在古代，為什么士兵主要是男人?這有什么生物學(xué)上的原因嗎？網(wǎng)友：如果女性各項條件都滿足，為什么不能上前線？
In ancient times, why were soldiers predominantly men? Is there a biological reason for this?
譯文簡介
對于打仗而言，為何女子不如男？
正文翻譯
圖
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 7 )
收藏
Yes, humans are a sexually dimorphic species. This means that, on average, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive, have a greater capability to absorb punishment while still maintaining high levels of functionality, and have more stamina in militarily significant areas. Men are also (again, on average) more resilient to combat induced psychological trauma, and are more willing to make decisions with an “us vs. them” mentality (i.e. they have less empathy). All of these traits are desirable in front line soldiers.
是的，人類是一個兩性異形的物種。這意味著就平均而言，男性的體型更大、更強壯、更有攻擊性，在保持高水平的作戰(zhàn)能力的同時，對惡劣的環(huán)境具有著更強的承受能力，且在重要的軍事領(lǐng)域有著更多的耐力。相對于女性而言，男性也更具抵抗心理創(chuàng)傷的能力，面對殘酷的戰(zhàn)爭行為，男性更容易以“我們vs他們”的心態(tài)來做決定(也就是說，男性的共情更少)。而所有這些特點都是前線士兵所需要的。
與之相對的，女性在生理上比男性體型更小，體質(zhì)更弱，為了生存，她們在受到傷害時的生理反應(yīng)是放棄抵抗。由于女性天生具有更高的同理心，所以當(dāng)她們面臨生死抉擇時，比一般男性更難以迅速做出殺人的決定。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
當(dāng)然，正如我所說的，上述情況都是平均水平。你可以很容易地找到特別有同情心的男性，或者非常高大強壯的女性，但當(dāng)你從一個龐大的人口庫中征兵的時候，你不想花很多時間去檢視每一個人的確切能力。你只想要一個簡單的指標，簡單到你不需要花費太多精力，就能通過該指標得到足夠滿足你征兵需求的人。因此，只從男性中選擇兵員是你可以用來達到這個目的的最便捷的過濾手段之一。它能讓你有最大的機會招募到不管從身體上還是精神上都最適合當(dāng)兵的人。你將會花更少的時間淘汰沒有生存能力的候選人，從而可以把更多時間花在合格士兵的訓(xùn)練上。
當(dāng)然在今天，這并不是一個流行的觀點。我們確實是一個兩性異形的物種，不論是生理特征，亦或是心理特征，兩性均存在差異，然而承認這一點是非常政治不正確的。我們大費周章的試圖將男女之間的明顯差異解釋為一種社會學(xué)概念，而非遺傳學(xué)概念。在這些圈子里，兩性之間存在巨大物理和心理上差異的事實，似乎被掩蓋了。
這就是為什么各派別如此大力推動允許婦女走上前線的原因。這是一個錯誤，因為總的來說，婦女并不適合參與實際戰(zhàn)斗。她們完全可以充當(dāng)輔助角色，尤其當(dāng)我們考慮到現(xiàn)代技術(shù)所賦予的優(yōu)勢時更是如此，但戰(zhàn)斗的基本方面仍然與我們過去的戰(zhàn)斗相對一致。男人就是比女人更適應(yīng)戰(zhàn)斗環(huán)境，這沒有什么好爭論的。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
All correct. There’s skill, aptitude. There’s also value.
Fertile women are too valuable to be put at risk. Sperm is cheap. Fertile wombs aren’t.
全部正確。女性有技術(shù)，有能力、也有價值。
有生育能力的女人太寶貴了，不能把她們置于危險之中。精子很廉價，而可生育的子宮卻很昂貴。
Yep, this is true.
是的，你說的對。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
No, it’s not.
That’s just macho myths.
Been non-combatant doesn’t reduce your chance of dying in ancient wars.
