Paying the Price for Feminism

War is hell. I think it was William Tecumseh Sherman that said that, and it's true. Fire, brimstone, nitrates, phosphorus, blood, fatigue, fear and pain, and the faces of the dead. If there's no real "hell", war is close enough.

A little more than 3 years ago, I had a few minutes with one of my troops the day after he had spent 20 hours on a hill called Takur Gar He worked the air strikes, the ground battle raged, and seven of his comrades died. The intensity of the battle are detailed online and in documentaries. It was warriors at their best and war at it's worst. The two usually go together. In the few minutes spent with him, the effect of the trauma on him was readily apparent.

In a different time, we recognized that men and women are different. We attempted to protect our women from the horrors of war because it seemed that they were not suited to it. It seemed that their nurturing nature and smaller bodies put them at a greater risk on the battlefield.

The feminists, claiming that it was arbitrary discrimination, lobbied and litigated for equal treatment of women in the military with respect to promotions and advancement. This sounds good on the surface but is flawed. A military needs combat leaders that can tolerate and function in a battle environment. Only a warrior can effectively lead warriors.

Now comes the effort to deal with the fact that women are less suited to the trauma of war.

There are both young men and young women that will never be the same after what they've been subjected to. I'm not questioning that it's worth it. Liberty is worth any price that must be paid. But in terms of percentages, we are putting young women at a higher risk than young men. Where are the feminists on this one? Women are being placed at unfair risk. They are being exposed to an environment that puts them at an elevated risk in comparison with their male counterparts, and it is being done by feminists that would never put themselves in that environment.