Women in the Themiclesian military

There is a long history of women in the Themiclesian military, though females have been the minority and the discriminated sex in many perspectives before recent decades, through assumptions, measures, or attitudes. Efforts have made to correct discrimination, though success has not been universal, and there remain considerable and institutional sources of prejudice and other obstacles against women.

Philology

The Shinasthana word nrja′ (女) is generally translated as "woman" or "female" in this article, such as most ancient and modern scholars do. In Mengja, it is a logographic character, depicting a human indicated with developed breasts, seated and with arms folded before the midsection. While pre-modern Themiclesians had a predominantly-binary understanding of sex, intersex people were historically known, and they were described as both male and female. Themiclesians also did not analyze sex separately from gender, believing for the most part that biological sex determined gender roles. In this tradition authors have written of spinning and weaving as "woman's work", using the same word that described women through the biological feature of breasts, though there is little evidence of any scholarship that discussed the relationship between biological sex and gender roles. However, the latter is also complicated by social class, and particularly in the upper class they were often deliberately broken for various reasons.

Pre-modern history

During most periods, Themiclesian men were as a rule required to render both military and labour service (役) to the state. By definition, women are not obliged to perform either, but during desperate episodes, particularly sieges, women have been armed en masse and sent into actual battle. Whatever the results of such actions, women were excluded from ordinary military activity, since such marshalling of women was considered extraordinary and not to be a norm. In the gender-binary view of the world, men also worked the land and paid agricultural, while women tended to silkworms, spinning, weaving, and thereby contributed to the state in fabrics; there was a dichotomy between males and females in terms of their duties towards the state and daily routines.

While women did not particpate in combat regularly, they played an indispensible role for the upkeep of husbands or other male members of the family in military service. Early Themiclesian militiamen were responsible for their own food and clothing, receiving only weapons and armour from the state. As it was not ergonomic to carry off-seasonal clothing or more than three months' grains, militiamen often wrote home asking cloth, food, or cash be sent to their garrisons. These were collected by the local magistrate and conveyed by the state to their recipients' positions. Excavated letters on bamboo slips demonstrate that militiamen often wrote in entreating terms asking for surprising sums of money and quantities of goods. One letter dating to the 2nd c. showed female literacy in Themiclesian peasantry, scolding her husband who "asks that I be not promiscuous with other men, yet is promiscuous with the fruits of my labour with merchants and gamblers" (乃令我勿與人通 / 亦以朕功通于賈).

As Themiclesian power expanded in the 5th and 6th c., regional minorities often entered into peaceful relationships with Themiclesia, pledging troops to defend a certain area or to respond to the court's summonses. Depending on the specific culture, these units may have had women in their ranks, though evidence is sparse. Judging, however, that their leaders frequently were military commanders themselves, it is not inconceivable that some such units may have been commanded by women as well.

Naval forces are frequently treated as a distinct subject in military historiography, as they had few connections with terrestrial ones. The early maritime culture was highly superstitious and, for unclear reasons, deeply prejudiced against women. There was a near-societal agreement that women should not sail abroad, even in non-military contexts; this was justified through mythical and cultic reasoning, that women imperiled ships at sea. These early maritime cults were also implicated in human sacrifices for favourable winds or clearing of the skies, ostensibly for celestial navigation. Starting in the 7th century, such superstitions began to abate, though sailors were, like militiamen, almost universally male. Females sailing abroad gained acceptance when women started to stand in for their fathers or husbands, when the family had no adult males; however, females were still regarded as the infirm sex, and women sailing abroad were exceptional.

Amgonst the social and political elite, women had military capacity in several contexts. The close guard of the empress, the Middle Gentlemen-at-Arms (中郎中, trjung-rang-trjung), were female or predominantly-female. This institution was an imitation, on the grounds of ritualistic parity, of the Gentlemen-at-Arms that served as the Emperor's close guard. Like it, the Middle Gentlemen were the daughters of the social, political, and educated elite, serving the empress-consort as part of the mechanism of aristocratic reproduction. At any rate, the male Gentlemen-at-Arms were bodyguards in name only, and martial skills were considered a liability at best, and a marker of shame, for its connotation with commoners, at worst. Within the Middle Gentlemen-at-Arms, there also existed a female body analogous to the Gallery Cavalry; these women, though likewise guards in name only, were mounted and armed.

