Well, maybe it's because I'm a chick, but I find that comment just a WEE bit belittling. Then again, I wasn't there, either. Perhaps the feminists really ARE running the show at the Pentagon, but that has zero to do with Sgt. Hester's actions. Especially in this war, where anyone anywhere could be attacked. Even if you had her tucked away in the supply battalion, you couldn't be certain of her safety.
And yes, there are "thousands of male soldiers who have done and are doing more on a daily basis". They ought to be recognized, too. But that is the nature of the beast. Oftentimes, exceptional performance is either overlooked or taken for granted for a great many servicemembers, male and female. It takes nothing away from them that she and her fellows received those awards (and I noticed how you belittled THEIR awards as well, implying they only got them to justify the award to Sgt. Hester...I think that's pretty insulting to all those soldiers.)
...(and I noticed how you belittled THEIR awards as well, implying they only got them to justify the award to Sgt. Hester...I think that's pretty insulting to all those soldiers.)
When you get over your emotional outpouring, I suggest you take a moment and review the numbers and the context of the article. They were 29 combatants killed -29, and three Silver Stars were giving out. No one in this unit was killed, and none were critically injured. Do you know of any other battles during this conflict in which so many Silver Stars were giving out? If not, what made this attack so spectacular? The article goes out of it's way to suggest that this proves women belong in combat, even brings up the fact that congress recently passed a measure the prevents women from serving in such roles. Read the article again and tell me what it has to say about the actions of the men who also received Silver Stars.