity, she won't stand here in front of the government as we see today. And of course, when there is a female captive, the price can be different than a male captive. This is typical naivety. It's just like saying I'm driving 150 km/h and I'm willing to take the risk. Don't worry about me getting hurt.

That's it. I'm done, unless something new comes up here.

Well, it was said with determination, decisiveness and decision and there was even a little celebration at the end. At least I won't take that from you.

Rise and succeed.