Modern history

19th and early 20th centuries

Though an exhaustive Themiclesian will reveal women participating in various capacities in Themiclesia's military, in a broad sense, females were not included in the formal military hierarchy, with limited exceptions as above stated. Interest in Casaterran schools of thought, starting in the 18th c., have not made a significant impact on the situation of women in military functions, remaining restricted to economic, ceremonial, or political roles. The Army Academy was founded in 1813 and was the epicentre for the study and dissemination of Casaterran military and other forms of thought, and in over 100 years, not a single dissertation was made for the role of women in the forces, or even more broadly in the defence of the nation.

The first official roles for women in the forces were in the Central Convalescence Department and Royal Signals Corps, in the early 1900s. Participation of women in nursing and secretarial roles, in civil society, is believed to have occasioned this change. The Navy, however, retained an all-male convalescence service and only employed females as typists. In either case, upwards mobility for women in these roles is limited. The Royal Signals Corps, which ran the telegraph system, appointed male supervisors for what is effectively an all-female workforce. The Convalescence Department permitted women to rise to the rank of chief nurse, which was compared to a lieutenant-colonel; however, male nurses were still promoted more frequnetly than female ones, despite comparable academic training and service records. The first female officers were commissioned in 1913. Surprisingly, this did not require parliamentary legislation; women's groups were intrigued by this and started studying legislation, coming eventually to the conclusion that women could legally serve in a number of positions, even high-ranking ones. They were, accordingly, prohibited from doing so by only social reluctance and entrenched prejudices, not actual laws. Others disputed this reading of laws, believing that early legislators simply implied male service, without stating it positively.

When the Themiclesian Air Force was founded in 1918, the constitution defined the TAF to consist of males under service. However, the Themiclesian Air Force Regiment did employ females as nurses, though this was never contested for legality at court.

Pan-Septentrion War

The watershed for female participation in the forces came during the Pan-Septentrion War. The most notable instance is in the Battle of ′Drjang-′an in 1940, when the magistrate of the city placed about 1,000 women, who worked as nurses or typists for the Consolidated Army, under arms and ordered them to engage the Menghean forces hoping to capture the city. They successfully held the enemy at bay, though the city was eventually captured. The affair was widely reported in the press, the women lauded as the "lady saviours" and "heroic women of ′Drjang-′an". The War Secretary summoned a representative panel of the unit after it was dissolved and awarded them a cash purse of €50 (approx. Int'l $14,000 in 2019) each for "exceeding all expectations for even the bravest men." Feminist historians have viewed this event with some reservation, noting that the unit was dissolved after the siege had been lifted, and the prejudices against females implied by the War Secretary. For the remainder of the war, there have been no record of women engaged in combat, though their presences has expanded beyond convalescence and secretaryships. At this time, the Consolidated Army did not formally distinguish between combat and non-combat roles, and the ability of females to move beteen services was erratic.

Tro v. Infantry Militia of ′jong

In January 1950, Julia Tro registered herself at the Infantry Militia of ′jong (邕材官, ′jong-dze-kwal) and was turned away. The Themiclesian Women's Federation obtained her permission to represent her right to enlist, as well as to prosecute the Infantry Militia for breach of statute. The Supreme Court in 1950 gave a judgment in her favour, but the Marshal was not convicted of breach of statute. The defence argued that, under normal circumstances, there is no history of female service in the Infantry Militia, and the marshalling had been an extraordinary, i.e. not to be cited as precedent. The plaintiffs said that women's ability to serve was intrinsic and did not depend on circumstances. "Surely the demands on a foot militiaman is the same in peace as in war, and in an easy war as as a gruelling war," the plaintiff's counsel argued.

The Supreme Court, led by Nem CJ., accepted the plaintiff's arguments. He reasoned that turning Tro away now would be a breach of its own precedents for no legitimate reason, further reprimanding the Marshal adding that "if a woman is capable of serving in a militia at war, then surely she may serve in a militia at peace." Tro was enlisted in Jan. 1951 in the Infantry Militia. This judgment for Tro was a landmark, in that it permitted female enlistment in any military unit where it is not statutorily barred and had at least one female who served in it, during its entire history.

