Search Results: in a position of power

Though masculinity and feminity can be subjective, It seems as if women need to look stereotypically masculine (short hair, square face, no curves aka no hips or boobs, dark colours etc.) in order to be respected and taken seriously in the workplace and school and being on top of a power position. And if a woman's a lesbian or asexual, they hardly believe her, because some people think that all lesbians are masculine, overweight, unattractive and short-haired butches and asexuals are prudish and ugly, even some lesbians and asexuals can sometimes believe those assumptions.

Also, many people regardless of their political spectrum ( SJWs, Alt-RIghtist, etc.) or gender, they seem to have problem with attractive and feminine women in both real-life and fiction (video games, books, anime, animation, etc.) and they either try to ruin their reputation, ban them, ruin them, censor them or just treating them like crap and criticize them for liking stereotypically girly things. So is femininity shamed nowadays?

With women in power positions and having no time to date... will the "Gigolo" industry make a comeback?

Summary: Should the US continue to pursue foreign policy that involves routine, nearly continuous military conflict with other countries, organizations, etc?

Backstory:
The US has, for much of our history, pursued a foreign policy that emphasized the use of false-flag attacks to draw the Republic into conflict, often in arenas with no direct impact on the US (e. g. WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and others allegedly). However, upon the fall of the Soviet Union the US foreign policy community (nicknamed the "Blob") re-framed US grand strategy to one that would permanently control the geopolitical "high-ground" (i. e. military-economic positioning in key points) to create a Pax-Americana (Latin: The American Peace, i. e. a peace structured on America as the dominant global power). This "Blob," emboldened by the success of Desert Storm, where the US military eviscerated the 5th largest Army in a matter of days, saw US force projection capacity as infinite, and not only infinite but NECESSARY to maintain the status quo.
Main
Yet, in pursuing such a policy we have arguably given regimes and "terrorist" organizations motive to initiate actions against us, and we have engaged in near constant conflict for the better part of three decades, with no end in sight.
For instance, the war in Afghanistan (I insist) cannot be won, it must be maintained indefinitely, and become a permanent defended position. As a former US Marine, and Iraq combat vet I don't like to admit this. I've met the enemy on the streets and defeated them time and again, but you know what? They keep coming back. You're constantly a target; until you leave.
Conclusion
So, is it worth pursuing these wars/ conflicts, as many former policy advisers/ retired generals/ admirals are insisting upon (e. g. Adm. McRaven, Gen. Mattis)? Are there intangible benefits? What are the risks of pulling out (e. g. Russia/ China filling the power vacuum)?
What are your thoughts?