在古代，為什么士兵主要是男人呢？這有什么生物學(xué)上的原因嗎？
In ancient times, why were soldiers predominantly men? Is there a biological reason for this?
譯文簡介
男人比女人更強壯，更快。也更容易使用暴力。
正文翻譯
在古代，為什么士兵主要是男人呢？這有什么生物學(xué)上的原因嗎？
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 1 )
收藏
, Student of archeology and a big history nerd
Men are stronger and faster than women. Also more prone to violence.
Lastly men are expendable. If a society loses 50% of men between 14 and 40 it still has a future. Serbia is a good example for that - it lost 55% of its males during WW1. Now imagine that happening to half the women in childbearing age. Your cause is lost, your nation is gone, your tribe will go extinct. Not to mention the effects of thousands of young men without wives.
Something like this is bound to happen.
男人比女人更強壯，更快。也更容易使用暴力。
最后，男人是可以犧牲的。如果一個社會失去了在14至40歲之間的50%的男性，它仍然有一個未來。塞爾維亞就是一個很好的例子--它在一戰(zhàn)期間失去了55%的男性?，F(xiàn)在想象一下，這種情況發(fā)生在一半的育齡婦女身上會怎么樣。你的事業(yè)將失敗，你的國家將消失，你的部落將滅絕。更不用說成千上萬的年輕男子沒有妻子的影響了。
而這樣的事情必然會發(fā)生。
True except one point, that men are more prone to violence, I suggest you look at your history, women are just as prone to violence, just less successful with direct confrontational aspects of violence…poison is still violence…
說得沒錯，除了一點，男人更容易使用暴力，我建議你看看你的歷史，女人同樣容易使用暴力，只是在暴力的直接對抗方面不太成功......但毒藥仍然是暴力。
A couple corrections.
Men are, on average, physically stronger and faster than women, but the deviation overpowers the mean. Lots of women are stronger and faster than lots of men. So this isn’t decisive.
Men have more testosterone and are therefore more prone to aggression. This isn’t exactly the same as violence (emotional hostility, coercive rape, murder in cold blood are all forms of violence). But as far as being likely to be a soldier goes, you’re probably right on this point.
Lastly, you’re definitely right about dispensability. Personally, I suspect this is the (evolutionary) reason why men are more aggressive.
幾個修正。
平均而言，男性在身體上比女性更強壯、更快速，但偏差超過了平均值。很多女性比很多男性更強壯、更快。所以這并不是決定性的。
男人有更多的睪丸激素，因此更容易產(chǎn)生攻擊性。這并不完全等同于暴力（情感敵意、脅迫性強奸、冷血謀殺都是暴力的形式）。但就有可能成為一名士兵而言，你在這一點上可能是對的。
最后，關(guān)于可有可無，你肯定是對的。就個人而言，我懷疑這是男人更具攻擊性的（進化）原因。
It’s also important than in particularly strong armies today, those armies consist of predominantly men for much the same reasons (in fact that’s what’s brought up every time the draft sign-up for women is considered)
同樣重要的是，在今天特別強大的軍隊中，由于同樣的原因，這些軍隊依然主要由男性組成（事實上，每次考慮到女性的征兵報名時都會提到這一點）。
Did men of Serbia practice polygamy after WW1? If not, your example is not valid. The ratio of 2:1 has the pretty much the same effects as the ratio 1:2 (men - women) if people are monogamous. Returning to your assumption of polygamy: even if half of women died, the society would STILL go on - of course, much slower, at least in the beginning, but it’s not set to dissapear. There is also the option of having more children than before to compensate for the handicap, etc.
塞爾維亞的男人在一戰(zhàn)后有實行一夫多妻制嗎？如果沒有，你的例子是不成立的。如果人們是一夫一妻制，無論是2:1的比例還是1:2的比例（男人-女人）的效果基本是一樣的?；氐侥銓σ环蚨嗥拗频募僭O(shè)：即使一半的女性死亡，社會仍然會繼續(xù)下去--當然，在開始時肯定要慢得多，但它還是不會消失。還可以選擇比以前生更多的孩子來彌補缺陷，等等。
First of all, slow societal development is precisely what he mentions in his answer as an adverse effect of women going to war.
