 I want to open it up now to questions and comments. We have microphones here, and if you would just take the microphone, because we are on webcast, we need you to use the microphone if you could introduce yourself and your organization and make your comment brief and your question succinct. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Yvonne Jennings. I'm with Partners for Sustainable Peace. Currently, I'm a PhD candidate at George Mason University School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. My question, thank you very much for this great presentation. I am from Haiti. We are gender inequality and lack of opportunity for women. Has led me to have my PhD at my age. So I know what it is not to be empowered. My question goes to Patty about the empowerment of women in those five countries that you studied. What has been the reaction of the men when they see women empowered? Because that's my dissertation. I am looking at the impact on men when women become empowered. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Actually, why don't I take three questions, and then I'm going to give the panel a little time to think it through. Thank you very much, and also for bringing it to a very present and urgent issue of Haiti. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Rosemary Seguero. I'm the president of Hope for Tomorrow. We focus on empowering women through the microfinance. And I'm also an entrepreneur, a small woman on the business bestiary in Washington, DC, but I am originally from Kenya. What I wanted to say that is looking at your presentation, that wonderful presentation is true. I read what the lady wrote on the wall, Miss Patty, saying, nobody helped me. It is very, very, very hard for women to get access to finance or support to do any business. Like, for example, when I was in Kenya, I did business. I traveled all over the world selling handcrafts, carvings, and many other things. But when I came to America, it became very, very hard. And when I started, my company is called Seguero's International Group. I was an exporter. I was exporting things. But when it came here, there's various of discrimination. One, being a woman, and two, being an immigrant. You and three, maybe I don't have a B.H.T. in NPA, as you said. But I know what business is there in Africa. We never did the business plan, proposal. But here you have to go through it, but which is okay. So my question is, how can I, as a woman, entrepreneur, focusing on export, international business, get business either in any other countries or even here, I'm not in business. But thank you for your encouragement and your support and through your presentation. I know I can make it. Thank you. Thank you, and we have a question at the back if we can take one final question in this round and then we'll open it up again. Thank you. I'm Mary Rose Kacharofsky, and I've... Could you stand up, please? Sure. Thank you so much. My name's Mary Rose Kacharofsky, and I spent, since 1996, being part of the women's major group at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, the World Meetings. We're looking always at gender issues when it comes to women and bringing them up in the world, but what about the issues of class? Because once a woman within an area where there's poverty and you support one or two business women and you're already selecting and creating a class issue and how do you deal with those issues and barriers? Thank you. Thank you, Mary Rose. And I'm going to add a question to this set because I want to remind ourselves that we're looking at conflict and post-conflict arena and the special challenges that these particular predicaments produce, but also the opportunities as both your reports lay out. So, Gail, would you like to take the first comment on any of these questions? Sure, absolutely. I'm only hesitating as I'm trying to say, I might actually, if you don't mind, contribute to your men question because I think this is one that's really important. And the only reason why I didn't bring it up is because we were talking about women. So, and I was hoping somebody would ask this, so I'm just going to give an anecdotal answer to this, which is this is a question to get asked a lot and I think it is central to any of this discussion because you cannot work in traditional societies without thinking about the family and you cannot elevate women above men. They are both parts of the family. And I think there are two things that are really, I think about a lot. One is that men are often far more supportive than foreigners think. So it depends by family and it depends on education often, but I have met incredibly supportive fathers and brothers and husbands without whom, especially in a traditional country like Afghanistan, women would have very great difficulties working. In this case of Kamala's story, her father was and is possibly one of the largest supporters of girls' education I have ever met anywhere in the world. So he had nine girls and two boys and made sure that every single one of them got educated. And the reason why was because when he was a teenager in Afghanistan, he worked at a $23 million Swiss-German textile factory. In the north of the country, right? Almost nobody even knows that those existed. And he said that what he learned was that the only thing that separated the women in his family, from the women working next to him from Europe, working side by side with their husbands, was education. And that is why he was determined that all of his daughters go to school. And even at the end of the book, I was really worried because Kamala said to me that my brother wants to meet you. The reason why she was alone as a breadwinner during the Taliban years is that so many men left. They were either fighting or because of security, they left the city. And so she said to me, my brother who was in Iran during the Taliban wants to meet you. And I was really terrified. Because if you know coming from a traditional society, all it takes is one unhappy brother or cousin or uncle to put the kabash on a project like this. And to say that this is not gonna happen because in case you hadn't noticed, the Taliban is probably coming back. So I was incredibly terrified. And I had this whole list of reasons why this story mattered, that nobody put Afghanistan and women and entrepreneur and Taliban in the same sentence, let alone the same story. And he came running in and he said to me, you know, I'm so sorry I'm late. He was 90 minutes late to meet me. And I sort of jumped out of my chair and I was almost throwing tea at him. I was trying to, what do you need? What can I help you with? You know, how can I get you whatever you want? And he said, no, no, I'm fine, I'm fine. I don't want any tea. I'm just late because it's Karzai presidential election season, roadblocks everywhere. And he actually said to me, you know, I wanted to meet you because I wanted to thank you. And I wanted to thank you because my sister was so brave at such a difficult time. And I always hoped a foreigner would come and tell her story. So I think, you know, we're pretty hardened as reporters. And that was probably the only time I actually really cried during an interview, was because it was just, you know, security was bad and everything was awful. And I didn't even know if the book was going to come to life and all of this stuff. And I had all these people saying, this is just the exception. I'm sure the men in her family won't approve of you doing this, all of this stuff in my head. And here was the absolute opposite, which I think goes to the fact that men must be part of this discussion. And that when men have to feed 12 and 13 and 14 family members on their own on $200 or $300 a month, which often happens in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, when women have income coming in, it changes the dynamic. And I think that's what you see on the ground is oftentimes what I see is that it's the Americans who are much less likely to think that women can work, rather than the men in these women's families. Because they think that they're going against cultural norms instead of asking what is going on in a particular family. Thank you, Gail. I'm going to turn to Patty if you would like to pick up some of the questions. Gail, if you want mine, turn it off then. Thank you. These are phenomenal questions. And I'm going to take them backwards on the issue of. And don't have to answer them all. Well, I want to say a little bit about all of them. On the issue of gender in class, I talk about this at the end of the agency section of the report. You will see that there are strong cultural forces at play in how gender relations unfold in the countries. And in Sri Lanka, even women who had maybe a bank job or a nursing job first introduced themselves as a housewife. What is your occupation? I'm a housewife. There's a lot of status to being a housewife in Sri Lanka. In other countries, a woman who has a more professional job has a lot of freedom to travel around her community and go beyond the community. But a woman of a lower class would never have that kind of freedom. And so these issues of class should be very centrally factored into how programs are designed and measures that need to be taken to reach more disadvantaged groups of women. You are sitting next to a member of a group that I belong to. And they just had a program about local resources for supporting startups. And so you should talk to Kathleen at the county level in the chambers of commerce. And there's other resources to support men and women growing their businesses. And there's a lot of resources around the Washington, BC area specifically on that. So talk to Kathleen. And on the question of men, I just want to point you to, when you have time, figure eight. It's a part of one of the assets and capabilities I didn't have time to talk about today. But I think it's critical to understanding women's agency. And that is the household relationships, the marital relationship, the relationship with the children. These are critical resources for women. And if you look, most women can count on these. And it comes alive in their economic roles, where they have husbands that respect and nurture this independence and this initiative in the women. They take off and blossom. But a lot of women don't have this. And that is the reality. And so we need special programs for women who have to go it alone. They often have to challenge male authority if they want to keep their children in school. They've got to find the resources. And they're going to do everything it takes. And it's those children who get to stay in school and grow up and get jobs. And they give back to their moms through remittances and countless other ways. And so they're children. That's a woman's safety net