Why Woman Should not be in Combat - Elaine Donnelly CMR

ELAINE DONNELLY Center for Military Readiness 2016 Message from Elaine  . . .   December 29, 2015 TO: Rabbi David Eidensohn       Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,     At this time last year I predicted that 2015 would be a difficult year for our military. Sure enough, on December 3, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter grimly announced that he was ignoring the best professional advice of the U.S. Marine Corps on an issue that will affect countless military women, men, and even unsuspecting civilian women of Selective Service registration age.   For months, the Department of Defense imposed gag orders and secrecy to accomplish "gender diversity" in the combat arms without congressional oversight or interference. Despite those efforts to hide the truth, the Center for Military Readiness stepped up to do the work that Congress and larger organizations failed to do.   Time and again, with your help, CMR kept obtaining, reporting, and analyzing the extensive new research on women in direct ground combat.   As you may know, University of Pittsburgh experts working with the U.S. Marine Corps found that physical differences between men and women do matter in the crucible of direct ground combat.  Scientific measurements found that in field tests, gender-mixed task force teams failed 69% of the time.  Both Marine and Army Medical Command reports also confirmed that women suffered injuries at least twice as often as men - more in units that routinely carry heavy loads on the way to find and fight the enemy.  Disproportionate levels of fatigue affected speed and even marksmanship - factors that are essential for what the Marines called "survivability and lethality" in direct ground combat.  You can see partial results of CMR's work in this long list of articles and commentaries - many of which highlighted facts that CMR was first to report and analyze in 2015: Women in Ground Combat - Part 8 ˗ Definitive Research and Commentaries.   Additional reports and documents, which the Pentagon held back for months, are only now coming to light. In a year when Americans will elect a new Commander-in-Chief, CMR's work will be more important than ever.   If you would like CMR to continue our work, please consider sending a year-end contribution and be as generous as you can. Your tax-deductible donation of any amount − $25, $50, $100, $500, $1,000, or more − will help CMR to pay our bills, replenish our funds, and prepare for significant challenges ahead.   You can send your tax-deductible contribution before the year's end by clicking on the electronic system in the box below, or by downloading this print form for sending in the December mail to our address, which is: CMR, P. O. Box 51600, Livonia, MI 48151   To thank you for a contribution of $100 or more, we will send you a bound copy of the two-section, 36-page Interim CMR Report ˗ Part II, summarized in this article:   Obama Administration Ignores Sound Military Advice on Women in Direct Ground Combat

Will Women be Drafted? - A Lengthy Document from the Select Service Administration

Will Women be Drafted?

 Here are the Federal documents that clearly point to the idea that within the coming year or so women will likely be eligible for the draft. Now that women have been cleared by the armed forced to perform regular combat, there is no essential difference any longer between men and women. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the only reason women do not have to be drafted is because they are not used for combat. Now that women are used officially by the military for combat, it would seem that women will be drafted.

We oppose women in the draft or even to register for the draft because women in college and the army away from home are often molested, as we provide the sources from Harvard University and the Federal Government elsewhere on this blog. Orthodox Jewish Law strongly condemns women with men anywhere, surely the military, which is known to produce much sexual abuse for women.

 Here is an official document from the Federal Select Service Administration that handles draft and register for the draft.

Document from the Select Service Administration about Women in the Draft

(Some emphasis added for crucial statements)

Backgrounder: Women and the Draft

While women officers and enlisted personnel serve with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces, women have never been subject to Selective Service registration or a military draft in America. Those women who served in the past and those who serve today in ever increasing numbers all volunteered for military service.

The U.S. came close to drafting women during World War II, when there was a shortage of military nurses. However, there was a surge of volunteerism and a draft of women nurses was not needed.

After America’s draft ended in 1973, the Selective Service System was maintained in a standby status, just in case a return to conscription became necessary during a crisis. After March 29, 1975, men no longer had to register and Selective Service was placed in "deep standby." But then, in 1980, President Carter reactivated the registration process for men in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and in reaction to reports that the standby Selective Service System might not meet wartime requirements for rapid manpower expansion of the active and reserve forces.

