The OP is absolutely right, except that this film is not a "bit" sexist, rather it is
extremely
sexist against men.
The many posts in this thread that defend that sexism and try to reinforce its validity are further examples of that very same sexism.

Not even gonna read the dumb answers in this thread but a couple things.

1. The OP doesn't know what sexism is.
2. Men start wars and men use rape as a weapon of war. This is fact.
3. Men are animals. Thanks and gbye.

Well, sadlyif an apocalyptic situation like that was occurring, men probably would turn into "animals". I mean, come onquite possibly, the only two non-infected females within the entire country, were at a military base full of dudes. After dealing with zombies (the infected) on a daily basis, along with a complete breakdown in society, it is safe to say that the soldier's morals and standards had dissipated. Law and order was completely gone. Definitely not a safe situation for two females to be in.

Sexism, like racism, falls on the side that has the power.
If that is true, then that must be why the anti-male sexism that the OP has pointed out exists, that same sexism which you and many other posters in this thread endorse & defend. Because liberals/SJWs/feminist psychos have the power, and so, as per your quoted statement, they use it to promote and enforce their sexism.
In this story, the military men had the power at that encampment, meaning they were the ones guilty of sexism.
and the script writers had the power to write a screenplay that is or is not sexist. They chose to write one that is sexist, because that sexism aligns perfectly with their liberal/SJW/feminist ideology. That must be another example of like you said, sexism falls on the side that has the power.
In most of the world, men have the powermen have the upper hand, power wise.
Bull crap.
I.e.
So-called 'women' have the power to murder their unborn babies and not be prosecuted for those murders. In other words, they can and do quite literally get away with murder. There is no greater power that anyone could possibly have than to get away with murder. That is the most egregious & outright abominable example, and no others are even needed to prove the point that your claim of "men having the power" is utter bull.
But I'll still give other examples too anyway.
Women also have the power to steal half of men's assets and all of their children in divorce court, and furthermore, they have the power to leech tons of money off of their victim - for no legitimate reason - for the rest of his life.
Women also have the power to get men fired and hence leave him unable to survive via bogus "sexual harassment" claims: to be clear, I'm not justifying actual harassment, but what I'm saying is that women can fabricate claims of "harassment" that never happened, and the innocent man will always be found guilty just because of the same sexist attitude that the OP points out and which has spread like a cancer throughout all societies run by liberal/SJW/feminist crazies (which appallingly, is most of them).
Likewise, they also have the power to to fabricate false claims of "rape" that never really happened, and when they do, the innocent man will again always be found guilty, imprisoned, and have his reputation ruined. Of course, I'm not defending actual rape.

"Sexism" is gender neutral, you can be sexist against men or women.
Sexism, like racism, falls on the side that has the power. In most of the world, men have the power. In this story, the military men had the power at that encampment, meaning they were the ones guilty of sexism. The OP is trying to paint the movie writers as being sexist against men. The writers are not from countries where governmental, social and economic policies were set up to keep women ahead of men. So, no, they were not being sexist against men, because in the movie and in the real world of the writers, men have the upper hand, power wise.
Credo ergo sum

The film would be sexist if it was condoning rape. It was not, in any way, doing that. I think people forget the meanings of words and try to bend them to mean what they want them to mean. The terminology the op was going for was 'misandrist'.
No, you're not understanding the terminology. "Sexism" is gender neutral, you can be sexist against men or women.
And yeah, that all the soldiers would act like that (and it hadn't even been that long) was ridiculous.

Notice how throughout the film the women have their sht together and the men are barely hanging on?

SO SICK OF SEXIST RACIST BS PC CRAP. IF YOU GET OFFENDED JUST DIE.
HELP AGGRAVATE THE STATUS QUO, VOTE AGAINST EVERY INCUMBENT YOU SEE ON A BALLOT.

This message has been deleted.

He just wanted to show that it's not just deseased people that can act like that, that any body can be like that too.
But the script
doesn't
show "any body" to be like that. It only shows the men to be like that, and in contrast, it only shows the women being saintly victims/martyrs.
If the script actually did what you said it does, then it would represent the women as trying to rape the men too, or something like that.

