This one is for Elise, a propos a discussion she and I and some others had some years ago about women in combat, and in our case on the flight line.
This battle took place on the edge of the Gaza Strip in a couple of Israeli kibutzes on 7 Oct.
The women's remarks are illuminating, a couple them reminiscent of Zara's comment re woman scorned, although Zara was mild and benevolent.
https://danielgordis.substack.com/p/the-first-women-led-armored-battle
Eric Hines
14 comments:
With due respect for springing into combat, this was one tank and an armored Hummer vs irregular infantry and a front-end loader? I don’t know how you have a tank battle without both sides having at least one tank.
I’m all in favor of making the odds as unfair as possible in favor of the good guys (a gender neutral term, I hear). Im just thinking that probably women can reliably win tank battles in which they have the only tank.
Actually had three, and the battle was more of wits than weapon on weapon, and the cool the women showed under the stress. Including figuring out how to fight the weapons on the APV they encountered. Besides, tanks fight a whole lot more than other tanks, which, from this USAF veteran's perspective, is why they have more weapons on board than just a honking big long gun.
And the importance of training and drill, something of which our own Army of late could profit from.
Eric Hines
I’m prepared to concede that properly trained women of energy and virtue can probably win tank battles when they have the only three tanks as well.
Of course. However, lots of male-only tank crews, having the only tanks in the battle, have lost to enemies with RPGs and anti-tank weapons. These three crews, perhaps anecdotally or on trend--the sample is small to tell--didn't.
Eric Hines
Good job not blowing a three-tank advantage.
To paraphrase Jeff Cooper, 'the first rule of tankfighting is to have a tank'.
Thanks for this, Eric. It seems to me that the all-woman aspect is important to the reporters and to the higher-ups but not to the women themselves. As one of the soldiers points out, the terrorists did not know the Israelis in the tanks were women.
I am surprised that they were the first. If I'd had to guess, I would have said that the Soviet Union probably had female tank crews in WW2. I do notice that the article specifies "women-led" and one of the officers is careful to say that Israel has the only women tank crews among Western countries.
I chuckled when the reporter asked "you were running over terrorists?" The soldier he was talking to replied briefly and the reply was translated as "yes". I kind of wonder whether "duh" might have been a more colloquial translation.
I have two somewhat contradictory reactions to the "woman" aspect. One is that given the level of sexual violence visited against women in the October 7 massacre, it is nice to see women killing the perpetrators and potential perpetrators. Sort of like a women with a gun stopping a rapist, writ large.
The other is that the emphasis on the "woman" aspect is somewhat "othering" in the sense that men doing this is considered the norm. This is an idea that's been rattling around in my head for a couple of years, prompted by a picture on the Internet of a McDonald's that turned its "M" upside down to celebrate International Women's Day. I’m sure that was supposed to make me feel warm and fuzzy and loved but instead it made me feel like an animal in the zoo: something odd to be stared at, not quite human, appreciated on special occasions but not really part of things. There is a quote in an Agatha Christie novel that sums this up quite well. I’m out of time this evening but I’ll dig it out and post it tomorrow.
the emphasis on the "woman" aspect is somewhat "othering"
Part of the emphasis, I speculate, comes from the interviewer: he's a journalist, and women being the entirety of a tank crew, much less of three tanks, still is unusual, and so is news. As you noted, though, the women didn't think much of it, and while their male commander was careful to point out the unusualness, I had the impression that he was doing that, not out of surprise, but as "See?"
Eric Hines
It turns out I was thinking of two different scenes in the same book, Appointment With Death by Agatha Christie. The book was copyrighted in 1937. A party of tourist is traveling together to Petra. Among them are Lady Westholme, a “very well-known figure in the English political world”; Miss Pierce, a vague middle-aged woman; and Miss Sarah King, a young doctor who has just taken her degree.
The first scene occurs between Lady Westholme and Sarah King. Lady Westholme says to Sarah, “You are a professional woman, Miss King?”
“I’ve just taken my M.B.”
“Good,” said Lady Westholme with condescending approval. “If anything is to be accomplished, make my words, it is women who will do it.”
Uneasily conscious for the first time of her sex...
In the second scene, Miss Pierce is expressing her admiration of Lady Westholme to Sarah and says, “I’m always so glad when a woman accomplishes something!”
“Why?” demanded Sarah ferociously.
Miss Pierce’s mouth fell open and she stammered a little.
“Oh, because—I mean — just because—well—it’s so nice that women are able to do things!”
“I don’t agree,” said Sarah. “It’s nice when any human being is able to accomplish something worth while! It doesn’t matter a bit whether it’s a man or a woman. Why should it?”
“Well, of course—“ said Miss Pierce. “Yes—I confess—of course, looking at it in that light—“
But she looked slightly wistful.
“I’m sorry, but I do hate this differentiation between the sexes. ‘The modern girl has a thoroughly businesslike attitude to life!’ That sort of thing. It’s not a bit true! Some girls are businesslike and some aren’t. Some men are sentimental and muddle-headed, other are clear-headed and logical. There are just different types of brains. Sex only matters where sex is directly concerned.”
End of scenes.
I find it rather discouraging that 86 years later we haven't managed to get to Sarah's view of things. It's what I hoped second-wave feminism would be but instead we get upside-down McDonald's signs.
...instead we get upside-down McDonald's signs.
I disagree: they got upside-down McDonald's signs. You--we--when we keep our wits about us, move on. There are more of those Sarahs today than gets publicized. Which, in a particular way, is progress.
Eric Hines
I hope you're right, Eric.
I'm always right, Elise.
Except when I'm wrong.
Eric Hines
Really? So am I. What a coincidence.
Then it becomes a question of whether we dovetail or coincide.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment