If we take into account reports from this past year about the "success" of attempts to integrate women into combat positions in the Armored Corps, we find that it is very problematic. Unfortunately, it seems as if the pilot that put women in tank units wasn't even a partial success, despite what was reported. In effect, all the female soldiers who took part in it, failed. The physiological differences between them and the men won out, and the motivated, courageous female soldiers couldn't meet the physical demands of the training. The same thing happened with the female soldiers in the mixed-gender Caracal infantry battalion.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

There, too, the women were required to meet the demands of infantry riflemen, just like the men, and now that has been dropped to the standard for combat intelligence or combat engineering troops – meaning they carry fewer magazines in their belts. This happened because of the high number of female soldiers who dropped out during training because of physical injuries. There was an enormous number of stress fractures and other injuries. The IDF's solution, when faced with these sad figures in 2017, was to make the training easier for everyone, thereby lowering the operational level of all the soldiers in the battalion.

While the question of physiological differences between the sexes is often relegated to a niche argument, it's time we talk about the difference between men and women when it comes to courage, the ability to handle danger, defend their partners, and seek to confront the enemy in battle.

A series of studies conducted at the University of Haifa by Professor Zeev Weinstock and his team, which includes myself, examined the answer to the question about social views of gender differences when it comes to the aforementioned questions in a few different societal groups in Israel (Jews, Muslims, Druze).

The research showed that while men and women were in favor of integrating women into combat roles in the IDF, when it came to practical issues, such as whom you would choose to defend you if you felt threatened, the answer was different. Most women reported that they would opt for a male bodyguard, and men said they didn't need protection at all. Other comparative questions found that members of both genders think that men are the ones who should be brave, take risks, and defend women. No one thought the opposite. And when asked directly, "Who do you think is better suited to combat roles in the army that require face-to-face confrontation with the enemy?" most answered "men." In the moment of truth, most of the answers expressed opposition to sending women into battle.

The answer to the question of female combat soldiers has been shaped by gender ideology that aspires to equality between the sexes. The answer to questions about how individuals deal with difficulty, however, exposes a tendency to functional pragmatism, that acknowledges the physical differences between the sexes. That explains the discrepancy between the responses.

The current discourse, led by radical pragmatism, expresses a desire for total equality between men and women. But when that discourse encourages young women to test themselves in combat roles like the Sayeret Matkal, the result – aside from physical injury – is that they wind up not fulfilling their potential in other important jobs.

The battlefield doesn't go easier on one sex than another, and no person is capable of changing physiological and social facts. Many IDF generals know this to be true but are attacked whenever they express their deep concern. The desire to see women reach top-level roles in society is, no doubt, a positive goal, but not at any price. IDF commanders must take a brave stand against people seeking to promote an agenda and stop putting female soldiers' health at risk, and instead focus on security and victory. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Ultimately, women prefer to be defended by men appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The disparity between the sexes, which in the past was biased against women, has led to the establishment of powerful feminist organizations, the passing of legislation and increased public awareness that have dramatically changed the balance of power between the sexes in Western society. If there is a disparity between men and women, it is usually the result of personal choice and not the dictate of society. If she has the necessary skills and ability, a woman can now aspire to be whatever she desires. The issue of domestic violence, once the banner of the feminist revolution, has also noted significant achievements through like the establishment of centers for battered women and the public consensus that there should be zero tolerance for any form of violence against women.

Just as with the other movements that achieved their goals and realized their visions, the feminist movement should have lauded its achievements with pride and renounced its victim narrative.

But because making such a statement would eradicate the political and economic power of the female lobby, they have found a new mantra and that is the harming of men. Today, as it currently stands, the feminist revolution is mainly concerned with gender rights, not human rights. For example, despite research indicating men suffer from domestic violence, we concern ourselves only with violence perpetrated against women, instead of focusing on violence in general. It seems the working assumption of those who continue to claim discrimination is that if things are bad for men, they will be better for women. Campaigns like #MeToo pop up with the aim of "re-educating" the masculine gender. If in the past, we women fought for our right to be heard and to prevent victimization, today we have become the victimizers.

This campaign of delegitimization has not passed over the government and judicial institutions responsible for creating the discriminatory laws against men. No lawmaker, minister or judge wants to be responsible for making a decision or remaining silent on the subject of the protection of women and then learn another woman has been abused or God forbid murdered.

So, while the victimhood narrative could be understood at the outset of the feminist revolution when it was necessary to better women's standing in society, today we must ask: Is this narrative still necessary? Will we necessarily have it good if men have it bad? Although the feminist movement has done much to open doors and shatter glass ceilings for women, we should now contemplate a new path, a path in which we renounce our weakened position, encourage women to take responsibility for their own lives, speak out when they face discrimination, file a police complaint when they are abused and work harder and with determination to get wherever they want to be.

The post A position of strength appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The empirical basis for this statistic is flimsy and misleading. In Israel, only one noteworthy survey on this issue has been conducted, using around 2,500 women, and it is from 1999. The WIZO poll did not inquire about violence within the family in a general sense; rather it focused primarily on violence against women because it was financed by people influenced by biases promoted by women's groups. Since 1999, it has not dawned on the State of Israel to re-examine this issue in an equal and applicable manner.

Despite the poll's gender bias against men, the percentage of women who reported being violent against men is significant and certainly not trivial. In general, the most important finding showed that violent relationships are characterized by multiple layers of conflict and that violent domestic interaction consists of mutually harmful behavior that goes both ways. Therefore, the aforementioned figure of 200,000 women who suffer from domestic abuse, which WIZO presents every year in every report, is merely recycled and baseless speculation buoyed more by special interests than proper research.

When examining the hundreds of surveys and research papers conducted in Western countries on violence between domestic partners, we find that women are no less prone to violence than men. Studies have shown that the most significant and dangerous predictor of violence toward women has is often their own violent behavior. Many violent men suffer from continual violence and aggression themselves, which ultimately leads to a dangerous cycle of violence. As for children, some polls show that domestic abuse from the mother is more prevalent than from the father.

How is it possible that the 50 years of research comprising consistent findings from hundreds of surveys have failed to alter the false impression that men are solely responsible for domestic abuse?

To answer this question we must first look at the public discourse, which is driven more by ideology and less by actual research. Secondly, this false picture coincides with our gender prejudices. And thirdly, the public discourse is dominated by just one actor who controls the messages disseminated via the media – women's groups and their lobby in the Knesset.

These groups receive funds in accordance with how they present the problem to the public. If their conclusions are correct, the time has come to ask how, after the many millions of shekels they have received over the decades, the magnitude of the problem remains unaffected?

Where has the money gone, aside from the unremitting campaign of demonization aimed at the male gender? And what good has it done?

Domestic violence, more than any other subject in the social sciences, has remained entrenched in its prejudiced views. This is because it relies on the erroneous paradigm endowed upon us by the radical feminist movement, whereby the entire problem stems from the "patriarchal" nature of society.

This paradigm does not bring us closer to solving the problem, but it does taint the relationship between the genders. It amplifies women's fear of men and vice versa, encourages the cynical use of sexual harassment and domestic abuse complaints, and exacerbates the discriminatory treatment of men in divorce proceedings, which consequently increases the number of children who grow up without a father present in their lives.

The time has come for us to stop talking about the problem of domestic violence as some patriarchal conspiracy and see it for what it is: a dynamic of escalating tensions between partners who, in their failure to communicate healthily and properly, use violence as a desperate recourse.

The post Feminism: It's not just men who are violent appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.