You’re just mad because you know that sending women into battle has the potential to be as powerful against jihadis from a strategic standpoint as a nuclear bomb.
Would YOU want to risk any of the women in your family to be at the mercy of ANY of those ISIS/ISIL men as a POW?
Those young women DO have a choice to fight or not fight, but it seems to me that they MIGHT be more useful in some other NON-COMBAT parts of the war.
WOMEN have always fought for their country. Their combat can't be hand-to-hand with men but their "combat" can be JUST as deadly.
=============================================
From Wikipedia
MATA HARI: Margaretha Geertruida "Margreet" Zelle MacLeod (7 August 1876 – 15 October 1917), better known by the stage name Mata Hari, was a member of the Frisian minority from the Netherlands, and was an exotic dancer and courtesan who was convicted of being a spy and executed by firing squad in France under charges of espionage for Germany during World War I.
Who knows how many lives HER spy-intel cost the Allies. SHE had as much guts as any male soldier. She just "fought" in a way that she COULD be most effective.
People HATE spies. Their deaths PROBABLY aren't ever simple, easy or quick.
=============================================
Those ISIS/ISIL women over there who CHOOSE to fight for their country have MANY role models in human history. However, "hand-to-hand" combat with men? They would die a wasted death.
It WOULD work, however, if they WORE body bombs so that their attacker would blow up with them. NO ONE doubts their courage, least of all ME. Bravery has little to do with gender, faith, national origin, size or age. In fact, these women MIGHT be angrier just because they aren't a man's equal in hand-to-hand combat.
I would THINK that those women would want their death to count for something. Dying and taking out some of the enemy might be a meaningful death to them.