Although the specter of a future draft remained solely the concern of young men, discussions in Congress and the Administration about registering and conscripting women periodically took place. Section 811 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1980 (P.L. 96-107, Nov. 9, 1979) required the President to send to the Congress a plan for reforming the law providing for the registration and induction of persons for military service. The President sent his recommendations for Selective Service reform in a report dated Feb. 11, 1980. As noted above, the President requested reactivation of registration for men. But another recommendation to the Congress was that the act be amended to provide presidential authority to register, classify, and examine women for service in the Armed Forces. If granted, the President would exercise this authority when the Congress authorized the conscription of men. Although women would become part of the personnel inventory for the services to draw from, their use would be based on the needs and missions of the services. Department of Defense (DoD) policy, which was not to assign women to positions involving close combat, would continue. In response to these recommendations, the Congress agreed to reactivate registration, but declined to amend the act to permit the registration of women. In the legislative history for the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1981, the Senate Armed Services Committee report stated that the primary reason for not expanding registration to include women was DoD’s policy of not using women in combat. Additional reasons cited in the report included agreement by both civilian and military leadership that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women.

The exclusion of women from the registration process was challenged in the courts. A lawsuit brought by several men resulted in a 1980 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision that the MSSA’s gender-based discrimination violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the District Court enjoined registration under the Act. Upon direct appeal, in the case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), the Supreme Court reversed the District Court decision and upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, ruling that there was no violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court based its decision largely on DoD’s policy that excluded women from combat. The Court reasoned that since the purpose of registration was to create a pool of potential inductees for combat, males and females could be treated differently. The Court also noted its inclination to defer to Congress since draft registration requirements are enacted by Congress under its constitutional authority to raise armies and navies, and observed that Congress had in 1980 considered but rejected a proposal to expand registration to women.

In 1992, a Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces reexamined the issue of registration and conscription of women. In its November 1992 report, by a vote of 11 to 3, the Commission recommended that women not be required to register for or be subject to conscription. The Commission cited the 1981 Supreme Court decision in Rostker v. Goldberg upholding the exclusion of women from registration as the basis for its recommendation. The Commission also discussed enacting existing ground combat specialties exclusion policies into law to provide an additional barrier to the amendment of the MSSA to provide for the conscription of women. However, an appendix to its report suggested that public opinion was divided on the issue. The appendix, which included the results of a random telephone survey of 1,500 adults, showed that, in the event of a draft for a national emergency or threat of war (and assuming an ample pool of young men exists), 52 percent of respondents indicated women should be drafted, about 39 percent of respondents indicated women should not be drafted, and 10 percent responded they did not know.

In May 1994, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to update its mobilization requirements for the Selective Service System and, as a part of the effort, "continues to review the arguments for and against continuing to exclude women from registration now that they can be assigned to combat roles other than ground combat." In its subsequent report, the DoD position remained "that the restriction of females from assignments below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground, provides justification from exempting women from registration (and a draft) as set forth in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)." However, the report also recognized the vastly increased role being played by women in each of the Armed Services who, in Fiscal Year 1994, comprised 16 percent of recruits. "Because of this change in the makeup of the Armed Forces," the report observed, "much of the congressional debate which, in the court’s opinion, provided adequate congressional scrutiny of the issue...(in 1981) would be inappropriate today." While maintaining that it was not necessary to register or draft women, the DoD review concluded "the success of the military will increasingly depend upon the participation of women."

