The article is about the pervasive myth that women didn't fight. The misconception that women can't fight is just one reason for that. Another is the misconception that women fighting is some sort of modern innovation.
Let's break this down into several myths, all of which this essay addresses at different points.
1. The myth that women can't fight.
2. The myth that women didn't historically fight in wars
3. The myth the women may have fought in wars, but that it was only a recent phenomenon.
It seems like you agree with me that Myth 1 (which the author does talk about and address) is largely in the process of falling out of favor already. Myth 2 and 3, while perhaps true, is really part of a larger problem with general ignorance of history coupled with the appropriation of history as a narrative tool to justify some sort of agenda. Women are certain not the only victims of this, and as you alluded to this kind of historical appropriation often had a very racial tone to it. For example, when I was going to school in the states, the narrative was that the Native Americans were stone-age primitive hunter/gatherer tribes instead of actually sophisticated and highly complex agricultural and trading empire that built tremendous earthen and wooden structures on the scale of the Mayan pyramids. I think the solution for this isn't simply replacing one kind llama narrative with another, but rather to understand that history is not a solidified monolithic thing, and that often there are many many ways of interpreting and drawing lessons from it. Their might very well be cannibalistic scaly llamas, and there might well be furry grumpy llamas that make good sweaters. The existence of one doesn't necessarily mean the non-existence of the other.
It's a valid point that the West is not, in any sense, the majority of the world. But this is a Western author writing to a Western audience in a Western-based publication (A Dribble of Ink) and reprinted in another Western-based publication (Podcastle).
I would also dispute that all of the West is as she is, or that non-Western societies are somehow immune from historical appropriation. We just tend to have different narratives and thus can more easily see the bias in someone else's narrative.
Her audience is the society she came from. And her use of "we" isn't the Royal "we" (which is exclusive - the Royal "we" does not include the person being talked to), but an inclusive use. She uses "we" to mean "myself and others like me". That doesn't mean she assumes that everyone is like her.
She may not mean that, but the use of the royal "we" comes off as sanctimonious and preachy, which I'm pretty sure is not her intent.
I am someone who frequently shares your frustration, especially in discussions about race - there is a lot of writing by Americans that imply that their racial attitudes are universal, while they are quite alien to me (not, mind you, because the ones I grew up with are better. They're just different). But it's important to realize that just because what she is saying may not be universal, that doesn't mean it's less valid. It's definitely worth considering that Podcastle has a global audience and maybe more care needs to be taken to acknowledge that when posting essays such as this. But your response seems to be saying that because you know better, there is no point for anyone to have the discussion. Which is not, I think, a particularly useful approach to handling cross-cultural differences either.
I completely agree that it doesn't make her point any less valid, and in fact I completely agree with the *intent* of her essay. I'm just complaining that about the *way* which she made her point, which comes across more like vinegar and instead of honey.
If you believe that Kameron Hurley has led a sheltered life, I don't wish to argue that with you. But you need to realize that practically everyone growing up in the English-speaking West has led a similarly sheltered life. And while that is not "most" of the world, it is a large enough part of it - and a part of it whose cultural significance in today's world is far larger than it's proportion of the population would suggest - that your apparent claim that she's an exceptional individual in that regard simply does not hold true.
I honestly have no idea what Ms/Mrs Hurley is like. I am only going by what she says in her essay, and in it, she implies that she viewed her early life as rather sheltered.