What exactly do you agree with in what he said?

That there is a contradiction between the egalitarian discourse about women in combat roles and the different attitude toward women in captivity and their priority for release. I only just now saw an impassioned article by Ben Caspit ceremoniously declaring 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 releasing women over men that has nothing to do with Israeli feminism, but rather with Hamas's chauvinism. Women who are in the hands of jihadists, members of a society far more conservative than Israel, one that systematically oppresses women—such women are at higher risk of suffering rape and sexual humiliation. That is on top of all the psychological and physical blows that are the lot of everyone involved in war.

I don't think that is a decisive reason to prioritize getting the women out according to the criteria used in this deal. Here they preferred to release women with their children. In this very context, I would have preferred that in that same round they also release the fathers whose wives and children were released, rather than a woman none of whose children are in captivity.

It's a bit strange to read a celebratory message whose two parts contradict one another, and the first part 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 serving in combat roles. That's the internal contradiction in the first part.
And if there is a reason to release them earlier, then why are you not in favor of releasing them earlier? That's the contradiction between the two parts.

Michi, you offered conceptual confusions and boastful, categorical talk about contradictions that don't exist.

“And if there is a reason to release them earlier, then why are you not in favor of releasing them earlier?” You're confusing the claim that a consideration supports a decision with the claim that a consideration decisively tips the scales in favor of a decision. I am claiming the former, not the latter. In the first part I was talking about a preference for releasing women from Hamas captivity, women in general, over men in general. In the second part I was talking about specific ways in which women were prioritized in the deal made with Hamas. As I said, I don't think the consideration in the first part decisively tips the scales in favor of adopting the specific ways of prioritizing women in this deal. So there is no contradiction between the two parts.

“If they will suffer more in captivity, that's a reason not to let them fall into captivity—that is, to prevent them from serving in combat roles.” Yes, if they will suffer more, that is a reason to protect them from falling into captivity. One way to do that is to prevent them from serving in combat roles that would place them at risk of being captured, and therefore it is a consideration in favor of excluding them from combat roles. Since I wasn't explicitly talking about assigning women to combat roles, I'll now add that I don't think this consideration there either would tip the scales in favor of excluding them from combat roles.

The distinction I made is not foreign to you or to any of the readers. An example will illustrate it. Hamas explicitly says that they will treat Israelis who hold a foreign passport better, which would be a consideration in favor of preferring to fill our fighting ranks with Israeli citizens who hold a foreign passport. Based on this consideration, one might argue for filling the lines of the divisions now in Gaza with Israeli soldiers who have a foreign passport. But every idiot knows that this cannot be a decisive consideration in favor of that specific decision. As homework, think about the abundance of other reasons why that decision would be utter folly.

You're right. I was mistaken. It's just that the common claim is that there are no counter-considerations at all (the debate has been settled, as Ben Caspit wrote), and so I saw a contradiction here.

By the way, when I spoke about “egalitarian discourse,” I didn't mean feminism. I'm a feminist too. I meant discourse that factually equates women with men. So your remarks didn't address my claim. That's probably what misled me in understanding what you were saying.

I don't know what “discourse that factually equates women with men” means. It could mean a lot of things. Here are two things I'm sure of.

First, there is some stupid version of feminism that thinks men and women, in general, are identical in biological traits in which they differ. For example, men tend to be physically stronger than women. This translates into higher achievements for men when you compare the achievements of the most athletic men with the achievements of the most athletic women. Nevertheless, some try to deny this fact, or at least ignore it when it's inconvenient for them.

Second, there is some no less stupid version of conservatism that denies the fact that there are plenty of women athletic enough to carry out combat roles and mentally strong enough to endure them. Statistically, when it comes to athletic ability, there are fewer of them than men, but they do exist, and in numbers high enough that you can clearly see them. And still, there are those who deny this, even though reality is pounding on their door with a tank full of brave female soldiers who did a good job on October 7. There are people in my life who deny all the stories of heroism by female fighters on October 7, because they simply cannot deal with these facts.