In 1998, at the request of U.S. Senator Charles Robb (D-VA), ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Readiness, Senate Armed Services Committee, the General Accounting Office (GAO) addressed a variety of questions related to gender equity in the military. Included was a budget and resource examination of the impact of requiring women to register with Selective Service. The GAO report* did not address the pros and cons regarding the exclusion of women from ground combat positions or from the Selective Service registration requirement, nor did it make any policy recommendations. Instead, GAO simply described the DoD position that there is no need to register women as "being consistent with its policy of restricting women from direct ground combat."On January 24, 2013, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members, following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Based on the American Forces Press Service’s news release, “Defense Department Expands Women’s Combat Role,” dated January 24, 2013, key statements are highlighted below:

The secretary announced that the service branches will continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. The change is intended to ensure that the best qualified and most capable service members, regardless of gender, are available to carry out the mission. Panetta added, “If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed, color, gender or sexual orientation.”

The secretary directed the military services to undertake an evaluation of all occupational performance standards to ensure they are up to date and gender-neutral. Specialty schools will be included in the evaluation, a senior defense official said. … the entire process is to be completed by January 1, 2016.

Once the policy is fully implemented, military occupations will be closed to women only by exception, and only if approved by the defense secretary, a senior defense official said.

UPDATE:  Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced on December 3, 2015, the Department of Defense will lift all gender-based restrictions on military service starting January. In response, Armed Services Committee Chairmen, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), issued a joint statement on December 3, 2015, saying, “Congress has a 30-day period to review the implications of today’s decision. … and receiving the Department’s views on any changes to the Selective Service Act that may be required as a result of this decision.”

As of December 3, 2015, there has been NO decision to require females to register with Selective Service, or be subject to a future military draft. Selective Service continues to register only men, ages 18 through 25.

---

(Compiled and edited by The Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, Selective Service System, December 2015.)

*Appendix I of the GAO report is entitled, "Historical Perspectives on Women and the Draft." It provides an excellent chronological summary about this issue and nearly all of it is incorporated, verbatim, in this paper.

---

Woman Must Not be Drafted;  Sexual Assault in the Military and at Harvard

Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn/845-578-1917/eidensohnd@gmail.com

An article on the Harvard University paper the Harvard Gazette, September 21, 2015, is about women in Harvard being sexually assaulted. The article was written by Christina Pazzanese Harvard Staff Writer and contains remarks by the President of Harvard Drew Faust. The purpose of this article here on this blog is to warn us about the contemporary strong Obama supported urge to get women in America drafted in the American army and be sent away to fight. Can we imagine how many of these women will suffer from such assaults? Here are the basic facts from Harvard. I say basic facts that they are true in the minimum, but they are a small fraction of the real amount, as we will quote from the official Federal Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, that any count of people complaining about being sexually assaulted is always a much smaller amount than the real amount. See Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military page 6 footnote 8. 

We begin with the basic facts discovered about Harvard girls being abused. Then we include the entire letter afterwards. Note that although sexual harassment is a problem, the crime of non-consensual penetration or attempt to do such is much worse. But to know as we quote below that 72.7 percent of Harvard undergraduate women report they were harassed at Harvard is shocking. 

 Quote from the article

 - Last April, the Harvard task force asked students to complete an online survey about sexual assault. Students were asked a series of questions about various kinds of sexual misconduct that they may have encountered while they were enrolled at the University, regardless of where or when the incident took place, or whether the perpetrator was part of the Harvard community. The survey focused on non-consensual sexual activity conducted through the use of physical force, incapacitation, or both.

The survey found that sexual harassment is a problem for women students all across the University, with 72.7 percent of undergraduate women reporting an incident of harassment during their time at Harvard.

Almost half of Harvard’s female graduate and professional School students reported being harassed, and 21.8 percent of these women said a faculty member had sexually harassed them.  Emphasis Mine. End quote.

