Why, historically, has there been so few female soldiers? Is it sexism?

If women served as soldiers there would be no war. Soldiers would be pacified from the shared pussi. Literally every war in history has been started because of sexual repression of some way. The excuses behind war all can be boiled to either:

a) wanting immediate access to pussy (immediate and unplanned invasions with the intent of pillaging goods in exchange for sexual favors or directly raping the conquered women)
b) out of fear of pussy digging potentialities and set-out designated pussy time for yourself or future generations by setting out the first preemptive strike

But if everyone has immediate access to pussy, those two reasons are moot. But the only reason why this isn't so and why women have been barred is because of the persistence of the autistic social minority class throughout history, who has always dug it's way into being a large portion of leadership (as the rest of the masses are often too content to worry about such drivel matters like they are) in all states, and from their disillusion and often repressed-deduced views they have intentionally excluding them will make the warrior classes repressed and aggravated and path-way for war. They are like a blind parasite whose delusion is only out for blood, and consciously know that allowing women within the ranks of their military forces will just make society as whole less willing to carry out or be persuaded by their autistic fits and proposals.

t.freud

99% of men are stronger than 99% of women.

Because historically, women have less upper body strength and that is quite important in the soldiering profession.

Also, the massive numbers of death in childbirth probably meant that there were fewer women to put in the army in the first place, and they were too reproductively important to put their lives at that kind of risk.

We need women to make actual good soldiers

Men also go to unnecessary risks to protect women

>wanting more of your population to die in war
wew

The point of soldiers is to protect your womenfolk from the men of other tribes. Putting your women in harms way is literally suicidal as a species, any tribes that did it didn't last long enough to be recorded in history.

Historically, if your tribe was conquered by another, all the men and boys would be massacred and the women taken as "wives" / slaves by the winners. Slavery sucks, but it's better than death. The men will die either way, but the women only stand to die if they choose to fight.

Because women give birth, that's why.

Men can impregnate more than one woman. If so many men die that there are more women in society, not a problem. The surviving men can have children with any of the women and population growth will continue.

If more women die, then there will be a rapidly decreased total of births, causing a demographic crisis.

I'm ex-military. I'm not for having women serve in combat operations. Why? Well, I think any solider who has seen a women get killed in combat is very psychologically damaging to the men.

We already share a sense of brotherhood, to watch a female soldier die who we consider a sister becomes too much to bare. I know. I've seen it. It's not good when it happens; it can destroy moral.

There's also the problem that men will sacrifice themselves for women, even if said woman is ostensibly a fellow soldier, and of course the problem that a woman lacks the physical strength to carry a wounded male colleague.

You can't replace a population as fast with more males than females

Now fuck off with your stupid questions

>and of course the problem that a woman lacks the physical strength to carry a wounded male colleague.
I'm sorry but that is just false. Women's legs (or human legs in general) are extremely strong when they are fit. A female fit soldier can easily get a male soldier (with gear) on her back, using the trained technique, and carry him with her legs.

As for the sacrificing themselves. We would do that for anyone of us. You haven't served have you?

I don't mean throwing yourself on a grenade to save your buddies, I mean sacrifice yourself meaninglessly because your base monkey brain is screaming at you and you forget your training.

To clarify: seeing a woman in danger is traumatic, this is why horror movies work. This is deep evolutionary wiring that you can't predict or control even with rigorous training.

Yes I agree. I think a lot of male soldiers are well enough trained to control themselves, but surely not all. I think it greatly depends on your training.

I agree with you completely that watching a women (in general) suffer is very disturbing. In my case, I still suffer from mild ptsd because I can vividly remember the sound of her scream. It was... a not just a scream, but a loud crying scream, if that makes sense.

Nevertheless, watching her go stuck with me more than the watching others.

Because one man can impregnate many women. Women are more valuable in ensuring your population survives.

Because they fuck up the group dynamics of men, and make shitty soldiers.

...

extremely disappointed in Veeky Forums as nobody has mentioned menstruation. putting aside valuing women as a commodity, the main reasons women aren't usually used as soldiers has little to do with strength and everything to do with menstruation, pregnancy, and child-rearing. studying indigenous cultures has affirmed this again and again with few exceptions.

Women need nine months (usually) to make children
Thus they were more important than to be sent off into a war.
Its pretty fucking simple.

Why don't people send their drones, scvs and probes to fight as melee unit?
Is it anti worker-ism?

Women are weak.

youtube.com/watch?v=OubHHtNM94s

Fun fact, it's pretty close to the US military's method of analysing the political environment in a region and how likely it is to become war like.

Basically boils down to if the economy is shit, men will struggle to provide for women and will so struggle to get pussy, so they get angry, until you reach a critical mass of angry military age dudes who can't get pussy.

