<\/a>When the U.S. Army recently announced<\/a> that two women had successfully completed its toughest training regimen, my initial reaction was, \u201cGood for them, and good for the U.S. Army. It\u2019s about time!\u201d But rather quickly, my feminist joy became tempered by a healthy dose of sadness and misgiving.<\/p>\n The two women, Capt. Kristen Griest, 26, a military police platoon leader, and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver, 25, an Apache attack helicopter pilot, knew that they were blazing a new trail. Griest said<\/a>, \u201cI was thinking really of future generations of women that I would like them to have that opportunity so I had that pressure on myself.\u201d<\/p>\n Of course, equal opportunity is a good thing. I\u2019m glad to see these women getting the chance to show that their physical strength, endurance and toughness match\u2014even surpass\u2014that of the men who tried out for Ranger status. [Let\u2019s not forget that women have been demonstrating courage and resilience for ages\u2014just in other ways: as mothers, breadwinners, healers, inspirers, caregivers and teachers–to name just a few such roles. It\u2019s just that these types of strengths have, traditionally, not been equated with the \u201creal\u201d courage of men in battle.]<\/p>\n I\u2019m glad that Griest and Hayer got the opportunity to self-actualize in a way that is meaningful for them\u2014a way that had previously been not available to women. And I\u2019m happy to note, too, that it was a government institution that was willing to give them that chance.<\/p>\n We may not be able to, as Hillary Clinton recently said<\/a>, \u201cChange people\u2019s hearts,\u201d but, as she also said, \u201cWe can change laws.\u201d That, in my mind, is an excellent and appropriate role for government: to lead progressive social change, sometimes by enacting laws [expanding voting rights, for example] and sometimes by example, which is what happened when President Harry S Truman instituted racial desegregation in the US military<\/a> in 1948\u2014long before integration became acceptable among the general American population.Truman may have reasoned that integrating the military\u2014an organization revered by the American public [at least in the era immediately following World War II]\u2014would have a trickle-down social effect on the rest of the country.<\/p>\n Truman was doing what government does best: tackling the big issues and projects that individuals can\u2019t. I don\u2019t love that he did it through the military\u2014whose track record tends more toward destruction and harm than it does toward helping people\u2014but I respect the impulse to use government to do the really big things.<\/p>\n