 Hi, good morning, everyone. If I could ask you to please take your seats. We are getting a little bit of a late start. Thank you so much for a braving gate traffic to be here this morning. My name is Michelle Perenzino. I teach in the strategy and policy department here at the Naval War College. Welcome to day two of the women peace and security symposium. Our first session is advancing women's meaningful participation in peace and security. Please welcome our panelists and our moderator, Ambassador Eric Nelson. He is the Associate Director of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Germany. As US Ambassador in residence, he contributes a whole of government perspective to the Marshall Center's mission to educate, engage and empower security partners and leaders to collectively affect regional, transnational and global challenges. Thank you so much for being here, Ambassador Nelson. The floor is yours. Thank you, Michelle. Good morning all. How many do we have also online today so far. We have 16 participants online. Good. Well, we're a small group. Maybe we have more people in this new port traffic jam that I certainly didn't expect. But I want to begin by thanking our hosts at the US Naval War College for the invitation and to side of energy and for putting together a wonderful program. For us at the Marshall Center, it's a wonderful opportunity to engage with this community of experts and advocates to think about how we need to advance women peace and security, especially by mainstreaming it within what we teach. And it's a pleasure to be here at the war college to see Naval War College to see how you are leading that effort. I also want to thank all of the students and thank the commandant for inviting all of the students at the war college to join in this symposium. We hope, and we feel some pressure here on the panel to make this stimulating and interesting and we hope that it's going to stimulate your discussions in your courses and in your seminars to always be thinking about the gender angle, the gender factors, that this is not a WPS is not a nice to have, but it's too often a critical point of failure. At the Marshall Center, we are approaching WPS is critical part in the fundamental part of human security. All of us who are working to deliver security to our communities in our in our nations need to recognize and most of us do that security must involve all communities. No matter the person's identity and if we're not including all communities, we're not able to provide real security. I have a great opportunity to moderate a panel of real experts in, in, in women, peace and security. And I encourage you to read their papers if you haven't already, and we're going to get an excellent summary from each of them, about eight minutes long and a little rehearsed. And, but I just wanted to begin with a few overarching points that that I found, especially interesting from their, from their, their analysis. And one is that this is WPS is a good example of norm setting. If you look at the development of human rights. It wasn't until 1948 that the community of nations came together in New York at the United Nations to develop a universal declaration of human rights. And that was driven by the horrors of World War two. And that is a statement of what human rights consist of it's quite an expansion of the US bill of bill of rights. I would say it was led by Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of the president, and has several articles but most importantly is art, most important is article three, which states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. And it's said that everyone is entitled to rights and freedoms regardless of sex, or any other status. So that was a critical setting of norms in, in, in our history. 52 years later, the UN Security Council resolution wanted to set new norms and make clear what the norms would be for women peace and security. Because if security is guaranteed to all their lessons of the 90s and genocide in the 90s, and continuing wars across the globe we're demonstrating that women especially were vulnerable. We have introduced UN Security Council very resolution 1325 and several since, which is have reform reinforced how we need to make very clear among ourselves that this is a norm. We all want to reach. Yeah, talks about the, the steps of diffusion of norms that you go through one is the emergence of the norm, which is the beginning when you have entrepreneurs and advocates saying, this is a principle that we should all be following then you have, move into a stage of cascade of those norms where the norm is adopted and accepted by states and other organizations, and then you move into implementation. Which is where those norms are promulgated through national action plans and agendas, and each of our panels today we talk about well how are we doing on the implementation what is what does meaningful participation of women in security look like. And here yesterday we heard that it was 11 years after the UN Security Resolution that the US finally developed its national action plan. So it took 11 years for 15 countries to move to the implementation stage. And there are still allies who do not have national action plans so this is very much work in progress. It's very much very. A continuing project where I don't think any of us are satisfied with project achieved and we're going to hear a lot about that from from this panel so let's begin with Colonel Dana Perkins of the US Army War College Dana has studied women in disarmament non-perflation and arms control. Thank you. Thank you Ambassador Nelson. I will discuss how to seemingly distinct frameworks for action the women disarmament non proliferation and arms control spearheaded by the UN General Security and the WPS agenda the UN Security Council