that she's investing in. It's their biggest safety net in many parts of the world, because they have no formal safety nets. Now on the issue of, well, how do men react? I'm involved in another study for the World Bank around the world in 19 countries. And we're finding a real mix. And I think a lot has to do with men's economic security in places in the world where men can be the breadwinners. I think it's easier for them to support their wives to also be breadwinners. But there's a lot of places in the world that are going through economic transitions, privatization, the forces of globalization. Maybe they're not connected to markets. And this male breadwinner role is really tough. And they're having a hard time adapting, as women also assume new roles. And a new study will talk about this. There's a lot of violence that surrounds these problems. There's a lot of household conflict. And we do have to think about the men as much as the women. And I can say more about that, but I'll stop there. Two very quick points. One is, I think, that is so important that market linkages piece, I think, is just critical to this discussion. Because in a traditional society, when men say OK to women who ask to go participate in programs, I've seen this a lot, particularly in Afghanistan. When there is then no change in the amount of money coming into the household, no change in the standard of living because the training has become an end to itself. It has not led to a job or more income or any real change. Then you have even more disappointment. And I worry that that actually hardens opposition over the long run. And you don't get a lot of goals at that effort. And so that's why I think it really must be connected to an outcome other than going to a training. And then the second piece is that I think sometimes we talk too much about women. We talk about women's entrepreneurship because it is about strengthening families. And a lot of times when you talk to women who are doing this work, it's within the family context. It's not because they see themselves as the next Donald Trump, right? It's exalting themselves as the individual. It's what can I contribute to my family and how does that change the dynamic of my family? And I think that sometimes I notice myself doing that a lot in places like Afghanistan trying to reframe it when I have conversations with families about how does this change what's happening in the family and not just with the women. I just want to jump in. I had the privilege with the Columbia data of working with women who had been beneficiaries of 10, 12, 15. One woman had 25 trainings. And they all spoke positively about the trainings. It gave them solidarity. It helped them cope with severe trauma. And in Columbia, these women face severe trauma. They've seen their husband shot in the head. Many are victims of domestic abuse, alcoholic husbands, husbands who have been in the countryside and they don't know if they'll ever see them again. They are in urban, displaced, impoverished, dangerous communities. And these groups help them. But these trainings and these groups are not providing them with economic returns. And that's a clear message from the Columbia study and it resonates with everything that's being said on the panel. Microfinance is not enough for these contexts. It's almost insulting. We need to open up our toolbox. We need to think more broadly. There's a very exciting program under way in Columbia called Juntos. And what I love about the program is that they think about the household. They're not picking up specific household members like cash transfers do. We want the children to stay in school or we want the husband's farms to be productive. But the intent is an army of social workers trying to reach 1.2 million of the poorest households in the country. They develop action plans with the whole household, all the members of the household, and connect them with the services they need to realize their action plans. It's very ambitious. I don't know if it's going to work. They have all sorts of monitoring and evaluation programs hooked to this. It requires interagency collaboration. And that's always a big challenge. But the idea that you try to make households successful is very promising in my mind. Thank you for bringing that up. Marani or Stacey, would you like to comment at this round of the questions? And then we're going to ask others who have questions. I just want to briefly address the issue of class. I think that is actually a very overlooked issue. We sometimes just think about top line issues and don't get to the nuances. And that is an important thing because what does it bring with it? Well, it brings in the post-conflict-conflict environments. You have to think about the different equities, the different groups. In a conflict environment, some very well-off families may actually be the most vulnerable. Why? Because they have the most to lose and because they might be targets of the oppression. And so it's tricky. So who was once well off is no longer well off, but the most vulnerable. And the other part of it is, how do you deal with getting that family, that household out of poverty? Once they're in such a depth of poverty, you need a certain level of assets to be moved out of poverty. And it could be education. They may have labor skills. And that's a very important asset is your own labor. But other types of labor, they're