 “Clearly, we must do more,” Faust wrote. “University leaders — starting with the president, the provost, and the deans — bear a critical part of the responsibility for shaping the climate and offering resources to prevent sexual assault and [to] respond when it does occur.” End quote. I feel this is a great mistake. Mixing young men and women in an environment filled with drinking and sex, filthy videos and reading material, is not conducive to the happiness of women who want to be left alone. If we don't get this straight, we miss the whole point. But of course, this is unthinkable because women must be men in today's secular world. But if they must be men and then must go into the army, what of the moral and religious and biblical women who believe that hanging out and talking a lot with men is wrong? Do they have rights as Americans, or should they leave the country or be put in jail? Again, the fact is that  never ever will young men and women living in dormitories filled with sexual arousal be free of forced sex.

 End of my remarks, Rabbi David Eidensohn. And beginning of the entire article from the Harvard Gazette Sept 21, 2015.

Harvard Gazette  -   September 21, 2015 |By Christina Pazzanese, Harvard Staff WriterPrevention of Sexual Assault – A Serious Problem in Harvard and Elsewhere By Christina Pazzanese, Harvard Staff Writer

In tandem with the release of findings from a new national survey of college and university students about sexual assault, the University’s Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault made Harvard’s data public Monday, including results that paint a disturbing picture of sexual misconduct here on campus.

In a 13-page letter to President Drew Faust, Task Force Chairman Steven E. Hyman said that the survey, which was administered to nearly 20,000 degree-seeking students enrolled at Harvard College, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS), and the 10 professional Schools last spring, makes clear that sexual assault is “a serious and widespread problem that profoundly violates the values and undermines the educational goals of this University.”

Women at Harvard College appear especially vulnerable to sexual assault, the survey said. More than 60 percent of women in the College’s Class of ’15 responded to the survey. Of those, 31 percent said they had experienced some sort of unwanted sexual contact at Harvard. Ninety women characterized that contact as what the survey termed “nonconsensual completed or attempted penetration involving physical force, incapacitation or both,” the most serious category of misconduct. This group comprises 16 percent of female College seniors.

A total of 17.9 percent of undergraduate women who identified as Lesbian or Gay, Bisexual, Asexual, Questioning and Not Listed (LGBAQN) at Harvard reported experiencing some form of nonconsensual sexual contact by force or incapacitation during the 2014-2015 academic year, the highest rate of all Harvard student cohorts. This contact ranged from completed or attempted penetration to sexual touching. Undergraduate heterosexual women were the next-highest group with 12 percent reporting such contact, and LGBAQN undergraduate men reported 10.9 percent.

The students least likely to experience unwanted sexual contact were heterosexual men at GSAS and the professional Schools, at 0.8 percent. Just 2.7 percent of undergraduate heterosexual men and 2.9 percent of LGBAQN men at GSAS or at the professional Schools said they had any nonconsensual contact.

Faust finds results “deeply disturbing”

In an email to students, faculty, and staff, Faust called the survey results “deeply disturbing” and said the findings reinforce the “alarming frequency” with which Harvard students experience sexual assault, and she called for a Monday evening meeting to discuss the results with them.

“All of us share the obligation to create and sustain a community of which we can all be proud, a community whose bedrock is mutual respect and concern for one another. Sexual assault is intolerable, and we owe it to one another to confront it openly, purposefully and effectively,” Faust wrote.

The survey was part of an effort led by the Association of American Universities (AAU), a consortium of 62 research universities, to better understand the nature and pervasiveness of sexual assault, harassment, and other misconduct on college campuses. More than 150,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students at 27 private and public research universities across the country took part, making it one of the largest surveys of its kind.

Overall, 19.3 percent of eligible students responded to the AAU survey, though rates at each institution varied depending on the type of school and size. At Harvard, 53 percent of the eligible students participated, the highest rate among the universities surveyed. Faust said she took that as a “positive sign” that students recognize sexual assault as a serious issue.

Harvard fared slightly better than the averages reported by students in the national survey aggregate. Four percent of Harvard students surveyed said they had at least one incident of nonconsensual sexual contact last year. Additionally, 1.4 percent said the contact was completed, or involved attempted penetration by use of force, incapacitation, or both. Nationally, 6.5 percent of students reported some form of unwanted of sexual contact, while 2.4 percent reported penetration or attempted penetration by force or incapacitation.

