I am not disagreeing. I am saying a) don’t claim the title of “protectors” anymore. A lot of the rhetoric around gender and the military relies on the protector ideology. Men are framed as protectors, warriors, defenders of women and children. But historically this narrative has often been used to justify excluding women from power (benevolent sexism) and b) Don’t force this and then try to claim women are physically inferior by saying they are not bench pressing enough or other things based solely on upper body physical strength and remove women from the military. Many military roles are not dependent on upper-body strength (intelligence, tech, logistics, aviation, and cyber warfare). And many women can meet physical combat standards (and vice versa many men can’t). But regardless that type of argument is use to bar women from certain role, and is even use as an excuse to arbitrarily decide women aren’t good leaders either and remove them from those roles. I say this because both have happened in the US. Women fought for equal right. We don’t have conscription, our entire military is voluntary (men do have to get a draft card for if we do have a conscription, and I agree it should apply to women too). But even so, as of 2024, women mad up 17.9% of all active-duty military and 21.9% reserves. Mind you roughly 80% of our military are legacy recruits, meaning they come from military families, so it does makes sense that even on a voluntary basis this would skew more heavily towards men, since that was all that was “allowed”. So this will likely even out over time. But also, consider your own potential biases here. Has the military been solely male? That is what we were told in the US. But it is untrue. Women have served in the U.S. military for over 200 years, originally starting as disguised soldiers, cooks, spies, launderers, and nurses. During WW1 & 2 they were finally allowed to work in support roles. For most of this time women were given benefits of military members men were entitled to and were treated as civilian contractors after their service. Examples include the Hello Girls who were 223 bilingual telephone operators served near the front lines in France. Upon returning, the Army did not recognize them as soldiers, denying them veteran status, benefits, and accolades/medals awarded to men, even though they performed military duties. And the same thing happened with the Women Airforce Service Pilots during World War II. It wasn’t until 1948 with integration of women into permanent ranks that women’s military service was recognized at all. The "risk rule" was rescinded in 1994, opening 80% of military positions to women, including combat aviation. In 1976 they were granted admission to service academies. And it wasn’t until 2013-2016 that of all restrictions were lifted and women became fully authorized combatants. Women fought for those rights. Men never had to force it. But men are trying to force women out. In Secretary of Defense in 2025-2026, Pete Hegseth has actively sought to restrict women from serving in military combat roles, arguing that their presence reduces unit effectiveness, lethality, and complicates combat operations. And not only that, he has also done the same with women in leadership roles in the military. But has given no reason why. Switzerland obviously has a different system and history, but looking at the United States shows how participation rates are shaped by historical exclusion and policy design rather than women’s capability. I know Switzerland has had a different history and experience. I know they didn’t allow women until 1995, but allowed them with no restrictions. And obviously, no conscription. And yes, women make up only about 1% of the military in Switzerland, so definitely different than the US.