And most dying in battles occurred running away after defeat.
If you have more combatants, i.e. not having half your women not fighting, then you are more likely to win, and therefore take less casulties.
Indeed having kids was a lot more likely to kill you than been in combat.
對個屁。
那只是大男子主義神話。
成為非戰(zhàn)斗人員并不能減少你在古代戰(zhàn)爭中死亡的機會。
而且戰(zhàn)爭期間的大多數(shù)死亡都是在戰(zhàn)敗后的逃跑期間發(fā)生的。
如果你有更多的戰(zhàn)斗人員，也就是說如果女人也可以參戰(zhàn)，那么你就有更大機會贏得勝利，從而減少傷亡。
事實上，比起戰(zhàn)斗，生孩子更有可能殺死你。
Uh oh, prepare yourself, I sense hundreds of feminists to come like a stampede ready to tell you that you're wrong.
I wish you luck
哦，你完了，準備好吧，我已經(jīng)感覺到了，一大波女拳正在趕往戰(zhàn)場，然后告訴你，你錯了。
祝你好運。
Already had one, fortunately it seems to have been down-voted into oblivion, so there may be hope for western culture yet ;-)
已經(jīng)有了一個，幸好貌似她的評論已經(jīng)被踩爆了，所以西方文化可能還是有希望的。
（譯者注：打拳的口水內(nèi)容就不翻了）
Except that there are feminists who said that if gender equality means sending their daughters to war they want no part of it.
這些女拳師四處打拳，只有當(dāng)有人說性別平等意味著要把她們的女兒送去打仗的時候，她們才不想?yún)⑴c其中。
The biggest issue was that women are more valuable. Women can give birth to a child every 9 months, whereas men can reproduce several times a day. If a society lost 1/3 of its women, that would be a lot worse than losing 1/3 of its men.
最關(guān)鍵的問題在于，女性比男性具有更高的價值。女人每9個月才能生一個孩子，而男人一天可以繁殖好幾次。如果一個社會失去1/3的婦女，這可比失去1/3的男性要糟糕得多。
I’m not sure it was the biggest, but it was definitely significant. I would say coequal with the fact that men were (and are) pretty much better suited for combat in every way that really mattered, especially when virtually every weapons system available was strength-based.
When it comes to warfare, losing 1/3 rd of your breeding force could very well be more desirable than losing the war and facing potential GENO..../mass enslavement. Even in such cases, females were rarely conscxted, because even the second and third rate males were typically better suited for combat than the average female.
我不確定這是不是最關(guān)鍵的原因，但它絕對意義重大。我想說的是，男性不管過去還是現(xiàn)在，從任何方面來說都比女性更適合戰(zhàn)斗，這一點非常非常重要！更何況，所有可用武器系統(tǒng)的操作都是基于力量的，在這方面，男性具有明顯優(yōu)勢。
當(dāng)涉及到戰(zhàn)爭時，兩害相權(quán)取其輕，失去1/3的繁殖能力，明顯比因輸?shù)魬?zhàn)爭而面臨潛在的種族滅絕以及大規(guī)模奴役，來得更可取。即使在這種情況下，女性也很少被征召，因為即使是二三流的男性通常也比一般女性更適合作戰(zhàn)。
Even though on average, women wouldn't be as suited to frontline combat as men, shouldn't the women “outliers” who can excel be allowed to? I believe that as long as standards are kept the same for both sexes then women should be allowed the same opportunities to serve in combat jobs.
Denying them the opportunity because on average their gender doesn't perform as well makes about as much sense as denying men the opportunity to be kindergarten teachers because they are less empathetic on average, and could potentially harm the development of the children under their care.