Military reaction and delays

The subsequent decades after Tro v. Infantry Militia of ′jong are characterized by military reaction, which generally came in three phases. Typically, units first adopt the excuse that females would be inconvenienced because there were no female lavatories or other amenities that males enjoy. When this excuse is offered, there is generally a directive for them to rectify it. In spite of various devices to delay this, at some point the facilities would be complete, else the leadership of the unit risks allegations of incompetence. After the facilities are complete, the unit may choose to adopt strict entry standards that did not exist before the Pan-Septentrion War, such as running times, lifting weights, or even holding breath under water. In some cases, these were applied solely to females, on the assumption that males were capable of them. After these measures are declared iniquitous, women were subject to a variety of treatment, structural or personal, that made them appear less competent on paper, allowing the leadership to argue for suspension of female enlistment, claiming correlation of females to unsatisfactory performance. This would again be contested at court, and a victory for the plaintiff would either provoke the government to dismiss the officer(s) responsible or to promote her. Structural sexism in the military remained endemic, and even this progression was not complete until the early 90s for many units. Concerted efforts to address sexism were first instituted in the 70s, even though the legal devices which enabled female enlistment had existed since 1950.

Necessary preparations

Some members of the Board were skeptical, firstly, about the general application of Tro and reasoned that it only applied to the Infantry Militia of ′jong. The Consolidated Army's legal department quickly undeceived the Board, noting that even if they refused to apply the new ruling universally, suits will be brought at all localities; as a judgment of a high court, Tro would be cited nationally. General application, therefore, would only be a matter of time, unless the Borad came up with "a legitimate reason" to exclude females, and such a reason had to be found in statute.

On Feb. 18, 1951, the Themiclesian Marines declared that they intended to follow Tro. Allegedly, this is because the captain-general believed that if the Consolidated Army's legal department could not prevent this judgment, their defeat at the same would be a foregone conclusion: there were two female marines who served around 1410. They promised that women would be allowed to enlist as early as 1954, when "necessary procedures are to be complete." The Army Board decided that since the Marines were taking three years to make necessary preparations, they should be allowed to take at least six, on the grounds that the Consolidated Army is larger. With this as a defensive device, the Board issued directives to the militias to block female enlistment from Jan. 1, 1952 to all units part of regular formations and support departments, with the excuse that "necessary arrangements" are incomplete. As the recruiting authority of the militias, prefectural marshals were advised to place a moratorium on female enlistments, though the Board could not compel them to do this. Der, the president of the Women's Federation, pointed out that "necessary procedures were not necessary for women who fought at ′Drjang-′an in 1940."

Physical testing

Advisors to the Navy Secretary in 1954 asserted that females were of a frail constitution and proposed a physical testing scheme for female recruits only. The Navy Secretary rejected this initially. But of the first cohort to enlist with the Marines in 1954, 97% recruits met the standards. The Navy Secretary then changed his mind and ordered the new testing implemented, which only 52% did pass and enlist. That year, the Marines were sued to question the motivation behind the change in testing schemes. They answered that a change in equipment had occurred, which required better physical standards than the first scheme provided, giving a before-and-after exhibit of the newer and heavier set of equipment they claimed soldiers were expected to carry.

Though then unknown, they perjured themselves showing unusually light and heavy backpacks to illustrate its point. The plaintiffs, not able to summon witnesses to testify to this tactic, judgment led by Nem CJ was for the Marines, reasoning that a change in equipment weight is a valid cause to re-test recruits. The Women's Federation asked why were male marines and recruits not re-tested for the same reason, but the justices ruled that this question was beyond the scope of the form of action. This case was often cited as a miscarriage of justice prior to the introduction of judicial discovery, where the plaintiff did not know enough about the defendant to prosecute them effectively; this problem lingers in suits against the forces, where hierarchies have been described as sanctuary for witnesses and defendants.