Secondly, you can’t really predict when a war might start. Even if you could, a bunch of babies to feed during the war isn’t going to help anything.
首先，社會發(fā)展緩慢正是他在回答中提到的婦女參戰(zhàn)的不利影響。
其次，你無法真正預(yù)測戰(zhàn)爭何時開始。即使你可以，在戰(zhàn)爭期間有一堆嬰兒要喂養(yǎng)，對你也不會有任何幫助。
When I mentioned the slow development I was returning again to his hypothesis (assumption of polygamy). I edited now for clarity. If people don’t practice polygamy or don’t CONSISTENTLY have kids outside the monogamous marriage (which people usually try to avoid because of social / moral constraints), then the development has pretty much the same speed, regardless of which sex is numerically predominant. I also find the phrasing “men are disposable/expendable” offensive and disrespectful, and, of course, untrue.
當我提到發(fā)展緩慢時，我又回到了他的假設(shè)（一夫多妻制的假設(shè)）。我現(xiàn)在進行了編輯，以使其更加清晰。如果人們不實行一夫多妻制，或者不持續(xù)地在一夫一妻制的婚姻之外生孩子（人們通常因為社會/道德約束而盡量避免），那么無論哪種性別在數(shù)量上占優(yōu)勢，發(fā)展的速度都是差不多的。我還認為"男人是一次性的/可消耗的"這種說法是一種冒犯和不尊重，而且當然也是不真實的。
Makes sense now. From a biological standpoint, however, it is true that males tend to live shorter lives than females.
修正之后有點道理了。然而，從生物學(xué)的角度來看，男性的壽命往往比女性更短。
Men do tend to live shorter, for a variety of reasons. But what exactly has that to do with them supposedly being more “expendable”?
由于各種原因，男人的壽命確實更短。但這與它們更具“消耗性”到底有什么關(guān)系呢？
Been more prone to pointless violence doesn’t actually make a better soldier. The readyness to violence you talk about means they are also more likely to get in leathal fights with their own people. Not a great attribute for a soldier.
PS. In acient times a country/tribe that lost 1/2 it’s men was likely a dead country anyway.
更傾向于使用無意義的暴力，實際上并不能使一個人能成為更好的士兵。你所說的對暴力的敏感性意味著他們也更有可能與自己的人發(fā)生激烈的戰(zhàn)斗。對于一個士兵來說，這不是一個很好的屬性。
PS. 在古代，一個國家/部落如果失去了1/2的人，那么它很可能是一個等死的國家。
I think the logic of the answer can be found in - why humans kill the male animals for food while female ones are kept for breeding.
我認為答案的邏輯可以在為什么人類殺死雄性動物作為食物，而雌性動物被飼養(yǎng)繁殖之中尋找。
Who knows, there's always that 5% chance the aforementioned society becomes an Amazonian one.
誰知道呢，上述社會有5%的可能成為亞馬遜（女性為主）社會。
Armies were a political thing, and women were not allowed in politics
軍隊是一件政治事務(wù)，婦女不被允許進入政治活動
Women wielded an extraordinary amount of power in any society that practices arranged marriages. A society like the Ancient Greeks and Romans for example or the entire Medi world. Alliances are determined by familial ties and those were controlled by women.
Otherwise female soldiers are certainly not unheard of in neither of those periods.
在任何實行包辦婚姻的社會中，婦女都掌握著極大的權(quán)力。例如，像古希臘和古羅馬這樣的社會或整個中世紀世界。聯(lián)盟是由家庭關(guān)系決定的，而這些關(guān)系是由婦女控制的。
否則，在這兩個時期，女兵肯定不是聞所未聞的。
Wow. Never thought in this way. Not sure if this is right (morally speaking) but, you certainly making me think about this (why mostly males are involved in wars and not women) in a different way now.
哇。從來沒有這樣想過。不確定這是否正確（從道德上講)，但是，你肯定會讓我以不同的方式思考這個問題(為什么現(xiàn)在大多數(shù)男性參與戰(zhàn)爭，而不是女性）。
I cannot believe how offensive this is to woman, woman and men are the same.