Last April, the Harvard task force asked students to complete an online survey about sexual assault. Students were asked a series of questions about various kinds of sexual misconduct that they may have encountered while they were enrolled at the University, regardless of where or when the incident took place, or whether the perpetrator was part of the Harvard community. The survey focused on nonconsensual sexual activity conducted through the use of physical force, incapacitation, or both.

The survey found that sexual harassment is a problem for women students all across the University, with 72.7 percent of undergraduate women reporting an incident of harassment during their time at Harvard, while fewer than 62 percent of undergraduate women in the broader 27-school survey reported such incidents.

Almost half of Harvard’s female graduate and professional School students reported being harassed, and 21.8 percent of these women said a faculty member had sexually harassed them.

“We must commit ourselves to being a better community than the one the survey portrays,” Faust wrote in her email. “It is up to all of us to ensure that Harvard is a realization of our ideals, not our fears.”

Also in response, Rakesh Khurana, Danoff Dean of Harvard College, announced that the College would host three town-hall style discussions with staff from the Office of Sexual Assault and Prevention this week.

“We have it in our power to make Harvard better,” he said in a message to students. “This is a moment for all of us to take stock of what we stand for as a community” and to make the necessary changes to better Harvard and the world.

At a 90-minute meeting Monday evening before an overflow crowd at the Science Center, Faust and Khurana answered questions from students following a presentation of the survey results by David Laibson ’88, the Robert I. Goldman Professor of Economics. Laibson, who serves on the task force and chairs the Economics Department, was closely involved in the survey’s design and analysis.

As an institution of higher education, learning from these survey results “is something we are especially equipped to do,” Faust said.

“We want to use those skills to figure out how can we combat this, how can we make it stop, and how can we help the individuals who are trapped in these terrible, terrible circumstances from ever having to have those kinds of things happen to them again. How can we help future students not have to confront the same realities?” she said. “Let’s use every tool that we have to make this a better place.”

Students attending the community meeting asked that the University offer more opportunities to gather in both large and smaller groups not just to discuss their views about sexual assault policy initiatives and programs, but also to comfortably share their experiences in the hopes of learning more about the underlying issues that contribute to such traumatic incidents. Many expressed support for better and faster access to mental health services and the creation of “safe spaces” so that final clubs events were not a focus of undergraduate social life.

Noting the essential value that students derive by socializing and learning from Harvard’s diverse student population, Khurana appeared to signal that single-sex entities like final clubs may face greater scrutiny in the near future.

“Any organization that attaches itself, recognized or unrecognized, to Harvard, recruits from Harvard students and enjoys any sort of status by being affiliated with the College has to be in synchronization with the mission of the College,” he said.

Alcohol use a major risk factor

Unsurprisingly, the use of drugs and alcohol as a “tactic” or precursor to sexual assault on college campuses accounts for a “significant” percentage of reported incidents, the AAU survey found.

At Harvard, when students were asked if anyone had been consuming alcohol before an incident of completed or attempted penetration when incapacitation was a factor, 89 percent of respondents said they had been drinking, while 79 percent said the perpetrator had been drinking.

“The percent of alcohol is so high that prevention efforts are not likely to succeed if we do not, as part of our final report, suggest approaches to decreasing the harm associated with student drinking,” Hyman wrote in his letter to Faust.

More than 75 percent of Harvard College women reported the assaults took place in student Houses, while at least 15 percent said they occurred at what the survey categorized as “single-sex organizations that were not fraternities or sororities,” a category that most closely aligns at Harvard with the non-affiliated final clubs.

Not serious enough to report?