started to converge and build on each other, and why it is important for the WPS practitioners to make stronger linkages between the two frameworks. In the short time I have, I will only illustrate this point with examples from the biological weapons non-proliferation regime. Since, in my opinion, this is a watershed moment in history in favor of international efforts to ensure global health security and in general the inclusion of more voices in governance, peace and security. A standard disclaimer here that my opinions are my own, and I assure you that I have lots of opinions on this topic. Particularly, crisis and disasters increase the risk of gender based violence and sex trafficking. This is also true for public health emergencies. A pandemic or any epidemic due to natural accidental or deliberate causes is bound to affect women more than most, as they represent 80% of the global workforce in health and social sectors, and almost 80% of single parents. A biological weapon would have a disproportionate adverse impact on women, which should be a call to action to increase the participation and decision making of women in the weapons and mass destruction treaty negotiations and national implementation. Not giving women a voice at the table where their faiths are decided means that the vital perspective is being lost. While there are still gaps in implementing WPS, there was also significant progress, both at the national and international level, whether on national action plans, foreign policies, legislation, the establishment of the WPS humanitarian assistance compact and the WPS focal points network. There are also annual WPS reports of the UN Secretary General of note the last year report notes that less than half of the national action plans on WPS includes specific actions on disarmament non proliferation and arms control. And I quote here, despite its importance for the realization of the women peace and security agenda. Personally, I found this surprising, considering that the eight resolutions from 2010 on on women disarmament non proliferation arms control promote shared tenets and similar principles as those in the WPS agenda, and come from the collective 293 UN member states in the General Assembly, compared to the 15 in the UN Security Council. Starting in 2013 and by annually from 2014, the UN Secretary General also publishes reports on the implementation of these resolutions, but voluntary contributions from member states are sparse usually about five to eight states. And also, there are reports from international organizations NATO also reported once in 2016. Notably the contributors are always emphasizing their WPS efforts and this is in my opinion a tremendous opportunity to highlight the linkages and synergy between the two frameworks. The understones of the global biological weapons non proliferation regimes are the biological weapons convention and the UN Security Council resolution 1540 on WMD non proliferation. The BWC has 185 states parties and ban an entire category of weapons and mass destruction. The states parties reach additional agreements and understanding at the review conferences which usually take place every five years. At the last review conference in December last year, 36% of states parties delegates or women, both civilian and military, combined and coming from diverse sectors, not only foreign affairs. Only 31% of participatory states parties at this review conference had a woman as the head of the delegation. This is consistent with trends from other BWC meetings as well as trends in other WMD treaty negotiations. In fact, this last review conference was the first review conference of the biological weapons convention where gender issues were given more attention in particular with regard to women's empowerment in support of strengthening the convention. However, in the end there was no consensus among states parties on inclusion of such language in the final document of the conference. Resolution 1540 adopted under chapter seven of the UN Charter in 2004 affirms that proliferation of nuclear chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery constitutes a threat to international peace and security. All UN member states have obligations under these resolutions to deny and not support non state actors from developing acquiring using nuclear chemical or biological weapons. The implementation of resolution 1540 is monitored by the 1540 committee which is comprised of diplomats representing the current composition of the UN Security Council. The 1540 committee is assisted by a group of experts nominated by states and selected by the UN Secretary General to assist the committee in carrying out its mandate, including the facilitation of assistance to improve the implementation of the resolution. The 1540 experts are the public face of international engagement outreach and assistance assistance, however, only 25% of the total number of current and former experts, and I call myself among them are women, and only men served as coordinators of the group of experts. How can we promote women's meaningful participation negotiation and implementation of biological weapons convention resolution 1540 and in general in policy development regarding WMDs. I believe we need the proverbial global village, both top down and bottom up national approaches to promote women's participation in general encountering weapons and mass destruction as national and international technical experts both civilian and military as diplomats delegates decision makers and advocates, similar to what is described in STEM fields, external factors like a lack of role models, cultures that tend to exclude women and persistent stereotypes about women's intellectual abilities, reinforce a wide gender gap in meaningful participation. We provide education and training to