I put up with these conservatives in yeshiva for far too long, and after October 7, I've had enough of them. My formative experience in this context is what my cousin went through when she wanted to enlist in a combat role instead of going to national service. She got hit with a barrage of scare tactics hanging on nothing. People told her she would get every possible illness related to muscles, bones, uterus, and ovaries if she served in combat. They took her to talks with rabbaniyot and meetings with “survivors” of combat service in the IDF and fed her complete fabrications, which, to my shame, even I bought at the time. She brushed all of us off and was absolutely right.

Want to be conservatives? Fine. Think God wants a woman to be a womb with legs and hands for washing dishes—sorry, I mean a pious and modest woman with the Divine Presence resting in her marriage, taking care of the children while I learn Torah and support the family? That's your right. Quote halakhic sources to show that this is what Jewish law says ought to be. (And I, being insignificant, wonder: are there such sources? Every so often when this topic comes up people talk to me about da'at Torah, but it sounds more and more like the opinion of the rabbi admired by the speaker.) But don't tell me absurd fairy tales about what women in general can do with a Tavor rifle or a tank tread. There are enough of them who can do the job and want to do it. On that at least, Ben Caspit is right.

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

Just to clarify: in the closing paragraph I didn't mean to describe Michi's view or the questioner's view. The “want to” etc. was directed at those stupid conservatives I described earlier.

No sane person claims there is no average difference between women and men. And no sane person claims that every man differs from every woman. Those are just silly claims that ignore facts.
The claim that comes up in the discourse is that women should be allowed to integrate into combat roles if they are physically suited to them. That is, those women who have the abilities that meet the criteria—and obviously there are such women. Basically, the claim is that one should not discriminate between women and men, but rather examine women and men according to the same criteria and determine suitability accordingly. That is the claim of the equality discourse I was referring to (since there is no equality on average, though there certainly is equality in certain individuals). The claim is that equal treatment should be given to women and men based on suitability for the role.
Against this, the questioner raised the argument that this discourse ignores the sensitivity of women falling into captivity, even those who are endowed with the fitness and strength of Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) or Maradona. This sensitivity is becoming very clear these days (and I also mentioned it in my column on breaking the paradigms), and he argued that for some reason this does not bother people enough to stop them from continuing to ignore it in the discourse about drafting women into combat roles. With that I completely agreed, and I still agree. There is a contradiction here. I cited Ben Caspit, who writes that the debate is over, and he ignores the fact that women having fought bravely does not answer those arguments. By the way, the fact that they fought bravely doesn't even mean they can load shells into a tank (the example he himself gave). Nor does it mean they won't suffer very severe health damage (what you brought up about your relative), and there are many serious claims about such damage among many women. I've even seen figures that paint a very grim picture. My sense, without having checked the facts that I don't know, is that both sides are biased (those in favor ignore the damage, and those against overemphasize it).
In short, the picture you present here too, of foolish conservatives and foolish egalitarians, is simplistic and not substantive.
You were absolutely right to write that there is room to discuss to what extent these differences should prevent assigning women to combat roles, or whether other considerations override them. That is a discussion about the weight of these arguments, and it is a legitimate discussion. But ignoring these aspects and staking out a categorical position (as is common in the discourse) is tendentious, and in that the questioner was right and I completely agree with him.

I have several problems with what you wrote.

First, based on what you said no sane person claims, it seems there are a great many insane people in the world. The views I described exist, I've encountered them a lot in my life, and they are actually fairly widespread. The people who make them are mistaken and flatten the discussion about drafting women to combat roles, not insane. That also answers the end of your remarks about the picture I presented. It wasn't superficial, but focused on people holding stupid versions of positions that have better representatives.

Second, once again you speak of a contradiction between two things: “the sensitivity of women falling into captivity, even those endowed with fitness and strength” and the idea that “women should be allowed to integrate into combat roles if they are physically suited to them.” There is no contradiction between the two, not even an internal inconsistency. One can hold both, without the slightest inconsistency. As you noted, everything depends on the weight one gives to each of the considerations in question. I'll say something non-exhaustive about those weights shortly.