only productive if the person can make use of it linked to market, again, market access. And so that's the risk part of it that I tried to bring up is, yes, these ideas, let's try SMEs. Let's go beyond microfinance. But SMEs are also the most risky part of the market segment, not large corporations, not microfinance. So if you get into that area, you need to know, what is the business plan? Do they have potential profit? Those kind of questions. And finally, let me add to that. Besides class, there is also the ethnicity issue. Because within Afghanistan, at least, there are multiple ethnic groups. We had one case study in USAID. We looked at value chains of the raisins and some other agricultural value chains. And we found that there are actually two raisin value chains, one for each ethnic, two of the major ethnic groups. So that's also, I think, a very pertinent issue in this kind of environment. Stacey? Sure, yeah, I just wanted to come back to this question about understanding what's in it for men and making that case really clearly. I agree with Gail's point that it's important to demonstrate to men what's in it for them and what they have to gain, as well as what they have to lose. And I think your example also underscored another truth in how we approach our development interventions, which is that in addition to understanding all of the constraints that operate in a given setting, it's important to identify the instances of positive deviance or whatever other term you want to use. But identify the circumstances in which men are supportive of women's empowerment and women's entrepreneurship. Identify where the critical factors for success do exist, and then try to support and facilitate those. In addition to being attentive to the constraints that operate. And I think, again, that's where donors often fall down. We get hamstrung by our own acute awareness of constraints, and we forget to look for openings. And I think that both of you have really demonstrated the importance of looking for openings. Thank you. I know we have some more questions. I have, I saw your hand first. And again, we have a microphone here if you just want to step up. Otherwise, Brooke has a microphone, and then we'll try to do it in order. Thank you. My name is Matt Dickert. This is particularly addressed to Ms. Lemmon. And I appreciate. I've got through your book, and it was quite inspiring. And then broadly to the panel. And I hope I'm not going too far ahead of post-conflict, but I was just wondering if you could speak to some of the institutional structural needs kind of required to guarantee the property rights necessary for female entrepreneurs to kind of successfully take advantage of their own tangible and sort of rather intangible capital endowments. And then to the aid community, what role could foreign assistance play in maybe securing gender conscious funding in this process? Thank you. Ask for a couple more questions, Kathleen. Thanks very much for that one. Because I want to follow up on it. I'm Kathleen Barnett. I'm now an independent researcher and consultant and interested in women's roles in conflict prevention and also in the group that Patty mentioned. So I wanted to follow up on maybe for Patty or for Gail or both. The issue of male attitudes and male participation in our own country, as we all know, women moved into a lot of nontraditional jobs during World War II. But when the men came back, they went back to much more restricted roles in society for many years until laws changed. And it follows your question about what do you think is the role beyond the training or even providing funding or trying to link to market opportunities, but of legal changes that really guarantee equal human rights, which then addresses not just the gender issue, but also the class and ethnic issues to some extent. If people have at least the structures of rights, which they can then society is somehow prepared to accept the concept of equality of all human beings, does it make it easier then to empower women and then through women's empowerment to advance the social and economic structures of their countries? Thanks. Thank you. Right behind you, I think, is the next question. Hi, I think we're all sharing a similar energy around here on this side of the room. I'm Lauren Citrone from the Center for International and Private Enterprise. Gail, we look forward to having you on an upcoming conference titled Democracy That Delivers for Women, which really focuses on these themes. And so I wanted to bring it back to including women in political institutions to shape those laws that entrepreneurs need to gain access to capital and things of that nature. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm going to ask you, if you wouldn't mind taking that microphone, and we'll go to this side of the room and just try to get some of these questions out and then give the panel full. I'm an independent consultant working intermittently in Afghanistan. My question actually is to Gail and to Patty, but also to USAID. As an implementer of contracts with a variety of different implementing agencies, I often found that the people I was capacity building were all males. And particularly within the economic regions and the economic governance. And I wonder how donors can make sure that there is not a disconnect between the conversations on cross-cutting issues of gender and actually within the implementation. Just two quick examples, ministry and finance. Every single person I was counterparted with was a male. In another institution, a particular training program came out. And while we have to be aware of cultural and social norms, I had two women staffers begging me to come to this particular training, but the training was hosted at night. And they cannot come out at night. So these are sort of the on-the-ground issues that we experienced. But the capacity building issue is really the one that I'm, how do you do it when your counterparts are all, you don't have a single female to mentor. OK, thank you, please. My name is Margaret Masbaye. I'm an independent consultant right now, but I stand up. Oh, my goodness. OK, I'm sure you can all hear me. My name is Margaret Masbaye. I'm an independent consultant from Kenya, currently residing here in Washington in private sector development. And I've done a lot of work in post-conflict countries in Africa. And I agree with the research. It's really true the women are the unsung heroes. In both of the conflict and during post-conflict, they keep the family and the communities together through their entrepreneurial activities. And I always say Somalia is still on the map because of the women, business women in Somalia. But having said that, I think today I'd just like to thank you because one of my major learning points is that we don't really look at the opportunities that the conflict environment offers for entrepreneurship, especially for those of us who are involved in program design and looking for interventions to support these groups which need help from donor funding because I do a lot of work in design. And I know that I've designed a number of projects for Somalia, for Northern Uganda, and Southern Sudan. And I've never, ever put that into consideration. And just to continue with this issue of men, I think that's a really critical question because I have seen communities, both post-conflict and the usual communities in Africa that we are trying to develop and we focus on gender and gender empowerment and women empowerment through economic activities. And the men actually get disempowered. There are several examples of that in Africa. I don't know if Partia study actually identified those kinds of communities. And if the communities have found a means on how to overcome that, I know that my last assignment was I was a program manager in Uganda. And amongst one of the communities in Northern Uganda, it was a big issue. And the women have always been empowered. And I think the study really brought up the point. It's really exciting that the study brought up the issues in Asia, which are also relevant in Africa, on how the community's socioeconomic setup before conflict, how it influences, and you know those agency issues, how the women then pick up and move and run. And then the men are left behind. And then they just don't know how to respond. And we've helped, I'm saying we in terms of we don a community and development practitioners. We've helped the women get there. We've invested so much in the women. And we sort of forgot that it's a whole community. And we expected the men somehow to find their way out of whatever their problems were, but they didn't. And now, so how do we move into the future? And I think this is a real question. And then I have a second question. And that is, I have just a very quick one this time. I have come across in post-community environments methodologies that women use, for example, to get their finance and what have you. Have we ever tried to build on them? And in your study, did you find any areas where they have been built on? Thank you so much. Sorry for taking so long. Thank you so much for those very cogent remarks. I think we can take one more question. Hi, Kathleen. I'm Rob Dubois. I'm an unconventional security adviser, the author of PowerfulPeace.net on balance peacemaking. And for the third female focused event in two months, for me, I have to say, where are the men? As I've said the other two times, we're looking at 5% maybe. And I don't think it's shame on men so much. It's just a sensitization that this is a human issue, as everybody's saying. It's a whole society. When I was in my own youth, I remember hearing women belonged in the home, barefoot and pregnant, in America. So Gail, thank you for the comment about our own history, recent history. This is not a third world issue. Patriarchal society is common globally. Recently we've had in Egypt, we had the women leading the revolution alongside the men and then being abused by the revolutionary men in the subsequent weeks in some cases. Yemeni was burnt up recently, a female by the security forces. And there's a lady named Manal who's driving in Saudi Arabia right now and arrested. You find her on Twitter. My question is, we're seeing abuses being accelerated against the women burnt up in Yemen and Manal being locked up in the Egyptian women. Is this because women's equality or human equality is being accelerated through the visit to Twitter and these other, I'm not talking about social networks specifically, but are we accelerating equality worldwide, which will have its painful side effects? Thank you very much. And I wish we could take all the questions, but we go offline in about six minutes. I did want to say that we did get one webcast question for Gail, were the dressmakers in your