Time for Defence?

For the past two months, I’ve been getting ads (in Dutch) showing people in camouflage sprinting through forests and staring at radar screens. Military planes with spinning propellers are lined up, tanks and jeeps race across the landscape, and a large ship bobs at sea. A deep voice explains that global unrest is increasing — in case we’ve missed it — and that times are changing. Which is why, according to the videos, it’s time to really matter. It’s Time for Defence.

The political world seems to have reached the same conclusion — at least when it comes to the budget. At last week’s NATO summit, member states agreed to increase their defence spending to 5% of their GDP. Alongside funding for weapons and vehicles, the Ministry of Defence is also looking for new people — explicitly including women.

That’s immediately clear on the Dutch Armed Forces career website (in Dutch), where a prominent button reads ‘As a woman at Defence’ (my translation, the site is only available in Dutch). Clicking it brings up ‘Time to break free’. Apparently, Defence fulfils its constitutional obligation to treat men and women equally. This is presented as a big plus, even though you’d hope this is a given — especially in the Government. The page also reassures me that I’m allowed to wear nail polish and make-up, and that if I have long hair, I’ll need to tie it back — apparently two of the 12 most frequently asked questions.

A few questions further on, I’m told ‘Women have the same rights and duties as men at Defence’. That sounds promising, but one question later it’s already contradicted. Female soldiers with children below the age of five are not required to go on deployment. This exemption doesn’t apply to men, unless they’re the sole caregiver in a single-parent household.

Back in 2007, this policy was challenged (in Dutch) before the Equal Treatment Commission. In the case, the Defence Personnel Handbook at the time was cited (in Dutch): ‘It is still common in society for women to take on the primary responsibility for childcare, and the number of non-deployable personnel must not become too large’ (my translation). The Commission ruled that this constituted unlawful gender-based discrimination and recommended investigating the effects of the policy, as well as developing alternatives that didn’t distinguish by gender.

The Commission ruled that this constituted unlawful gender-based discrimination

The matter was also extensively debated in Parliament that year. The conclusion: if the exemption were expanded, Defence would face operational and financial problems. A compromise (in Dutch) was reached in which male soldiers could apply for a one-year exemption between their child’s birth and fifth birthday. To give you an idea of how long ago this policy was drafted, the same letter mentions that applying for all positions online would soon be an option.

A study (in Dutch) was conducted on the impact of the exemption for female service members with young children. It showed that women generally knew about the arrangement and support for it was high. At the same time, not everyone welcomed the special treatment. Based on this research, the State Secretary for Defence decided (in Dutch) to keep the exemption for women. And that’s still the policy today. Meanwhile, the one-year exemption for men seems to have quietly disappeared, or at least, I could not find it in public sources and a soldier I spoke to had never heard of the policy.

All military personnel with young children should have the option to apply for exemption. The current investments in defence open the door to equalise the parental policy for men and women as more funding and staff would reduce the financial and operational obstacles that were once decisive. On top of that, a good parenting policy makes the job more attractive to both women and men, and helps retain skilled personnel. It may be Time for Defence — but it’s been time for equality for far longer.