是的，從平均水平而言，女性不像男性一樣適合前線作戰(zhàn)，但是，難道那些在作戰(zhàn)方面天賦異稟的女性也不能上前線嗎？我認為，只要男女標準保持一致，那么女性就應(yīng)該被允許有同樣的機會在戰(zhàn)斗崗位上服務(wù)。
僅僅因為就均值而言，女性在戰(zhàn)場上的表現(xiàn)差強人意，就剝奪她們上戰(zhàn)場的機會，這個說法就像男性被剝奪他們當(dāng)幼兒園老師的機會一樣，只是因為有人認為，相對于女性而言，男性普片缺乏細心和耐心，而且可能會對孩子成長過程中的身心健康造成潛在的傷害。
This may make some sense in modern volunteer-only armies, but we first need to also take into account the impact this will have on other soldiers.
Studies show that front-line women soldiers, no matter their own personal proficiency, change the behavior of their male comrades and officers for the worse. And while there are procedures for shuffling people around to make more combat-effective units, these rightfully are only used as a last resort. The introduction of female combatants would probably necessitate the application of these procedures far more often than would be desirable.
Over all militaries both historically and contemporarily find that the effort necessary to make this viable is just not worth the effort involved. I find their rational fully justified.
雖然你的設(shè)想在現(xiàn)代募兵制的軍隊中可能具有一定的意義，但我們首先還需要考慮到這將對其他士兵產(chǎn)生的影響。
研究表明，前線女兵無論個人專業(yè)能力如何，都會改變其男性戰(zhàn)友和指揮官的行為模式，并使他們變得更糟。雖然部隊的確可以通過程序?qū)⑵湔{(diào)離，以確保該戰(zhàn)斗單元的戰(zhàn)斗力，但這種做法理應(yīng)被視為不得已而為之的最后的手段。而引進女性戰(zhàn)斗人員所導(dǎo)致的該調(diào)動程序的使用次數(shù)可能會遠遠超出你的想象。
無論從歷史角度亦或從現(xiàn)實角度來看，軍事部門都發(fā)現(xiàn)，為了增強軍隊戰(zhàn)斗力而引進女兵的努力是得不償失的。我認為軍方所給出的這些理由是完全合理的。
Is this behavior change because of an inherent biological difference or is this because of society?
It could have been and was argued that allowing the U.S military to desegregate in the ’50s would ruin the unit cohesion and cause bad behavior because of all the racist assholes. Similar arguments were made about allowing gay people to serve. But here we are today, no worse for wear because everyone grew the fuck up.
Do we have a duty to coddle men who can't handle serving alongside a woman or should we demand better of them?
這種行為的變化是由于天生的生理差異還是因為社會性的原因？
直到50年代還有人反對在美國軍隊中取消種族隔離制度，原因是他們認為取消種族隔制度離會破壞部隊的凝聚力，并造成不良行為，這些人都是些種族主義的狗屎！與之相似的，在關(guān)于允許同性戀服役這一問題上也有些人以類似的理由在那嘰嘰歪歪。但今天的我們有變得更糟嗎？我們沒有！因為我們每個人都TM的長大了??！
我們有義務(wù)去照顧那些不能與女人并肩作戰(zhàn)的男人嗎？還是我們應(yīng)該要求他們做得更好?
Men throughout history have shown a pretty strong preponderance to make incredibly bad judgments in the presence of ovaries and their associated physiology. There is strong evidence that this is based far more in genetics than western culture is willing to admit to.
From a survival perspective, this actually makes a lot of sense. As other answers correctly point out, wombs are valuable, gonads are not. There is a very strong mental bias for us gonad carriers to take incredible, ill-calculated risks to preserve those capable of bearing offspring. Building this into your combat units would not result in increased combat performance, and would likely lead to you having to deal with far more casualties than you would have to otherwise.
Is it conceivable you could turn this behavior to your advantage? Possibly. Staffing a critical defensive position with female combat troops may lead to a significantly more fierce defense of that position by the male soldiers, but that does not necessarily mean a more effective defense. There is also the question of the ethics of this strategy.