我不敢相信這對女人是有多冒犯，女人和男人都是一樣的。
According to law, they are equals. According to biology, they are not. Each gender has some qualities that other lacks. You don’t like it? Go argue with mother evolution.
根據(jù)法律，他們是平等的。根據(jù)生物學(xué)原理，他們不是。每個性別都有一些其他性別所缺乏的品質(zhì)。你不喜歡這個結(jié)論？去和你的母親爭論進化論吧。
No! That is anti-feminist. Women and men are the same except where women are better.
不！說女人和男人是一樣的是反女權(quán)主義者的。在他們看來女人更好。
Wrong. Male and female biology are not the same.
錯。男性和女性的生物學(xué)特性是不一樣的。
Ok, males are just as capable as become pregnant as woman with hormones and treatment.
好吧，男性服用激素和治療之后一樣有能力懷孕。
No, they don’t. A natural woman and natural men are not biological equals. It’s not just about hormons and estrogen.
Treatment which would basicly turn them into weird freaks of nature. No, thanks.
不，他們不能。一個自然的女人和自然的男人在生理上是不平等的。這不僅僅是荷爾蒙和雌激素的問題。
治療，這基本上會把他們變成自然界的怪胎。敬謝不敏。
I cannot believe how insensitive that was.
不敢相信你這種話能說得這么大大咧咧
I couldn’t care less.
我不在乎。
, History enthusiast
Well, actually acknowledging that women are weaker physically than men doesn’t make you a sexist, lol, and this is the main reason why soldiers were predominantly men.
I don’t know why Spencer had the need to attack Alex Mann in this answer Spencer McDaniel's answer to In ancient times, why were soldiers predominantly men? Is there a biological reason for this? assuming that Alex has internalized misogyny because he states some facts.
In defense of any ancient or not so ancient warrior women out there, most probably the few examples were a result of extreme conditions, like a shortage of male soldiers. Now women in army rely also on their guns.
While women can be excellent archers or snipers, war implies also close combat and clearly women have a disadvantage.
For example let’s take the insanity concerning today’s women’s sports and the fact that they allow transwomen who went through puberty as boys to compete.
Also if they are any SJWs or false feminists whining here, please go and enroll in the army and stfu.
好吧，其實承認女性在身體上比男性弱，并不會讓你成為性別歧視者，笑，這就是士兵以男性為主的主要原因。
我不知道為什么斯賓塞有必要在這個回答中攻擊亞歷克斯-曼，斯賓塞-麥克丹尼爾關(guān)于：在古代，為什么士兵以男性為主？有生物學(xué)上的原因嗎？的回答（鏈接），就因為亞歷克斯陳述了一些事實就假定他是有厭女癥。
在以任何古代或不太古代的女戰(zhàn)士作為辯護時，其實最可能的例子都是極端條件下的結(jié)果，比如男兵的短缺。而在現(xiàn)代，現(xiàn)在在軍隊中的女性也依靠她們的槍。
雖然婦女可以成為優(yōu)秀的弓箭手或狙擊手，但戰(zhàn)爭也意味著近身肉搏，顯然婦女有劣勢。
例如，讓我們來看看關(guān)于今天的女子運動中的一些瘋狂現(xiàn)象，以及他們允許一些在青春期之后才變性的男子作為婦女參加比賽的事實。
另外，如果有任何SJWs（社會正義戰(zhàn)士）或假女權(quán)主義者在這里抱怨，請去參軍，然后閉嘴。
Waiting for the comments saying how sexist I am. :>
等著評論說我是多么的性別歧視。:>
Harsh reality for some. Truth and evolution are sexist, to begin with.
This recent study also desls with the feminization of US combat units:
Women Don’t Belong in Combat Units | Manhattan Institute
現(xiàn)實對某些人來說太殘酷了。真理和進化論都是性別歧視。
最近的這項研究也與美國作戰(zhàn)部隊的女性化有關(guān)：
婦女不屬于戰(zhàn)斗部隊 -- 曼哈頓研究所
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
I will read it later, but you are forgetting that women can be now excellent snippers.