One reason why reliable information about the pervasiveness of sexual assault on college campuses is so hard to come by, analysts say, is that, historically, few students choose to report such incidents to someone in law enforcement, at a university, or at another organization. The AAU survey bears out this unsettling truth. Just 5 to 28 percent of students nationally said they had reported an incident, depending on the type of misconduct. Among those who said they did not report an incident, the most common reason given was a belief that it was not serious enough to warrant action. Other explanations included that the student felt “too embarrassed, ashamed, or that it would be too emotionally difficult” to report the incident, or that she or he “did not think anything would be done about it.”

On that score, Harvard appears no different. Here, 80 percent of female undergraduates who said they had been penetrated as a result of incapacitation did not formally report the assault, while 69 percent who said they were penetrated by the use of physical force did not report the instances.

Fifty-four percent of Harvard student respondents who said they “had seen or heard someone acting in a sexually violent or harassing way” did nothing to intervene. A full 80 percent who said they had seen a “drunk person heading for a sexual encounter” indicated that they did not take any action.

Hyman said the survey results are “entirely congruent” with testimony that the task force has heard since its formation. “The fact that Harvard data is quite similar to that of other private universities within the AAU gives little comfort,” he wrote to Faust. Noting the “deeply ingrained” nature of sexual assault, Hyman wrote, “It reminds us that we cannot simply make and implement a series of recommendations and consider that we have done our work.”

Messages on assault not being received

Despite initiating several efforts in the last two years to better confront sexual assault on campus, such as the adoption of the University-wide Title IX policy, the establishment of the Office for Dispute Resolution to investigate misconduct, and the addition of 50 Title IX coordinators to work across Harvard on such issues, many students said they are not well-informed about where to get support, how to report sexual assault or misconduct, how the University defines sexual assault and misconduct, or what happens after a report is made.

Just 24 percent of Harvard students said they were very or extremely knowledgeable about where to go for help, and only 20 percent said they were very or extremely knowledgeable about where to report an incident. When asked what happens after a report is filed, 82 percent said the process wasn’t entirely clear to them, and only 15 percent said they fully understood what constitutes sexual assault or misconduct at Harvard. In all four areas, the percentage of Harvard students who said they were very or extremely knowledgeable was consistently smaller than the national survey average.

“Clearly, we must do more,” Faust wrote. “University leaders — starting with the president, the provost, and the deans — bear a critical part of the responsibility for shaping the climate and offering resources to prevent sexual assault and [to] respond when it does occur.”

To that end, Faust has asked the deans from each School to prepare “school-specific plans” that begin to facilitate community discussion, engagement, and action surrounding the survey findings.

The task force and the University’s Institutional Research Office will further analyze the survey data to better understand the full results. In January, the task force will submit a report and make recommendations to Faust.

Among the areas identified as meriting further scrutiny: the higher rate of sexual assaults reported by LGBAQN-identifying students; the alarming frequency of alcohol as a factor in such assaults; the specific campus locations where incidents most often take place; and the low percentage of students, particularly undergraduates, who say they know where to get help or feel confident that the University will respond to their needs.

Confidence in the University’s ability to handle sexual assault cases vigorously and appropriately varies widely.

Although 61 percent of all Harvard students think the University is “very or extremely likely” to take a report of sexual assault seriously, only 43 percent of female undergraduates at the College and at the Division of Continuing Education said they feel that way.

Asked if they thought the University would conduct a fair investigation of any reported assault claim, 41 percent of Harvard students said they were only “somewhat” certain officials would do the job properly, while 29 percent said the process was “very” likely to be fair. Female undergraduates were a bit more skeptical, with 45 percent saying a fair investigation was “somewhat” likely.

But when asked how likely University officials were to take action against an offender, 46 percent of female undergraduates said they had little or no confidence that they would. In addition, 84 percent expressed some doubt any action would be taken. Overall, 68 percent of Harvard students surveyed were dubious of follow-through against offenders.

The national survey was designed to provide university communities, federal policymakers, and educational researchers with greater insight into the scope, frequency, and nature of sexual assault and misconduct on American college campuses, the AAU said in a press statement issued Monday.