Afghanistan study married, widowed, or single? Again, an issue of status in society. I'm going to ask you all not only to respond to these many very cogent and interesting questions, but to also make a concluding remark, a takeaway message, if you will, for each of you. And maybe I'm going to just start from our last discussant and move to our first speaker. Thank you. Sure, OK. And I'm going to bundle my responses to these questions into two main categories, because I think that they did shake down that way. So there's the question of the relationship between legal change and social and economic change. And I think that there is implicit in what several of you said, this question about it's sort of a chicken and egg thing, right? How can we get social change without legal change? But I think also there's lots of evidence to suggest that legal change alone is usually not sufficient to turn societies around. Because if we look at how laws get interpreted and applied, and again, drawing on examples from our own country's history with gender and also with race relations, we can see that laws themselves are not sufficient. And so I think even a cursory familiarity with social movements in this country and the way that change takes place in other contexts suggests that a more holistic approach, and I think this is what we always come down to, right? A more holistic approach as needed, and mutual reinforcement between social change or among social change, political change, legal change, and economic change. So I wanted to make that point. And then my second point will also be my concluding remark to be efficient, which is this question, sorry, but to interrupt myself, that your question about, are we seeing increases in abuse of women as we see increased movement toward equality or at least rights, yes. And I think that, again, if we look at the history of social change in this country and any other country, what we see is a dynamic in which there are advances, and then there's a backlash. That's to be expected, I think, in every instance in which really fundamental change has been achieved. It's been achieved at a price, and that's how that dynamic works. So then the second point is several people saying, well, how can we basically, how can we get better donor funding? How can we address this issue of capacity building projects in which men end up being the only participants or programs that emphasize women to the exclusion of men and then create more problems than they solve? And I really think that, and this comes back to what I was saying before, about how we know a lot of what needs to be done in gender-conscious programming. We just don't do it. It is a question of donor will. And when I look at and attend these gender-focused events and look at what people suggest in terms of programming and then look at why we haven't made more traction, it's not because we don't know what to do. It's because we don't do it. It is a question of donor will, pure and simple. So I think that we need to demand that women are placed at the center of our analyses and our interventions, but in a holistic fashion that doesn't lead to a dynamic in which the needs of the broader communities, including the men in those communities, are ignored. So I do think it's a question of donor will. Thank you very much. Barani, briefly? Yes, I'll be very brief. I think I would echo Stacey's comments about, laws can be passed, but do attitudes change? Because attitudes and norms really inform people's behaviors, like it or not. And if you don't have enforcement behind those laws, they're even more useless. So in a post-conflict environment where the institutions of government and security are so weak, that is definitely a challenge. So there has to be some engagement in terms of dialogue, in terms of changing attitudes, as well as legal change. I think overall, this other comment I wanted to address about the implementation of capacity building, I'm sorry to hear that. We need better monitoring to flag those kind of issues and deal with them, because that's not our intent and that's not what we should be doing. And the capacity building, we have programs for that target gender and women. So that's, I cannot account for what happened there. In the end, what makes an economy work? What makes a society prosper? Or having the kind of institutions and market linkages where the transactions can be based on an impersonal level. For instance, if you have land, then you can go to the bank and you can use it as collateral. It's not because you are this person related to this person, you are this woman or this man, it's because you have the collateral or you have a business plan that makes sense. That's the kind of society that I would think that we need to move to. Yes, there are considerations now because of certain norms and non-economic factors that shape the way people see society and how they act. But in the end, I think that's what we need to move to is this kind of institutions that move us towards economic progress because we have good ideas and we have something worthy to contribute to the commerce. Thank you. Thank you, Barani and Gail. Just a couple, three or four quick notes. One to answer the question, though, women who were working with Kamala during the Taliban years, they were mostly young women. So most of them were girls who would otherwise have been in school. And so they were mostly