That link about women being in the military for 4000 years, is frankly misleading. Sure, women have at one time or another been involved in actual war, but only on a very small and superficial level. In this I`m talking about actual combat.
The only place where women have actually had a real effect is perhaps the most important one... in Command. Queen Elizabeth 1st, Boudica. In cases like this where a woman actually commands MEN to battle they`ve been quite important. There are also many clues that women have greatly influenced decisions of male leaders in the past to good or ill.
So in influencing war, sure, women have had quite an influence.
But that Wiki is greatly misleading in that it gives the impression that women walked beside men and even fought with\against them in great numbers - forget it. It didn`t happen even in small numbers, perhaps 1 or 2 exceptions may have happened. This is revisionist feminist claptrap.
Men have fought in wars, always have. It is they that have bled out to protect women and families and their own for 4000 years. Sure women can fight if they must, but Men are bred for it and have a natural aptitude for it.
Also, when a woman points out that something based on war or any male dominated area and says, "There`s no women in it!" Perhaps you should ask if she`s even interested in the field she`s talking about? Is she into warfare? does she really WANT to know who really fought in history and who did most of the dying? Or is she just critising for the sake of feminism even if it screws with historical fact?
The most ridiculous thing would be to see thousands of women on the battlefield getting blown up, shot to pieces and decimated (mostly by men), just to be `politically correct.
And it don`t help the Human race one bit.