address the lack of awareness about global norms against biologic weapons, promote the share tenants of WPS agenda and women in disarmament non proliferation arms control resolutions in the PME curriculum, and also utilizing contribute content to the UN office for disarmament affairs, disarmament education portal. A statistic I would like to share here at the only army course that provides an additional skill identifiers counter WMD advisor, there are only 8% women between 2020 and 2023. I have just been accepted in the Air Force Institute of Technology counter WMD program so I will see what's the percentage in the Air Force regarding women encounter WMD field. In my last slide to conclude the threat environment is consistent consistently changing, but WMD threats and violent extremism, including the threat of terrorists using WMD and the related materials. They are all persistent threats and we need to look for new synergies and approaches to address them. The two frameworks I discussed here WPS and women disarmament non proliferation and arms control are capabilities that we need to fully develop to take advantage of the largest and top reservoir talent in the world, as Secretary Clinton once said, in our fight against weapons and mass destruction proliferation and violent extremism. Thank you for your attention. Thank you Dana you remind me one of my favorite quotes I heard yesterday, you don't need women. You don't need women to win battles, but you need women to win wars and sustain peace. I mean that to that you need women to have effective arms control of WMD and weapons of mass destruction. Thank you very much. I'd now like to invite to our conversation Dr Jennifer Santiago or data. She's a professor at the Athena de Montmanilla University, and she's written about expanding space women in the security sector, using the Philippines as a case study. Jennifer. Thank you ambassador. Good morning everyone my name is Jennifer Santiago or data. My task. My task today is to look at how we are progressing in the Philippines with regard to WPS and gender mainstreaming the sorry the Philippines is an archipelago of 7107 islands. Plus an addition of 500 islands if we include the ones that we are claiming in the South China Sea. We know we also call it the West Philippine sea or WPS. And it's an attempt at renaming the part of the sea that's near us in order to strengthen our claim. We have 81 provinces, 76 of which have presence of armed rebel groups. We refer to these areas as conflict affected areas. There are several armed groups proliferating in the Philippines, the communist insurgents, the separatist terrorist criminals indicates drug networks private armies you name it we actually have it. These armed groups trace back its roots from the late 1800s, the anti colonizer movement that which is the anti Spanish later on the anti American later on anti Japanese during the Second World War. And these groups have eventually morphed in their present permutation of communist secessionist and terrorist. So our history of armed conflict is actually long. The map here shows you the areas where armed hostilities are actually present and felt the darker the shade the higher is the intensity of our engagement between government troops and armed groups. These are also the areas where the number of internally displaced persons or IDPs are high most of which are women children and the elderly. Women's movement in the country likewise a lot has a long history we are one of the first in Asia to legalize women's suffrage in 1937. The struggle for gender equality is reflected in the many legislations that we have, we have passed our version of the eye or diversity equality inclusion or the loss on gender and development. The Magna Carta of women and the anti violence against women and children we refer to this collectively as gender mainstreaming. These laws are institutionalized and operationalized in the government system. As you see in the diagram, we have a presidential unitary system shown in the dark green boxes. The gray boxes with the red font on the side are the institutionalized mechanisms created by the laws to ensure that diversity equality inclusion are actually guaranteed. And the UN resolution 1325 and 1820 were adopted the Philippines was the first in Asia to adopt a national action plan in 2010. Given our long history of armed conflict and the long history of women's movement, the conceptual and cognitive acceptance of the WPS found no resistance. In fact, it was welcome. The challenge is the operationalization and the synchronization of WPS and gender mainstreaming. This study actually looks at how the core security sector, the police and the military in particular, manages the gender mainstreaming and WPS. The armed forces of the Philippines or the AFP opened its doors to women combat soldiers and officers in 1993. Prior to 1993 women in the military basically are an auxiliary core. The police has long been accepting female members but to date only 18% of their population are women. The quota of 10% for the police per year and 20% in the military, although this is not fully fulfilled. Several mechanisms have been created to satisfy gender mainstreaming or DEI but it was only after the WPS adoption was where a more nuanced approach were established both in the police and the military. Notable of these efforts are the hijab troopers you see there in the slide. This was created in 2017 at the height of the siege in Marawi city by groups identified with IS. The hijab troopers is an all female military and police. Not all of them are Muslims, all are wearing hijab. Their main task is to deal with, consult, engage with internally displaced people who are dominantly Muslim. While the hijab troopers was met with criticisms by some civil society groups for appropriating allegedly