U are the sexist, not the plot writer.
He just wanted to show that it's not just deseased people that can act like that, that any body can be like that too. That we're attacking each other dayly.
Rape was just used as a way to show that. Nothing about sex.

No, the film is not sexist, because it did not portray all the male characters as sexist, nor did it defend those male characters who were sexists.
It merely dramatized that a lot of people are sexists, and when given the opportunity and temptation, their sexism will rear its butt-ugly head.
But not "all the men" were depicted as rapists. Remember: Jim, Mark, Jim's father, Frank, and the New Age SGT Farrell.
I think that MAJ West was a sexist because he did not see the females as deserving of equal consideration of their wishes. He ONLY deemed the males as being worthy of consideration. He thought of the soldiers as "his boys", and he felt a duty to look out for their wants and desires. And he even made Jim an offer to have a go at the ladies, as well. For MAJ West, it was truly "bro's before ho's".
But he did not seem to be the type to go in and join in on the rape, directly, though. As a college-educated man, he knew that there was something wrong with his plan. He tried to rationalize it as a way to do his duty to his men, and also as a way to do his duty to humanity. But he was holding back, himselfbecause he knew it was wrong.
(Heck, maybe MAJ West was both sexist and gay.)
And yet, in the end, all he could think was to condemn Jim for killing "his boys" in defense of those females. The thought was unfathomable for the major. The notion of treating a woman as an equal, or of protecting a woman from the base desires of a man, just didn't register with the guy.
Now, THAT'S sexist.

West, who did not seem to be a rapist himself, but rather a man obsessed with more abstract forms of power and control, used the sexuality of the men under his command to motivate them. Prior to his promise of finding them women, his men were becoming suicidal. He encouraged base and violent desires in his soldiers in order to displace their despair.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

The film would be sexist if it was condoning rape. It was not, in any way, doing that. I think people forget the meanings of words and try to bend them to mean what they want them to mean. The terminology the op was going for was 'misandrist'.
What was slightly addressed, above, was what would make people who may have not been violent in their previous lives be so easily okay with committing violent atrocities as keeping unwilling women as their own personal 'courtesans'. It is the idea that the world as you know it has ended. In this film, they truly believed there was going to be no more world. One officer was going to kill himself believing there was no hope. This can change even the most pacifistic person. Were their subsequent reactions justified? No. One would think that once they saw their world wasn't as dark as they had feared, they would have found the good that was once within themselves, to not think about harming the females. There was the one officer that was against it and was killed for trying to be the voice of reason. This, alone, was proof the movie wasn't saying all men would turn into rapists. Like others stated above, those others were probably not truly good people, in their past lives.
The point of the movie, pretty much, is that people can be good and people can be bad. The pro-rapists were as bad and fearful as the infected.
Credo ergo sum

The argument is that
some
would and that's not unrealistic.
You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?

To have drama you need conflict and surprise. The heroes thought they had reached the promised land when they discovered the soldiers, which turned out to be as bad as the ragers. If there were no bad guys/girls in stories they would all be boring.

This message has been deleted.

I think they used the continuance of the human species as an excuse to rape. They saw planes flying on a daily basis and ignored them, they pretended the planes weren't there.

Jesus. You need to gang rape a 14 year old on the day she watched her father die in order to save humanity? Having men and women would ensure humanity. Why would rape be any more necessary with just 2 women present? Eventually they likely would have had babies. Without being gang raped. Selena would have likely bred with Jim, obviously.
The major just wanted to get his boys sex as a treat.

Go kill yourself you sexist wh0re.

Exactlytake away women and go to the army! Men are going to become horny, then take away women full stop. They are going to see two women who as a group of men they are easily going to overpower, there will be a limited amount of things going through their minds, and it's not, "Oh I'm going to help this lady start anew in the world and become a mother." It is, "PUSSY!"

This message has been deleted.