這篇報告我稍后再讀，但你忘記了女人現(xiàn)在可以是優(yōu)秀的狙擊手了。
Anyone can rise above their population average through training and hard work. In the end, when specific biological limitations are imposed, every living being can do some things better than others. A dog is built to run, a monkey is built to climb trees. Men have testosterone which bulks up their muscle mass. So, where serious physical strength and endurance are called for, men stand out — under identical lifestyle and training. Sniper and remote bombing through digital surveillance are not as physically demanding, as say, ground combat with heavy gear.
任何人都可以通過訓(xùn)練和努力工作提高到超過其人口平均水平。最后，當施加特定的生物限制時，每個生物都可以比其他物種做得更好。狗是用來跑步的，猴子是用來爬樹的。男人有睪丸激素，可以使他們的肌肉體積變大。因此，在需要嚴重體力和耐力的地方，男人會脫穎而出--在相同的生活方式和訓(xùn)練下。狙擊手和通過數(shù)字監(jiān)控進行遠程轟炸并不像使用重型裝備的地面戰(zhàn)斗那樣需要體力。
Yes, I don’t deny that.
I read a bit from your article you posted. Yeah, I don’t know… I don’t like either the idea of lowering the difficulty too much of the physical tests required to enroll in the army but I don’t agree with the lady commentator to ban women from the army (I hope I understood well), because as she stated two women from 3 dozens participating in the tests managed to pass them. So, just for those two women I wouldn’t ban women in the army. That is not right. Also I don’t understand Trump administration banning trans people from the army… doesn’t make sense. Also, she rants that men can’t control themselves and have sex with their female colleagues, thus hindering the discipline of the army. Yeah, ok, but they were all kicked out.
是的，我不否認這一點。
我從你發(fā)布的文章中讀到一點。是啊，我不知道......我也不喜歡降低入伍體能測試難度的想法，但我不同意那位女評論員禁止女性入伍的觀點（我希望我理解她的觀點理解得很好），因為正如她所說，在參加測試的三十幾名女性中，有兩名女性成功通過測試。因此，就算是為了這兩名婦女，我不會同意禁止婦女參軍。這是不對的。我也不理解特朗普政府禁止變性人參軍的做法......這沒有意義。另外，她還咆哮著說男人無法控制自己，與女同事發(fā)生性關(guān)系，從而妨礙了軍隊的紀律。是的，好吧，但他們都被踢出去了。
Being in a body that doesn’t match your mental gender causes anxiety. Transitioning causes anxiety and requires medical operations that don’t mesh with army service. Anxiety is a reason to block someone from joining the army, regardless of gender. After all, the army is physically and mentally trying. It’s probably not a good environment for trans people.
身處一個與你的心理性別不相符的身體會引起焦慮。變性會導(dǎo)致焦慮，并需要進行與軍隊服務(wù)不相符的醫(yī)療手術(shù)。焦慮是阻止某人參軍的一個理由，無論性別如何。畢竟，軍隊在身體上和精神上都很辛苦。對變性人來說，這可能不是一個好的環(huán)境。
I don't know about 'sexist’, but it IS kind of dissapointing looking for contrary opinions on a topic and seeing someone mostly just slinging mud and shouting “come at me li-bruh-ls".
我不知道什么是 "性別歧視"，但在一個話題上尋找相反的意見時，看到有人大部分時間都在潑臟水，并大喊 "來找我對線啊，li-bruh-ls（意義類似于白左）"，這確實有點令人失望。
You should know, that archers means very strong people. The warbows required more physical strength than a spear. So the fantasy trope, that bow=weakling and female weapon is not true. the skeleton of longbowmen in english armies showed distinct specialties, suggesting having strength nearing human limitations:
Huge chest and abnormally long left arm to have the necessary muscles required to operate a human powered rapid-shooting sniper rifle.
Very few women can develop similar physique.
你應(yīng)該知道的是，弓箭手意味著非常強壯的人。戰(zhàn)弓比長矛更需要體力。英國軍隊中長弓手的骨架顯示出明顯的特長，表明其力量接近人類的極限。
巨大的胸部和異常長的左臂，擁有操作人力快速射擊所需的必要肌肉。
很少有女性能形成類似的體格。
Yes, indeed, I fell into that trap, but got enlighten in the comment section. I also assumed that short range bows wouldn’t require a stupid amount of strength, but found out that even the Scythian bows weren’t that small as depicted in art.