the identity symbols of Muslims, the unit arguably was able to effectively engage with IDPs and soften the hypermasculine hard security approach of the military. Another exemplary effort is the development of the GPS protocol or the gender peace and security protocols in checkpoints, especially in conflict affected areas. These are some of the noteworthy examples but given the limited time I will reserve some other examples during the Q&A. Now, as I've mentioned, acceptance of the gender mainstreaming and the WPS in our security sector was not an issue. It is more the operationalization listed on the screen are recommended interventions. You will notice that the recommendations are focused on standardization, that's the merit and promotion, institutionalization, that is the safe space for grievance and mainstreaming of WPS and other security agencies, and on assessing and measuring impacts. So this is the protocol development and M&E or the monitoring and evaluation metrics. If we simply base our WPS and the assessment on institutions and mechanisms and rules of engagement, we are definitely moving forward. However, there are complicating factors, given the Towers is a non-international armed conflict or NIAC and the military, not the police, the military is given the task of handling internal security. It actually creates a large gray zone, especially in conflict areas. Gray zones are ambiguous and complex situations where groups navigate a continuum of legal and illegal policy environment. And for example, the peace agreement between the government and the more Islamic liberation front or the MILF created mechanisms that have no legal basis, but because it was part of a political agreement, it can't also be labeled as illegal. For example, the Joint Peace and Security Team or JPST is a mechanism created based on the political agreement. So combatants from the MILF joined forces with the police and the military in patrolling communities to ensure the safety of civilians. These combatants are allowed to carry weapons together with the military and the police. JPST has no legal mandate, but it's allowed to operate because as I've said of the peace agreement. In these gray zone areas, human rights and IHL has a tug of war. The dominant legal regime to operate in these areas is ambiguous. Because of its ambiguity, activities in these areas are subject to very little regulation, if any. WPS and gender mainstreaming is nonexistent in these areas. And now with China occupying and militarizing the South China Sea, WPS is again being set aside. Given the preponderance of state-centric territorial sovereignty discussion in the security circles. So thus, while it may appear as we are moving forward, the complex security threat, complex security and threat environment we face serve as the major stumbling block in our WPS and gender mainstreaming work. I end my presentation here and thank you very much for your attention. Thank you, Jennifer. I found it especially interesting in your discourse when you talked about the integrity of the security institutions, how they had lost in respect and support during the period of martial law. And their embrace of human rights and of equality has been important for them regaining that in public support. And you added that because of that they actually were now getting better budgets. Is that right? Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Daniela Sepulveda. She is a full bright scholar at the University of Minnesota who's talked about feminist foreign policies in Latin America. First, I want to thank the US Naval War College for hosting this activity and giving me the opportunity to share the Latin American case with you all. In this presentation, I am not going to talk about implementation of the WPS in the field because I have the sense that you have received a lot of information and experiences of different cases and countries. So addressing the Latin American case, I am going to refer directly to the main message I want to leave today. I want to show new research agendas that emerge when we study the WPS linked with the feminist foreign policies in Latin America. But more importantly, I would like to show how the shortcomings of the WPS implementation efforts can actually be an amazing opportunity for the foreign policy building and decision process in the global south. I have to say this is not something that I work only from an academic point of view. I'm complimenting this knowledge with my previous experience when I worked in the Ministry of Defense of Chile for well almost 10 years. And one of my tasks down there was the implementation and evaluation of the WPS as a tool for bilateral and multilateral cooperation among Latin American countries. So I will address two main issues in this presentation. The first one is the disaffection created by the WPS agenda and the tensions between the north and the global south. And the second point is going to be this intersection between the WPS and the feminist foreign policy project. So there I'm going to start with the disaffection issue. This is Latin America. On the map you can see all the countries in Latin America that have a national action plan for the implementation of the WPS. We have Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. Colombia is in the picture only because it's a special case. I'm going to talk about that later. Many of these countries are active troop contributors in peacekeeping operations as you may know. But the curious thing about the Latin American case is that in traditional terms, the WPS, it's formally applied in only one country. And this country is Colombia. Colombia is a country that has been under, you know, this under nearly 60 years of internal conflict. However, they do not have a national action plan for the WPS. Despite this, this