The survey results come amid growing pressure on colleges and universities from the Obama administration, Congress, the Department of Education, and activists to codify and make transparent their procedures for investigating, disciplining, and reporting sexual assault cases, as well as the case outcomes.

Other participating Ivy League schools included Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania and Yale University. Public universities involved included the University of Virginia, the University of Michigan, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Texas at Austin, among others.

What is the Torah Role of a Woman?

by Rabbi David E. Eidensohn

1. 

The bible begins "In the beginning." In Hebrew that is בראשית. That word in Hebrew can be broken into two words בית ראש that means "the house is first." The beginning of a book, says Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, is the essence of the book. Thus, the essence of the bible, or the Torah, is "the house is first" or the primary function of the female. Who is the parent in the house? Who raises the children? It is the wife. Thus, the female is the person indicated by "the house is first." To merit this very lofty and holy position, as the key to Creation and family, a woman must set a very high and holy standard in her behavior. 

2. 

The role of the women began before Adam and Eve, with the Creation of the Sun and the Moon. The Sun was "male" and the Moon was "female." The Sun and the Moon were created equal in the ability to shine a great light over the entire earth. The Moon objected to G-d that "two kings cannot share the same crown." She wanted to be the major light and the Sun to be a minor light. G-d argued with the Moon about this and told her, "Go and diminish yourself." The Moon was very disappointed and argued. G-d suggested various ways to appease her, but the Moon insisted time and again that she must be the major luminary. Finally, G-d said, "Bring a sacrifice for Me because I diminished the Moon."

The meaning of this is that the Moon was an angelic force, there being no people at that time before the creation of Adam and Eve. She was "female" in the sense that the female is one of the two major forces of JUSTICE and MERCY. The "female" is JUSTICE and the "male" is MERCY. In a world of mercy wicked people are not punished readily and they can take over the world, as we see in our times. But a world filled with JUSTICE would punish the wicked immediately. This would sanctify G-d's Name by destroying evil, whereas MERCY would profane G-d's Name by supporting the wicked. Therefore the "female" Moon battled against the "male" Sun being dominant or even equal to her. But G-d wanted a world where all people can thrive and hopefully will repent. But in a world of JUSTICE there is little time to repent. The sinner can be struck down before he repents.Therefore, G-d recognized the good intention of the Moon, but still, He wanted a world of penitence, even if it favored the wicked.

G-d told the Moon, "You want to sanctify My Name by destroying evil people and evil things. You want to blaze your light over the world so nothing but holiness exists. I suggest something else for you, a higher level. 'Go and diminish yourself.'"

In this world, G-d said, those who have a greater portion in the Future World eventually must diminish themselves in this world. This is the lot of the Jewish people, to be diminished, as the smallest of nations and suffer greatly. But in the Future World, things will be much, much different. Then, and only then, will the righteous be rewarded and the wicked truly punished. And the pleasures there are real pleasures and the punishments are real punishments.

Precisely because the woman is so lofty and the beginning of Creation, she must be diminished in this world. Just as the Jewish people must be diminished to achieve their true greatness, so must the female. Anyone great in this world is lacking in the preparation for the Future World, where all true goodness and punishment is.

The female must recognize her lofty elevated status, as the Jews do, as one of "Go and diminish yourself." This diminishing is to attain the Future World and its mighty eternal pleasures.

3. 

Rambam, Maimonides, tells us that "A man must love his wife as he loves himself. But he must honor his wife more than he honors himself." This, says the Kabbalistic classic Raishis Chochmo, means that in spending money, the priority is to the needs or "honor" of the wife, not the husband.

 "Love" is in Hebrew אהבה, whose numerical value is 13, the same as the Hebrew word אחד or "one." When people are "one" with each other, neither is higher than the other. This is loving one's wife as himself, as they are "one." But honoring the wife requires a higher level, not that they are "one" but that the husband defers to the wife that she, not he, must have what she needs, even if the husband goes without.