Third, the things under discussion are two considerations pulling in opposite directions in deciding about drafting women to combat roles: assessing a woman's physical ability is a consideration in favor of drafting her to combat, and the sensitivity regarding her falling into captivity is a consideration against it. That may be why you see a contradiction between them, although as noted there is none. Ignoring one of them is something that can be criticized in itself as ignoring a relevant consideration, one that calls for attention. That ignoring may perhaps deserve criticism in itself, even though it is not a contradiction or internal inconsistency.

Fourth, and this is the important part, I'll say something about the weight given to each of these considerations. Before that, I'll be precise about what we're discussing. I will focus on the public debate around what state institutions, headed by the army, should do with those women who want to enlist in combat roles. In this debate, participants use two groups of considerations. The first is the needs and constraints of the army as a body with a clear purpose—to fight effectively. The second is normative conceptions of women's place in society.

The events of October 7, I think, provided enormous evidence toward establishing the following fact: the women who enlisted in combat fought effectively. These women were part of all those units that worked well on October 7 and in the battle over the Gaza border communities in the first days of the war. Clearly, effective combat is possible with women in battle.

This is the place to talk about the fact that women are more vulnerable than men to sexual abuse in captivity. That falls under the second category of arguments, because an underlying assumption behind that claim is that it is society's duty to protect its women. My cousin rejected this argument with disgust (I called her and asked). She said she is willing to take that risk upon herself, and sees this protection as greatly exaggerated, one that treats women as some fragile citron that must be protected (I'm describing her view in my own words). She was upset, really angry, at the very idea that people need to protect her like that. She said something like, “You won't protect me, I'll protect all of us,” and said that this argument is an attempt to “smother with hugs” (the exact quote was “enough smothering with hugs,” and it was said with disgust as an immediate first reaction to the argument).

My interpretation of what she said is that in a certain sense she didn't solve the balancing question, but made it unnecessary. She rejects the idea that society should protect her by preventing combat service, without rejecting the underlying assumption that society generally has a duty to protect its members from what puts them at risk, including women. In fact, it seems to me that society's duty to protect its members, including women, is the reason she enlisted. She seeks to do her part, to contribute her share in the most direct possible way to the defense of society, and sees the benefit society can derive from her service as something far more important than the risk she takes upon herself. Beyond that, she says she herself is more protected with a weapon and combat training. I hadn't thought of this until I spoke to her, but the risk of being kidnapped is actually very slight, whereas the chance that this knowledge will help her defend herself, both in operational service and in civilian life, is much greater.

This is not an exhaustive discussion of the balance between these considerations, but it's a start. For example, opponents can try to establish the idea that my cousin's and others' willingness to take this risk upon themselves does not matter. From past experience, I don't think it's likely I'll buy that attempt, and I assume I'm not alone.

Beyond that, a word about the treatment of female captives in this deal. I have a problem with the way you characterized what the questioner said. In addition, I don't agree with the connection you drew between the treatment of female captives in this deal and opening combat roles to women, and especially with the way you see the set of considerations through which the deal is evaluated and the relation between them and the set of considerations through which women's service in combat roles is evaluated. There are important gaps between these two sets of considerations, even though there are considerations they share. I won't get into that for now, because I've already written too much. That can wait till tomorrow.

You're just being stubborn. There aren't lots of insane people. No one really thinks either of those two extremes. When people make such statements they don't mean them literally. Does anyone disagree that women differ from one another and men differ from one another? Does anyone disagree that on average men are stronger?

Same with the contradiction. I explained it well, and I'll repeat it one last time. There are people who claim there are no counterarguments and that the debate was settled once it became clear that they fight bravely. That contradicts preferring women in release. It is a logical contradiction. This is not the claim that one argument outweighs the other, but a claim that the other side is talking nonsense and has no case at all.

The fact that your cousin is willing to take that on herself interests my grandmother. After she falls into captivity, it won't be she who will be standing here before the government, as we are seeing today. And of course when there is a female captive, the price may be different from that of a male captive. This is characteristic disingenuousness. It's exactly like saying I drive at 150 kph and I'm willing to take the risk on myself. Don't treat me if I get hurt.

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

Well, it was said with determination, decisiveness, and finality, and there was even a touch of ceremony at the end. At least I won't take that away from you.

Go forth and prosper.