是的，的確，我掉進了這個陷阱，但在評論區(qū)得到了啟發(fā)。我還以為短距離的弓不需要多大的力量，但發(fā)現(xiàn)即使是斯基泰人的弓也不像藝術(shù)中描述的那么小。
English longbowmen started to train at a very early age in order to develop the muscle mass required. If women or girls had followed the same regime they too would have. Our local longbow club has members of both genders, these days they probably won't use the same draw weights as their medi counterparts but 80lbs isn't unusual. One of the girls has worked up to a 120 lb draw weight.
英國長弓手在很小的時候就開始訓(xùn)練，以發(fā)展所需的肌肉質(zhì)量。如果婦女或女孩遵循同樣的制度，她們也能做到。我們當?shù)氐拈L弓俱樂部有男女成員，現(xiàn)在他們可能不會使用與中世紀同行相同的拉弓重量，但80磅的重量并不罕見。其中一個女孩已經(jīng)練到了120磅的拉弓重量。
The key difference between then in now is a very very important one we overlook every day.
Calories.
We have more calories today then we could ever need. Even our poor can be extemely overweight. We are awash in calories.
But in ancient times, food was not easy to get, especially in abundance. Being on a huge calorific surplus for years in order to support the growth of muscle tissue would not have been easy, especially for women who have to work twice as hard or more to achieve the same muscle gains as men, simply due to biology.
The first couple months of starvation level calorie intake, their bodies would go catabolic and break down muscle tissue in order to maintain operation and reduce calorie expenditure.
It's nice to say now that a female who trains can beat a man physically. Not always they are still at a massive disadvantage in almost every single way, even if they are the same size and weight, but you add in the calories and the game changes completely.
當時和現(xiàn)在的關(guān)鍵區(qū)別是我們每天都忽略的一個非常非常重要的東西。
卡路里。
今天我們有更多的卡路里，而我們可能永遠不需要這么多。即使是我們的窮人也可能嚴重超重。我們充斥著卡路里。
但在古代，食物并不容易獲得，尤其是大量的食物。為了支持肌肉組織的生長，讓其多年來一直處于巨大的熱量過剩狀態(tài)，這并不容易，特別是對于女性來說，她們必須付出兩倍或更多的努力才能獲得與男性相同的肌肉增長，這就是生物學(xué)上的原因。
在饑餓水平熱量攝入的頭幾個月，她們的身體會出現(xiàn)分解代謝，分解肌肉組織，以維持身體運作并減少熱量消耗。
現(xiàn)在說一個訓(xùn)練有素的女性可以在身體上擊敗男性，這很好。但并非總是如此，她們在幾乎所有的方面仍然處于巨大的劣勢，即使她們的體型和體重相同，但如果你加入了卡路里，游戲就完全改變了。
No, it does not change.
If females could somehow gain same physical performance as males with sufficient calories, we would not have females and males in separate groups in sports.
Reality is that regardless of calories, females are weaker than males of similar exercise. Yes, exercising females (not speaking of top athletes) might outperform couch potato males, but once couch potato gets up and starts jogging etc, he will catch that female soon.
Top female athletes are on par again, roughly, with middlish level male athletes of same category (eg. Olympic level).
That is just fact of life.
不，這并沒有改變。
如果女性能以某種方式以足夠多的卡路里獲得與男性相同的體能，我們就不會在運動中把女性和男性分成不同的組了。
現(xiàn)實情況是，無論卡路里多少，女性都比類似運動的男性要弱。是的，運動的女性（不是指頂級運動員）可能會超過躺在沙發(fā)上吃土豆的男性，但一旦這個沙發(fā)土豆站起來開始慢跑等等，他很快就會趕上運動的女性。
頂級女運動員與同類別的中等水平的男運動員（如奧運水平）大致相當。
這就是生活中的事實。
In some cultures it was common for women to participate in combat. Especially in nomadic tribes. But for more settled communities women usually were busy with other activities. Division of labor and all. When Ancient Greeks first encountered female warriors from steppe tribes in Asia Minor they were so weirded out by this oddity that they ended up mythifying them. Nowadays they are more commonly known as the Amazons.