topic, I mean the participation of women in peace initiatives has been crucial for the peace, the Colombian peace agreement since the year 2016. And on the other hand, we have countries like Mexico, Brazil or Guatemala that do have a national action plan, but internally they have the highest rights of violence and discrimination against women. And we also have countries like Chile and Uruguay that they are like the good students in the neighborhood. In the case of Chile, for example, this country has published two national action plans for the WPS, the first one in 2009, the second one in 2015. And they are currently working in the design of a third plan to be published, I think later this fall. However, despite the good prestige of Chile or Uruguay, I have to recognize that their plans are mainly testimonials. They are like layers of good intentions in a way to assimilate their interest with the interests of other countries from the global, of the global north. The problem with these different approaches is that actually they tell us a lot about the tensions between the global north and the global south. In the last 23 years since the publication of the 1325 resolution, we have seen that the WPS has universalized and standardized objectives to be applied in contexts that may differ a lot from each other. The problem is that establishing peace, maintaining peace, building peace, observing peace and even negotiating peace have different purposes and processes. And yet, the uniformity continues to be a distinctive element of the WPS agenda, the UN resolutions and the UN's presence in peace missions, whatever their format is. This uniformity is something that has been pushed by the global north. And as a result, we have seen some disaffection and resistance in the implementation efforts in Latin America. Because this agenda sometimes it seems to represent the will of the global north that looks at the global south as an implementation laboratory, but not as a region where the WPS is also written according to the necessities and priorities of the global south countries. Now, I want to move to the second and final part of my presentation and I'm going to talk about the intersection between the WPS and the feminist foreign policy project, which is something I'm working from my foundation, a new foreign policy, Fundación Nueva Política Exterior based in Chile. In some countries, the WPS is a matter of identity of their defense and foreign policies which defines the strategies of international participation and engagement of these countries. And for this reason, the integration of the analysis of feminist foreign policies is crucial to understand the new phase of the implementation of the WPS agenda. In the year 2014, more than 20 countries have formally or informally declared that their foreign policies would integrate an active gender perspective on issues from international security to economic cooperation. Also, most of these countries are from the global north in recent years, Mexico, Colombia and Chile have joined this trend and more Latin American countries are expected to do so. I'm thinking in the case for example of Argentina, or maybe Brazil now under the presidency of Lula da Silva. The question is, why small and medium countries pursue feminist foreign policies. In general terms, I argue that they do this to obtain international status established recognition as progressive and distinguish themselves with only. And in some way the adoption of feminist foreign policy is a commitment with liberal values that the global south identifies as a key piece of the international hierarchy and therefore helps to secure recognition and legitimacy from the global north countries. This has important implications for the WPS, because it can be a risk or an opportunity. A risk, it can be a risk because these countries may reproduce again a passive assimilation of external interests, or it can be an opportunity for Latin American countries to write the WPS under their own terms and priorities. In conclusion, I would say that it is not a coincidence that all the global north countries with a feminist for feminist foreign policy are NATO members. In my view, this is an opportunity. The proliferation of feminist foreign policies in Latin America is an ally of the WPS agenda, and the US has an important role here. In its core ideas I would say that the feminist foreign policy is strengthens Western democratic values, and in a word where the hegemony of the US is being challenged every single day, understanding and protecting the priorities of the global south is crucial. If the global south considers that the WPS or the feminist foreign policy are emblematic of their shared values, it is in the US national interest to engage with these ideas. By doing so, the US will not only promote democratic values at a very low cost, but we also build relationships based on cooperation and not resistance. That's all for now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Daniel. You raised some really important and challenging issues of are these Western values are these universal values. This is north versus south and is the legitimacy and recognition that these norms bring. You mentioned that brings that's legitimacy from the international community. I'm very always very curious how much is this is then legitimacy among citizens. And then all of us should be thinking about how does this then come into play in strategic competition. But thank you very much, Daniel. Our fourth speaker is Dr James Minich. He is the WPS chair and a professor at the Asia Pacific Center for security studies our sister institution and in Honolulu. James takes us into an important area, looking at the politics of belonging. And the men's allies and the meaningful inclusion of women in the security sector. James, please. Thank