<http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/02/21/why-women-belong-i
n-war-zones> , when something in the first article caught my eye: the
errata.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 21, 2011
An earlier version of this article included a photograph with a caption
that misspelled the name of a reporter. She is Lara Logan, not Laura.
Also, an earlier version erroneously referred to Gaza as being "in
Israel."
Nothing about the error takes away from the points, of course:
Several commentators have suggested
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/02/17/2011-02-17_violated
_then_betrayed_which_is_worse_egyptian_sex_assault_or_us_pundits_saying_
.html> that Ms. Logan was somehow at fault: because she's pretty;
because she decided to go into the crowd; because she's a war junkie.
This wasn't her fault. It was the mob's fault. This attack also had
nothing to do with Islam. Sexual violence has always been a tool of war.
Female reporters sometimes are just convenient.
Women can cover the fighting just as well as men, depending on their
courage.
More important, they also do a pretty good job of covering what it's
like to live in a war, not just die in one. Without female
correspondents in war zones, the experiences of women there may be only
a rumor.