在一些文化中，婦女參加戰(zhàn)斗是很常見的。特別是在游牧部落。但對于更多的定居社區(qū)，婦女通常忙于其他活動。勞動分工等等。當古希臘人第一次遇到來自小亞細亞草原部落的女戰(zhàn)士時，他們對這種奇怪的現(xiàn)象感到非常奇怪，以至于最后把她們神話了。如今，她們更多地被稱為亞馬遜人。
There is a discussion in the comments here or in other answers that actually Scythian bows (Steppe warriors would also these bows) needed 100 pound force. It is possible that extreme conditions would force nomad women to defens themselves also.
在這里的評論或其他回答中有一個討論說，實際上斯基泰人的弓（草原戰(zhàn)士也會有這些弓）需要100磅的力量。當然，極端的條件有可能會迫使游牧民族婦女也要自衛(wèi)。
The Amazons are fake feminist nonsense. Much of the stories surrounding women fighting in wars in some cultures in old times were fabricated by early feminists, feminists of the early 1900s. It’s all nonsense.
亞馬遜人是假女權(quán)主義的胡說八道。古代一些文化中圍繞婦女參戰(zhàn)的許多故事都是由早期的女權(quán)主義者、20世紀初的女權(quán)主義者編造的。這都是無稽之談。
Stories of Amazons appear first in the Iliad by Homer in the 8th century BC. So, not sure what you are getting at.
亞馬遜人的故事最早出現(xiàn)在公元前8世紀荷馬的《伊利亞特》中。所以，不確定你在說什么。
You have a point, but the fact is that most phases of combat are not about hand-to-hand fighting anymore. There is still some of that, of course, but modern warfare values things like, who can take the most g’s in a turn in a jet, who can more quickly determine the location of the enemy based on limited information, who can make snap judgments based on limited information, or who is the best drone pilot.
I don’t think men or women have a demonstrated advantage in a large number of the things required for modern combat. To the extent that combat is about who can throw a grenade the furthest or who can fight the must bulk dude, yes, men have an advantage. But that is not mostly what combat is about anymore.
你說的有道理，但事實是，大多數(shù)階段的戰(zhàn)斗不再是肉搏的戰(zhàn)斗。當然還有一些，但現(xiàn)代戰(zhàn)爭看重的是，誰能在飛機轉(zhuǎn)彎時承受最多的重力，誰能根據(jù)有限的信息更迅速地確定敵人的位置，誰能根據(jù)有限的信息做出快速判斷，或者誰是最好的無人機飛行員。
我不認為男性或女性在現(xiàn)代戰(zhàn)斗所需的大量事情上有明顯優(yōu)勢。如果戰(zhàn)斗內(nèi)容是關(guān)于誰能把手榴彈扔得最遠，或者誰能和肯定是一個大塊頭的人戰(zhàn)斗而言，是的，男人有優(yōu)勢。但這已經(jīng)不再是戰(zhàn)斗的主要內(nèi)容了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
The question is a bout ancient times.
Even so, in modern land combat, you still have to carry for example heavy equipment, or have to climb stuff or move as fast as possible.
原本的問題是問關(guān)于古代的。
即便如此，在現(xiàn)代陸地戰(zhàn)斗中，你仍然必須攜帶重型裝備，或者必須爬上東西或盡可能快地移動。
Nothing sexist here, just the plain truth.
這里沒有什么性別歧視，只是一個簡單的事實。
I do like Alex’ posts and seeing him being called misogynistic that is just f*ked up. Plus in the Ottoman Empire for example the Janissary were from slave boys from around the empire and they weren’t even allowed to have a family. Egyptians employed likewise Nubian mercenaries so not to kill many of their own in wars. Likewise Alexander the great employed Thracians in the army from the conquered Thrace. Doesn’t seam like a privilege to me, but a burden of the conquered societies to give up their boys to fight other’s wars.
