@Typo-MAGAshiv I have seen this in sport alone. At age 12 there are hoards of nice little girls who all want to please daddy and be sportswomen or athletes. Of these there is always at least one girl sobbing at the end of any track race or games match.

The sobbing continues till about 15/16 at which point 90% of the nice little girls we started with have got big hips and tits/ got lazy and hormonal/ got boyfriends they would rather be blowing/ got hair and makeup that are too good to spoil, got girlfriends to shop/ smoke/ drink with etc etc. They have all quit, in fact its more than 90%.

One is then left with a "hardish" core of young women athletes who are still to be honest as soft as fresh snow. (Don't break the crust on their fluffy nerves and they might get somewhere). These girls do not necessarily break down and cry when they lose but they still probably would if a coach bawled them out or if they fell hard or something.

Watching coaches humour these girls into training harder when boys are simply basically told to "do it or become a loser" is a bit nauseating and one does tend to think "sport was not made for women and it shows" But the art of succeeding with women in sport is not to treat them like men but accept their limits and work around the hive mentality.

@Typo-MAGAshiv That neocon hybris was pretty much the same hybris as the libtards, just directed in the opposite direction. They did the same with Afghanistan too but in that case they threw away less administrative infrastructure before building a house of shit that fell the moment they walked away.

They really thought western culture was the best model of culture and that because of this everyone would want it for the benefits it brought. They failed to see that it was only possible in a prosperous largely law abiding society where political institutions had gradually been built into the culture and where there were not large armed ethnic groups who wanted to kill each other.

Once again -retards!

Should have read Machiavelli to start. An organised state is harder to conquer but easy to govern -you just tell the existing infrastructure it has new management. a chaotic state is easy to conquer (you turn up and rag heads run to the mountains) but its harder to govern because you have to build the entire administrative infrastructure. nihil novi est sub sole. Empire works the way it always has done.

Iraq should have been administered through rewarding the existing administration for cooperating and selling out, even if they were filthy pederasts. Afghanistan should have been governed by establishing forts, selecting a "client king" who was actually locally popular not some guy who had no local social capital and then making sure he was just strong enough to rule but not strong enough to rebel (like the Romans did with Herod) for example. Herod was by all estimations a piece of shit of the first order but like Saddam, he held his province together by being a piece of shit that belonged to Rome. It takes a few generations in the local cemeteries before you pacify a province. Those lands should have been held and administered for the wealth of the US and its allies -as empires do. To hand them back to opportunists and bandits pissed int he face of the men who worked to conquer them.

Empire is not all fluffy bunnies but if you don't do it someone else will be sure.

@SeasonedRP As an old pedant, I would like to add that the gender of agenda is neuter (plural, 2nd declension).

agenda is a Latin gerundive, a verbal noun. Since it is a noun, in Latin it needs gender. The gerundive bit gives it a "should be/ ought to be" meaning. The verb is ago, agere, egi, actum -the verb to drive. So agenda being neuter plural literally means "things that should be driven" or "got done"

If sheep were to be driven it would be oves agendae, bulls would be tauri agendi because here the sex of the animals must be reflected in the gender of the verbal noun.

You can't entirely separate sex and gender but gender is a linguistic reflection of sex. It also applies to things that do not have sex at all but it often feels like it makes sense in these things hope, victory and mercy are all feminine in Latin -things men wish and hope for. Love on the other hand is masculine -because well men do love better.

The left just take words that we accept and bend and re-purpose them like rape, trauma, abuse and so on. There is almost no gender in modern English -she, he and it are very rare examples of gender still surviving in pronouns. So gender was an easy word for anglophone liberals to abuse. To them it just meant a pronoun and they have come to love their pronouns. Had English been a truly gendered language, I do not think this notion of changing your gender could have got started.