Even though the Supreme Court delivered judgment for the Navy, Nem reasoned explicitly that "it is not contrary to statute or administrative precedents for the Navy Secretary to impose testing for any serviceperson, servicepersons, or any number of them within his portfolio, under ministerial discretion, with or without a reason." A legal victory thus turned into a defeat in public opinion. The Echo, the newspaper of the East Expeditionary Force, printed a letter signed by 3,200 PSW veterans calling upon the Navy Secretary either to re-test all marines immediately with the backbacks presented at court, or re-enlist the 37 female recruits. In 1956, they were invited to enlist by the next navy secretary.

The idea that some exceptional requirement or unusual combination of eqiupment may be beyond the physical capabilities of the average female was repeatedly asserted at court to defend physical performance tests, with uneven results. Conservative justices normally allowed this argument, "not because it is just, but because the contrary is not unlawful." However, in 1959, the Consolidated Army Board was brought to court facing a private prosecution for waste of public money. Admitting the argument was "highly unorthodox", the plaintiffs argued that if all soldiers had the same need to carry an unusually heavy backpack, then the physical testing should be imposed on all soldiers, rather than females alone; to do so would be contra vetera rei and thus a waste of public money. The Consolidated Army's counsels recapitulated the 1957 judgment that imposing special testing, prior to enlistment, was not prohibited by statute, and good cause alone could justify it. The court isolated two questions in this case: whether "the average woman" is a relevant comparison, and whether it was lawful to impose physical tests selectively. The Supreme Court led by Tup CJ decided it was not lawful for the Board to impose physical tests only on females, since it had no good reason to believe "the average man" is capable of the physical feats. In 1960, a similar judgment was had against the Marine Corps.

Meanwhile, the Air Force declined to impose quantified physical performance standards (such as running time, etc.) but relied on non-quantifiable observations in the aviation department. Since such comments ("showed a good sense of balance", "dealt with interference deftly", "artfully negotiated the challenges", etc.) are not measurable, the courts were more willing to accept the judgments of Air Force accessors.

Personal discrimination

The Conservatives and Liberal parties resolved with each other to pass the Equality of the Sexes Act in 1961, which declared it unlawful for public bodies to give preferential treatment on the grounds of sex, except as statutes provide. Previous to this, the same was permitted unless personal interests were harmed; thus, allegations of sexism had to be argued as a breach of personal interests, where a civil suit is brought, or of statute, where criminal wrong is alleged. The civil argument typically used is contra vetera rei, "against precedents"; this argument relies on the principle that a government agency is not at liberty to disregard its previous actions, when nothing compels it to act differently. Once in litigation, courts were usually able to redress wrongs on a personal level, but servicepersons who experience discrimination were discouraged from seeking redress by a range of measures, from destruction of evidence before litigation and retaliatory efforts after. It is thought only a small fraction of women in the forces who experience discrimination actually bring the forces to court to seek redress. The sparsity of litigants allowed the forces to represent systematic discrimination of women as isolated instances and negotiate concessions privately, often from an advantageous position, or even misrepresent the issues through public statements. The passage of the Equality of the Sexes Act, allowed sexism to be addressed in a more straightforward and general way.

On the other hand, other reforms made it more difficult for servicepersons to expose and rectify iniquities. Before the 50s, it was usual to sue the forces directly, who could not hear civil and criminal suits brought against itself. However, after a sequence of badly-argued cases before civilian courts was shown to compromise national security in the Pan-Septentrion War, the government granted more jurisdiction and autonomy to military courts. The new process is that a serviceperson must declare their grievance first to the judicial apparatus of their service, then they could take the case to the Supreme Court if relief was refused. This provided ample time and information to disguise wrongdoings before the forces were summoned to ansewr there. Additionally, any facts that were not pled before the miliary courts could not be pled at the Supreme Court, since the appellate process did not admit new facts. Thus, servicepersons facing discrimination were confronted with a catch 22: if they pled all relevant facts before military courts, the service would try to cover its tracks, and if a randomly-selected jury were impanelled in a trial by jury, they are likely to be male and conformist; If they chose not to plead all relevant facts, the tribunal will likely decide against them for lack of evidence, and, on appeal, the Supreme Court could only consider the case in light of admitted facts. In cases of obvious injustice, the Supreme Court may grant venire de novo, which made the serviceperson moving for it a pariah amongst their colleagues.

See also

• Themiclesia