I do genuinely think the military has it right on this one. Let the women serve in supporting roles since technology no longer mandates any need to differentiate, but leave the combat to the men.
縱觀整個歷史，一旦事關(guān)卵巢或其相關(guān)生理學(xué)器官的存續(xù)問題，男性在大多數(shù)情況下都做出了令人難以置信的錯誤判斷。有強有力的證據(jù)表明，造成這種情形的原因更多是基于遺傳學(xué)因素，而這一點正是西方文化所不愿意承認的。
從物種生存的角度來看，這其實是很有道理的。正如其他答案所指出的那樣，同樣都是生殖腺，子宮是有價值的，而睪丸不是。我們這些男性性腺攜帶者有著一種非常強烈的心理偏差，即我們甘愿冒著非理性的、難以置信的巨大風(fēng)險，去保存那些能夠生育后代的性腺。在你的戰(zhàn)斗單位中加入女性成員不僅不會提高你的戰(zhàn)斗能力，而且很可能會導(dǎo)致與純男性戰(zhàn)斗部隊相比更多的傷亡。
你有可能利用男性的上述行為傾向并將其轉(zhuǎn)化為自己的優(yōu)勢嗎？有可能。在一個重要的防御陣地上配備女性作戰(zhàn)部隊，可能會明顯導(dǎo)致男性士兵更為強烈的防守意愿，但更為強烈的防守意愿，并不一定意味著更為有效的防守。除此之外，這一策略是否合適還存在一定的倫理問題。
我真心覺得軍方在這個問題上的做法是正確的。既然在技術(shù)性崗位上男女沒有差別，就讓女兵擔(dān)任輔助角色，然后把戰(zhàn)斗留給男兵吧。
It is worth noting here, that Arab tribes of pre-Islamic Arabia, at a time, brought “their” women to the battlefield, as a means to elevate the courage of their warrior men and to strike fear into their enemy's hearts. The message being, we are fighting this war to the death. The women did not take part in the battle, however.
值得注意的是，在伊斯蘭教統(tǒng)治阿拉伯世界之前，一些阿拉伯部落有時會將他們的眷屬帶到戰(zhàn)場上，以此來提高他們戰(zhàn)士的勇氣，并使敵人心生恐懼。這樣做所傳達的信息是，我們將在這場戰(zhàn)斗中死戰(zhàn)到底。當(dāng)然，婦女們并沒有參加戰(zhàn)斗。
Name one sport that involves speed, quickness, aggression, and strength where women compete against men. There are none. I will give a good example. In 2014 the U.S. women's Olympic hockey team practiced against some northeastern U.S. boy’s high school hockey teams. In these practice games, the boys beat the world’s best female athletes in hockey in about half of the games…and the boy’s were not allowed to body check for fear of hurting the women.
Mr. Caputo makes a good point about how females disrupt unit cohesion even if women were as strong as men. Putting young fertile reproductive age women with young high testosterone men is not a good combination. There will be romantic feelings, love interests, jealousies, men wanting to protect the women, and even pregnancies. Navy medical studies have reported the pregnancy rate on Navy ships is close to 20%.
I know many 60-year-old men at my gym who are fitter and stronger than any woman at that gym. But they are discriminated against by the military, because of their age. The military discriminates all the time based on physical characteristics such as age, strength, height, and weight. If an all-male combat unit is better than a unit mixed with women then why is it wrong to discriminate against women? Of course, I have no problem if, like the sports world, women fight in their own combat units, but no feminist has proposed this. Why? Because they know that an all-female fighting force would be a disaster.