unmarried, although there were widows working with them. The legal, economic, social change, chicken and egg question, I think it's really interesting, but the legal change takes a long time to filter into people's lives and economics is immediate and it's tangible. And that's why I think it's so powerful. When you see women on the ground earning an income, it does change in many cases the way that they're viewed in the family. And then a lot stems from there. Girls go to school because women are bringing money into the household and so there's money for both boys and girls to go to class. And so the economic component to me is the core from which so much good stems and it's immediate and it's tangible and it doesn't require jargon or fancy rooms or rooms with air conditioning or infrastructure or water or power or all these things that a lot of economies will never experience in the immediate post-war period. The second thing is I just think that it's, the whole question of women of being central to building stable communities has to be seen because it is still seen as a sideshow. And I think we should be really honest about that. There are a lot of rooms where conversations like this go on and then you go to Afghanistan or you go to other tough parts of the world and it's the same game. I mean, I was in Kabul in July and the Kabul conference the night before women still did not have a speaking role. And the head of the UN agency in Afghanistan came to a conference of women and admitted women had been totally forgotten in the run up to the Kabul conference. So I think we should just be very honest and sometimes it makes me a little bit depressed but it's true about where we are. And I think that women cannot be both half the population and a special interest group. Like think about the numbers there, it does not make sense. So I just think that this is, and I think it requires agency, we talk a lot about agency of people outside the US, this requires agency here. Because every single one of you in this room has the power to make a difference in this. You're influencers, you're working on these issues, you have the power to say this is ridiculous, right? That women should not, there should not be a peace negotiation that goes on with women outside it. There should not be a training where one training is sort of, oh, we'll give this sort of cute stuff to women and like the real stuff goes to men. I mean, this is about society. So I think we have to treat it like that. Thank you, Kayle. It's really hard to follow a journalist. I'm wrapping up. I just want to say, I do want to say a few points on donor will. I cannot agree more. I've been freelancing at the World Bank for a long time, struggling to get poverty and gender issues into programs, the kind of attention I think they deserve. And I was speaking last week with someone senior in the bank who had been involved in the T-More Reconstruction Program and she told me that gender was everywhere. Gender goals were everywhere in the program and we didn't implement any of it. We just don't try hard. But Patty, I think your study might give us some hope and might help a few people try harder if we can see that there are some real opportunities out there and that would be my greatest hope. On the issue of laws, I am as skeptical as anybody that you can have beautiful laws on the books and you don't see them on the ground, but I was reading from my new study quotes from men in Liberia and South Africa telling me that we can go to jail now for wanting to have sex with our wives. What's this? I mean, they're angry about the laws, but even young men are saying, yes, we can't beat up and violate our girlfriends anymore. We're scared of going to jail. Well, hallelujah, as far as I'm concerned. But at the same time, these men are having trouble adapting to a more modern system of gender norms. It's not coming easily for them. Gender norms are very sticky. We have this map in our head of men as being the good providers and when they can't or that role is being challenged, it can set up a lot of conflict intention in the household. And so we do need to think beyond just the women with our programs that go in and just focus on the women we need to think past that. And I just want you to say that, yes, we need to support women's agency, but at the same time, they need communities that help them. And my study shows a virtuous circle between contexts that are more feasible, contexts that have access to active markets and context where there is a reasonably good amount of governance where the aid gets through. And so as donors, you have, we need to be putting forward programs that support that kind of community on the ground where women can thrive. Thank you. And in closing today, I wanna thank you all and apologize to those that we didn't get to your questions. But this was a great discussion. I think we could have gone much longer. I do want to just circle back around putting forward the idea of one, I think really opening here today is this concept of trying to think through our conflict and post-conflict policy strategies so that they're not necessarily looking backwards, but looking forward to these time periods where there is a window of opportunity of change and how to start formulating that in our practices as well. I want you all to join me in thanking this fabulous panel. Thank you, Gail, Patty, Verani, Stacey.