There is a claim that drafting women into combat is part of a broader trend to encourage women to be masculine and succeed in masculine fields, leading to a blurring of female distinctiveness. This creates social pressure on women and sidelines feminine virtues, expressed first and foremost in reduced investment in family, and therefore it is worth opposing this trend.

What do you think?

In the current war we saw that those who fell into captivity were not from the combat units. These were mainly surveillance soldiers and civilians.

My opinion is that this is a stupid argument. Even if it were true (and it really isn’t), so what? Women have the right to enlist wherever they want, for whatever reason they want. And if you don’t like their motives—take a pill.

Haim, how is that relevant to the discussion?

In my opinion there are a few more reasons as well (actually pretty well known). I’ll mention two:
These are only technical reasons, and theoretically they can be solved.

Mixed-gender service reduces combat professionalism, mainly among the men. And true, you wrote “separate units,” but the separation will not really work in battle, if at all. Just like the Haredi units are not really separate. Not to mention that separation would not be looked on favorably by progressives.

A second reason is that once there are women’s units, efforts will be directed toward finding women instead of focusing blindly on capability. Naturally, women are endowed with less strong physical abilities than men, and the units will be staffed not only by female fighters who can meet the male standard (as happens every time they try to recruit specifically women for something rather than a specific ability. A close example is the criticism of the agents guarding Trump, whose bodies were not large enough to shield Trump, and it was evident that their capabilities were not as high as the men’s. There certainly are women who can do it, but relatively not many, and they were not careful to find them). The result is that these will be physically weaker units. I’ll remind you that this is not inevitable, just what will probably happen.

Those are exactly the two points that appear in what I wrote.

I didn’t understand why this is a stupid argument. If this is a trend that is harmful to society in general, it makes sense for society to oppose it and not allow it to advance, just like any other trend that harms society, regardless of an individual person’s right to do what he wants.

Why is it not true that this is connected to that trend? Did women just wake up one fine morning and decide they wanted to take part in combat?

Because dubious assessments about people’s trends or motives (which are legitimate in themselves even if you disagree with them) cannot justify discrimination and harming the IDF’s effectiveness. Would you accept an argument not to admit leftists into the Air Force because their tendency is to create pressure points for refusal to serve? Or not to admit religious people into combat units because their tendency is fascistic—to settle the land and abuse Arabs?

If leftists or religious people really did have such a tendency, would it still be advisable to accept them?

This is not a question of what is advisable. Even if it is not advisable, they should still be drafted. Ideological battles should be conducted separately.

I’m having trouble understanding your position. When we come to determine a certain social policy, shouldn’t we consider what is good for society in general (including ideological considerations) and set the rules of conduct accordingly? That is what legislators do all the time.

Simply put, it seems that the debate over drafting women into combat (and feminism in general) is whether the good of society is to blur the differences between women and men (usually meaning that women adopt male conduct and roles, not the other way around) or to sharpen those differences and direct each gender in a different direction. It does not seem to me that the common expressions “discrimination” and “exclusion” are really relevant to this question.

Doron, you are repeating the question you asked. I answered you and gave two examples. If you disagree, address them and explain why.

I didn’t understand the answer. If admitting leftists into the Air Force really would create a tendency toward pressure through refusal to serve that harms state security, and if admitting religious people into combat units encourages a dangerous tendency toward fascism, then indeed it would be called for and entirely reasonable to prevent this by any possible means (unless the alternative is worse). Don’t you agree with that? Or do you agree, except that you think drafting women into combat does not encourage a trend of gender blurring, or alternatively that it does encourage such a trend but in your opinion it is not harmful to society?

I wrote that I do not agree. I am very surprised by someone who does agree. According to that, every majority will exclude the minority from every influential role. Does that seem reasonable to me?
As for your question at the end, neither of the two answers is correct. It may encourage blurring and it may not (the concept itself is blurry). It may be harmful and it may not (I tend to think not). But even if it did encourage blurring and I thought that was harmful, I would still oppose acting on that basis. Such a debate should be conducted in the Knesset, not by excluding people from roles and positions. Would you really accept a left-wing government that does not draft religious people or settlers? Or a right-wing government that does not draft leftists? Are you serious?