Now I truly see!

The same reason why females have always suffered sexism at the hands of males instead of the other way around. Males are physically stronger and don't get pregnant.

Someone has to stay home when the men are off fighting. You can't draft your entire population.

>Is it sexism?

Pretty much. That is, if you think excluding a group from something for *any* reason is discriminatory, then yes it would be sexist.

What are you doing Veeky Forums? Share pics of female soldiers from your country.

Go be a fawning faggot somewhere else.

yes and no

even if some wanted to they wouldn't be allowed to in most countries in most periods
in the few countries they were allowed there wouldn't be as many

sex differences exist therefore sexism is mandatory for a civilisation to survive

this
fag

Not being lead around by the dick and fawning over bitches like a 14 year old girl at a Bieber concert doesn't make you a faggot.

The sooner you underage pussies learn that, the better.

This.

It has nothing to do with differences in strength or the need for women to stay at home and raise the next generation.

No wars are started because humans get pleasure from violence.

In the begginnig womam had to dress like a men to enter the army so it's expected that in the actuality things still slow in this area.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Quitéria

They can't be counted on. I'm in Naval Special Warfare, and we have a phrase for female techs: one is none, two is one. Basically, they cannot be counted on to perform because so many of them get pregnant right before a deployment. So, if you only train one of them on something and they get knocked up, some guy is going to have to bust his ass and learn everything about her tech ON TOP OF his own shit.

because the average female needs far more effort to get on the same level of fitness as the average male who has undergone the same training.

Women are physically inferior men. No sexism about it. They got the best warriors they could, and they were men.

theres this thing called testosterone

The Patriarchy has oppressed women ever since the dawn of history.

They are shitty soldiers, less strong, less resilient to damage, more emotionnal.

Next question.

Yes. Due to their inability to produce muscles, maintain agression and succeed on the battlefield males discriminated against them and spared them the tragedy of war.

Historical justification: Women make shitty soldiers.

Modern, logical justification: See above, but also add in that a nation that lost 3/4 of its male population in a massive war will bounce back within a few years and probably double its pre-war population within a few decades, whereas if they'd lost 3/4 of their female population in said massive war their population growth would be set back a century or more, barring external immigration.

If men die in war, it's not really a problem. So long as there's one guy left, he can fuck all the women and get population growth back on track. If women die, well, there's less wombs now, slower growth rate.
The paradox of the male physique is that, while it is more useful, it's stronger and faster and such, it's also more disposable.

I don't see how that's a paradox. Men being disposable makes them more useful.

(tips fedora, teleports behind you)

It's the lack of pussy that fucks countries up!

>I'm sorry but that is just false. Women's legs (or human legs in general) are extremely strong when they are fit. A female fit soldier can easily get a male soldier (with gear) on her back, using the trained technique, and carry him with her legs.
do people actually believe this?

So explain the lack of female operators.

Its the misogynistic physical standards required of these brave womyn in uniform.
Clearly we must reduce the entry standards so our special forces units are sufficiently diverse, it is 2017 after all.

Goes back to tribal warfare before civilization. Human reproduction requires a nine month gestation period within the body of a female. Typically humans are born one at a time. If many of your tribes males die in combat you only need a few, potentially one even, to be able to father more children for your tribe. If you only had a few female members remaining due to relying on female warriors you would be able to produce far less offspring in the same amount of time.

Don't get me wrong, I see women working out at the SEAL gym in Coronado all the time. They are fucking tough, but they don't quite have the physicality or mental fortitude to cut it.

There is some truth to your post. Agricultural societies until like 150 years ago needed 8 farmers to feed 10 mouths, that means women need to shit out kids like crazy in order for the community to survive. Naturally 12.000 years of (necessary) patriarchy takes some time to shake off.

just fawn over your bara men then faggot.

if you war with your females your genes die

men are expendable

>seeing a woman in danger is traumatic, this is why horror movies work
And here I am watching them cuz it's sexy.

Why was the one guy telling the driver to shut up so much? I mean, I guess Ray is on some shit but he's just blowing off steam cuz he's already thinkin' about who he's NOT going to be talking to when they do finish the fight they're heading too.

This.

The modern world has less of a need for that because it doesn't require that much strength to carry a backpack and shoot an assault rifle.

>seeing a woman in danger is traumatic
I think seeing men in danger is traumatic too

You're imposing your fucked up psychology on the world there. This isn't some deep evolutionary thing, this is you putting women on a pedestal

>because it doesn't require that much strength to carry a backpack and shoot an assault rifle.

Compared to premodern warfare it's a fuckton easier

Takes less than running at your enemy and stoving their head in with a mace or what have you

...