請說出哪怕一項在涉及速度、敏捷、攻擊性和力量的運動中，男女可以同場競技的項目？一個都沒有。
我來舉一個很好的例子。2014年，美國奧運女子曲棍球隊與一些美國東北部的高中男子曲棍球隊進行了練習(xí)。在這些練習(xí)賽中，男孩們在大約一半的比賽中擊敗了世界上最好的女子曲棍球運動員......而且男孩們不被允許使用身體攔截戰(zhàn)術(shù)，因為他們害怕會傷害到女運動員。
卡普托先生說得很好，即使女性和男性一樣強壯，女性也會破壞戰(zhàn)斗單位的凝聚力。把年輕且有生育能力的育齡女性和男性荷爾蒙分泌旺盛的年輕男性放在一起，并不是一個好的組合。他們之間一定會發(fā)生這樣那樣的事情，浪漫的氛圍，情人，嫉妒，男人對女人的保護欲，甚至懷孕等等。海軍醫(yī)學(xué)研究報告顯示，海軍艦艇上的懷孕率接近20%。
在我的健身房里，我認識許多60歲的男人，他們比健身房里的任何女人都更健康、更強壯。但他們卻被軍方歧視，因為他們的年齡。其實軍方一直在根據(jù)年齡、力量、身高、體重等身體特征進行歧視。如果一支全男性的作戰(zhàn)部隊比一支有女性混編的部隊要好，那為什么歧視女性是錯誤的呢？
當(dāng)然，如果像體育界一樣，女性在自己的全女性部隊中作戰(zhàn)，我是沒有問題的，但沒有一個女權(quán)主義者提出這個建議。為什么呢？因為她們知道，一支全女性的戰(zhàn)斗部隊將是一場災(zāi)難。
It's been proven that mixed units preform more poorly than their all male counterparts because of the subconscious desire to protect the weaker sex that is in most men.
事實證明，混編單位的表現(xiàn)比全男同胞更差，因為大多數(shù)男性潛意識里都有保護弱者的欲望。
Why not explicitly exclude Asians, then? Asians on average are smaller and weaker than other races. Excluding them all would make it more efficient to weed out people not physically suited for combat roles.
那么，為什么不明確地排除亞洲人呢？就平均而言，亞洲人比其他種族體型更小、體質(zhì)更弱。將他們?nèi)颗懦谕?，可以更有效地剔除身體上不適合戰(zhàn)斗的人。
Because the differences between the races are smaller than the differences between the sexes, especially when you control for cultural issues like a diet. But this type of sextion does happen, it just happens during the weeding out process.
There are physical requirements you must meet for things like weight and height, for example. Once that is taken care of the differences between similarly sized Asian males and Caucasian males, while real and measurable, are far less than what is found between Caucasian males and Caucasian females of roughly the same size. Sexual traits are remarkably similar between the races, so it is not really worth differentiating.
因為種族之間的差異比性別之間的差異要小，尤其是當(dāng)你排除了由文化等因素造成的差異，比如飲食所帶來的影響時，這種差異會來得更小。但這種類型的選擇確實發(fā)生了，它只是發(fā)生在淘汰的過程中。
想要應(yīng)征入伍，你必須滿足一些身體上的標準，比如體重和身高。體型相似的亞洲男性和高加索男性之間的確存在差異，盡管這些差異是真實的，且可以衡量的，但該差異要遠遠小于體型大致相同的高加索男性和高加索女性之間的差異。對于人類而言，即使種族不同，但相同性別之間的生理特征非常相似，所以不值得加以區(qū)分。
I'd say that the increased aggression caused by testosterone is even more of a factor than the above, at least at first - attitude is hugely important in combat between fighters of equal skill, even if they are physically different.
我想說的是，睪丸酮所造成的攻擊性增加甚至比上述因素來得更為重要，我們至少要先搞明白一點，對于技術(shù)相同的格斗者而言，即便他們各自身體條件存在差異會帶來影響，但他們的態(tài)度也是決定戰(zhàn)斗結(jié)果的極其重要的原因。
Testosterone is indeed the hormone most likely to contribute the greatest effect to the mental differences seen between men and women. Testosterone is also the hormone largely responsible for the increased muscle bulk found in males as well, so it contributes to both mental and physical traits that favor men in combat.
