American feminists-mostly anti-war by philosophy and inclination-become giddy every time a female soldier makes headlines.
Some time ago, I commented on the story of Lt. Dawn Halfaker, the heroic soldier who lost her right arm in Iraq and was the subject of a front-page story in USA Today. Here is what I wrote at the time:
“A pretty woman with red hair, Lt. Halfaker is holding up her bulky prosthesis. Oddly enough, her injury has made her the poster girl for women in combat, a longtime goal of the feminist movement.
“Feminist are by and large anti-war, but, if there is a war, they want women in the thick of it. They believe that this will be beneficial for career military women, though it might not help those who sign up for a single tour of duty and are grievously wounded.”
Just as U.S. feminists are finding something to celebrate, the army in the U.K. is making a startling discovery-women aren’t physically as strong as men.
The Daily Mail reports:
“The Army is abandoning mixed-sex training units because too many female recruits are getting injured trying to keep up with their male counterparts. …
“Dr James Bilzon, the Army Training and Recruitment Agency’s senior scientific adviser, found that women are getting hurt as they try to match men in arduous drills and marches wearing full combat gear.
“His research showed that, in general, women are less able to cope with the sudden introduction to the exhausting exercise regime demanded by the Army.
“The most common complaints are stress fractures to the shin and thigh bones, and pelvic injuries caused by attempting to keep up with the longer stride patterns of men.”
According to the article, female recruits are “three-to-four times more likely than males to be medically discharged with a training injury, a figure which may be as high as nine times in some training units.”
Feminists, take note: Women have a place in the military, but maybe it’s not at the front line.