Honor, in Hebrew is כבוד that is the numerical equal of the word לב or "heart." Thus, a husband must love his wife as they are "one body" with nobody superior to the other. But his "heart" the central organ of his likes and dislikes, must defer to the wife so that the husband honors her over himself, not as if they are one.

4.

Male and female are to marry, become "one" and propagate. "Be fruitful and multiply." We have discussed above about "love" and "honor." "Love" is between the two, husband and wife, as they merge to become "one flesh." "Honor" is when the husband sees in his heart the lofty level of his wife and he defers to her, that she is higher than he is. At the same time, as Maimonides writes, the wife is also playing the same song, of honoring and loving her husband. So who is the winner? Who is the king? Who has the power?

In my house, years ago, in my youth, I had the energy to speak at the Sabbath table to my family for extended periods, and the remarks were usually about two things: One, honoring women, and two, ignoring the bad habits of our surroundings, especially those bad habits that are rooted in idealism.

My wife is a very strong Polish lady, and when she heard about honoring women she decided to reciprocate. I eventually wrote a book about this reciprocation that it is the secret of a good marriage. My book is "Secret of the Scale" and it is about the ancient scales that were two plates attached to strings that hung from a higher stick. These two scales rose and fell. When one scale rose, the other scale declines. Never do both sales go up or down together.

In marriage, husband and wife take turns honoring the other one. When the husband ends up on top, he says, "What am I doing here" and honors his wife and descends making her rise. Then she looks around and says, "What am I doing here" and descends making him rise. Marriage is a cycle of reciprocity. A marriage where people compete to honor the other one is a very happy marriage.

5. 

A female thrives on "the house is first" our opening remarks. But there are rules about "the house is first." The house is the natural dimension of a woman with a lofty soul who detests evil and the opposite of holiness. The man can succeed in the street but not the female. Just as the Jewish people are very restricted in what they may do in their lives by the Torah, so women, the "house is first" people are only able to maintain their sacred level by being a people of the house and family. Once they imitate men and go into the street they are in danger.

A man, Adam, was created from dirt. But his wife, Eve, was created form his bone in his chest, near his heart. She is thus much higher than he is. But this special holiness cannot exist in the street. 

Today there is a great discussion about drafting women into the army, or at least, having all women register for the draft or national service of whatever the government wants. This is a great violation of the holiness of women. Men belong in the street and they belong in the army, but not women. The Talmud says that when two women prophets became leads of the Jewish people, they were given names of shame for leaving their private quarters and entering the public domain. One was called Deborah that means "a bee." And the other was called Chulda that means a "mole." There was never a Jewish leader who equalled Deborah the Prophetess. And yet, if she had not gone into the public dimension she would have been higher, something that we cannot readily comprehend, because in her time the Jewish people were successful spiritually and militarily, as she led the armies. What can be better than that? But if we don't understand, we don't understand what a woman loses when she leaves her natural "house" surrounding to behave like a man.

6.

Great forces in America are ready to force all women to register for the draft and eventually go with men to battle areas. For women to join men in the army or anywhere else is a terrible violation of female Torah behavior. Senior rabbis in Israel fought the Israeli government when it attempted to force women into the army and they succeeded. Today, religious women are not drafted in the Israeli army. There is a law called Shairus Leumi or National Service that is not a military duty but a duty to help as the government assigns people that does, on paper, call for all women to register and obey. But it has not been enforced for Orthodox girls.

Women in America, including Orthodox Jewish women and moral ladies of other religions who know that living among male soldiers means being seduced and even raped, just as they do in colleges, will have a terrible problem with this. Rabbis in Israel have called drafting women a violation of a cardinal sin that can require martyrdom, whatever that means. The rule is, that any time a woman is under the authority of a non-family member, that is a problem. For the government to have the power to order a woman to go here and there and do this and that, even if it is simply to read the bible, is a violation of female sanctity of a very serious nature.