睪丸酮確實是最有可能對男女之間的心理差異產(chǎn)生最大影響的激素。睪丸酮也是導(dǎo)致男性肌肉體積增加的主要激素，所以不管在心理上還是在生理上，它都有助于男性在戰(zhàn)斗中處于有利地位。
This is a crock of crap. You have ever seen a man try to take a baby away from its mother; she will kill you without any mercy; have you ever seen a woman jealous? You don’t even want to go there. Remember the Francine Hughes (The Burning Case)? And don’t forget about the John and Lorena Bobbit case? Never forget Boudica Queen of the Iceni tribe.
這簡直是一派胡言。你見過一個男人想把嬰兒從他母親身邊奪走媽？她會毫不留情地殺了你！你知道女人吃醋會有什么后果嗎？你連想都不敢想。還記得弗朗辛·休斯案嗎？也別忘了約翰和洛雷娜-波比特案？千萬別忘了伊塞尼部落的布迪卡女王。
（譯者注：前兩件是轟動性案件，一個是放火把前夫燒死在床上，一個是老婆說老公強奸了自己，把老公陰莖剪下來帶走，開車時扔到路邊，后來找到了手術(shù)接上去了，男的后來還拍了兩部色情片電影用以證明他“恢復(fù)了正常”，最后一個是憤怒的凱爾特女王）
It is a proven fact that men and women respond to physical trauma in different ways. This is a physiological response rooted in genetics.
One of the best examples is our physiological response to extreme cold. Men’s bodies respond by moving more blood flow and heat to the extremities. This preserves greater functionality at the cost of increased heat loss.
Women’s bodies, on the other hand, respond by pulling circulation back to their core, helping preserve heat at the cost of functionality in the limbs.
What this means is that men will maintain a higher function level, but will not live as long before succumbing to hypothermia. Women are much more susceptible to frostbite but have a longer expected survival window for a given body mass.
There are other comparable physiological responses when facing things like trauma and blood loss. Men just hold up better to this kind of abuse, at the cost of longer-term survival chances. By and large male traits are more desirable in a combat situation.
You tell me how these physiological responses are influenced by sociological constructs, instead of being genetic in nature.
事實證明，男人和女人對身體創(chuàng)傷的反應(yīng)是不同的。這是一種根植于遺傳學(xué)的生理反應(yīng)。
最好的例子之一就是我們對極端寒冷的生理反應(yīng)。男性的身體通過將更多的血液和熱量輸送到四肢來做出反應(yīng)。這以增加人體熱量損失為代價，保留了更大的運動能力。
另一方面，女性身體的反應(yīng)則是將血液循環(huán)拉回核心部位，以幫助保持核心熱量，但代價是四肢的功能受損。
這就意味著，男性會保持較高的功能水平，但體溫降低速度更快，存活時間更短。女性則更容易受凍傷的影響，但她們的預(yù)期生存時間會更長。
當(dāng)面對外傷和失血等情況時，還有其他類似的生理反應(yīng)。男人只是更能忍受這種虐待，但代價是失去長期的生存機會?？偟膩碚f，男性所具有的特質(zhì)是更有利于戰(zhàn)斗的。
然后你告訴我，這些生理反應(yīng)是受到社會學(xué)概念的影響造成的，而非遺傳學(xué)因素造成的？
Yes. An unpopular fact that once gained me reprimand by the Quora thought police.
是的，這是一個不受歡迎的事實，而且曾經(jīng)讓我備受Quora思想警察的斥責(zé)。
Feminism has suddenly become an idea of female domination.
I am all in for equality for women but I shun those who illogically demand women power in all aspects.
女權(quán)主義思想突然變成了一種爭取女性統(tǒng)治權(quán)的思想。
我完全支持女性平權(quán)，但我對那些不合邏輯地要求婦女在各方面要擁有權(quán)力的人避而遠之。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處