我很喜歡亞歷克斯的帖子，看到他被稱為厭惡女人的人，這實在是太糟糕了。另外，以奧斯曼帝國為例，蘇丹禁衛(wèi)軍是來自帝國各地的奴隸男孩，他們甚至不被允許有一個家庭。埃及人也同樣雇傭了努比亞雇傭兵，這樣就不會在戰(zhàn)爭中殺死很多自己人。同樣，亞歷山大大帝在軍隊中雇傭了來自被征服的色雷斯的色雷斯人。在我看來，這不像是一種特權(quán)，而是被征服的社會放棄自己的孩子去打別人的戰(zhàn)爭的一種負擔(dān)。
, M.A History & Latin, Ohio University (2016)
I mean I hate to make it like this but isn’t it obvious?
Men are larger, faster, stronger, and more aggressive than women biologically. Take the average male vs the average female and it is clear who would win in a fight.
It’s why male and female tennis players rarely play one another and why we have different professional leagues for every sport.
Serena and Venus Williams are both world-class athletes at the top of their game. At their peak in 1998 while ranked number 1 they had boasted that no male ranked outside of the top 200 could beat them.
Number 203 ranked German player Karsten Braasch stepped up and beat Serena 6–1 and then Venus 6–2. Karsten would say after the matched that
They wouldn't have had a chance against anyone inside the top 500 because today I played like someone ranked 600th to keep it fun
The US Women’s national soccer team was routed 5–2 in their scrimmage against the Dallas 15 and under boys club.
Now, this is not meant to put down these terrific female athletes but instead to make a point. Women are capable of amazing feats of athletics and certainly, the US Women's National Soccer team is ranked as one of the best women’s soccer teams on earth.
But the reality remains that men are heavier and stronger than women and in any physical competition men will almost always win.
War is very physical and when you get past all the fancy tactics and strategic ideas it comes down to 2 people trying to overpower and brutally kill the other.
This fight scene from the Netflix movie “The King” shows what I mean. In battle, everyone has armor and helmets and just slashing someone with a sword is almost never effective. In almost always ends up being a violent brawl and the average woman is going to lose this brawl 10 times out of 10.
我不想說得很直白，但這不是很明顯嗎？
在生物學(xué)上，男人比女人更大、更快、更強壯、更具攻擊性。以普通男性與普通女性相比，很明顯誰會在戰(zhàn)斗中獲勝。
這就是為什么男性和女性網(wǎng)球運動員很少互相比賽，以及為什么我們對每項運動都有不同的職業(yè)聯(lián)盟。
塞雷娜和維納斯-威廉姆斯都是處于巔峰的世界級運動員。在1998年她們排名第一的巔峰時期，她們曾吹噓說，排名在前200名以外的男性都不能打敗她們。
排名第203位的德國選手卡斯滕-布拉什挺身而出，以6-1擊敗塞雷娜，然后以6-2擊敗維納斯?？ㄋ闺诒荣惡笳f：
“她們對前500名以內(nèi)的人不會有贏的機會，因為今天我打得像排名600位的人，跟玩一樣?！?br /> 美國國家女子足球隊在與達拉斯15歲及以下男孩俱樂部的比賽中以5比2的比分潰敗。
現(xiàn)在，這并不是要貶低這些出色的女運動員，而是要說明一個問題。女性有能力完成驚人的運動壯舉，當然，美國國家女子足球隊被列為地球上最好的女子足球隊之一。
但現(xiàn)實是，男人比女人更重更強壯，在任何身體競爭中，男人幾乎總是會贏。
戰(zhàn)爭是非常有具體的，當你拋開所有花哨的戰(zhàn)術(shù)和戰(zhàn)略思想，它歸結(jié)為兩個人試圖壓倒并殘忍地殺死對方。
Netflix電影"國王"中的這個打斗場景顯示了我的意思。在戰(zhàn)斗中，每個人都有盔甲和頭盔，只是用劍砍人幾乎沒有效果。幾乎總是以暴力斗毆告終，而普通女性在這種斗毆中十有八九會輸。
（這個就是那個被攻擊的亞歷克斯的答案）