you. And it is a distinct honor to be here. Grateful to be on the panel with my esteemed colleagues. Recognize the great contributions. And of this event and recognize my close friend. Dr Syrah, you men who is put all this together and so you're to be committed. Thank you for that. This year. We celebrate the 75th anniversary of the 1948 women's armed services integration act. 75 years. It was segregated service, of course, as women served in separate organizations. The women's Army Corps, for example, and women while they served their numbers couldn't exceed 2% of the force. We also celebrate this year, the 45th anniversary of the 1978 congressional amendment of that women's armed services integration act. In which women could then serve within the organizations the same organizations of men. I may seem like a little bit ago but it's contemporary for me. And I've watched as this is trans just in over time. There's been other policies of course maybe the most latest one point 15 the repeal of the combat arms exclusion and so while the unbarring. The door through legislation and policy measures is important. It's not enough. The, we often use the terms integration and inclusion, as if though they're interchangeable. They mean the same thing. They do not. In integration we expect women to adapt to the system. But in inclusion we, we ensure that the system adapts to women. And gender in a gender integrated approach. We permit women to serve alongside men in these masculine eyes units with some accommodations and less acceptance. Such organizations are certainly male dominant their deep seated masculine eyes cultures they forge obstacles to women's full participation. And they do experience high levels of sexual violence. Now gender inclusive approach is different emerges men and women together, full access to the system and such organizations the default gender is not male. The barriers for women have been eliminated all are valued and the structure and its leaders do not allow the strong to prey upon the week real briefly a little bit on culture, social costs and belonging so in 2017. Sandra Perone published this book it's it's it's her memoir of a Canadian of Canada's first female infantry officer. It's an interesting read. But it depicts harrowing accounts of institutional sexism. That sanction repeated violence against her by her leaders in her in her peers. It includes instances of her rape, her beatings and a litany of indignities that were meant to send the message that she did not belong. Her story is not unique. It's not unique to Canada, and it's not unique to a time in history is contemporary. Just consider last year in Canada, the former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbor submitted her commissioned report on sexual misconduct and leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces. And in her opening statement she says that the calf has an archaic and deeply damaging organizational culture, and that a place you want to be. Just a minute about organizational culture. You know it is a diet of cultural model and settings models being the tone of the organization and settings being those recurring group interactions that does what the organization values or not think about social costs. When can rise above a label of self serving accusations that women are fronted with when they, when they trip when they confront this, this can then make their ally ship more effective when they choose to act when men choose to act. 85% of surveyed men say yes, they'd be motivated to act as allies. We find that there are real social costs for men to do so. They risk losing being in the in group status, their masculinity is questioned. And so for men to really be able to act. We need to have organizations that have a culture of belonging and so what do we mean. This positive correlation that I'm talking about so between men and their willingness to support his allies and this organizational culture of belonging. When it when organizations are like that. 96% of men seem to stand come forward and be these allies. So there is not a culture of belonging that drops precipitously down to about 30% of men for the very social cost that I was just speaking about. So what is belonging. Well, we're talking about a motion that is born in security and support from a sense of social acceptance that we have acceptance in these units where inclusive teams are a place of belonging right I mean there it's an environment where barriers are torn down we're all feel valued, where divergent opinions are respected, and people don't have to conform to be accepted. And you think whether or not that fits an organization you've been in. Do you feel like you had to conform to be there. Do you really value your, you're out here divergent opinion or do we just really want people to agree and salute and move forward allies then must be no do right. So what are the be no dues of allyship. Well to be is about character we're talking about that which is shaped by values and attributes to know is about competency. We're talking about that which is exhibited by critical and ethical reasoning problem solving decision making and to do is to achieve an allies need to do. So, to be men must step up, and they must be allies by acting against sexism. That's reactive allyship, but they must also promote this meaningful belonging we're talking about, and that is proactive allyship. And so men this month to really must be visible allies that that that that do both of these active reactive allyship and proactive allyship proactive we're talking about then that they need to use their influence to advocate their voice to by their time to support. This is what men generally carry influence voice and time, and to be proactive they need to use it. But they also have to have that courage to stand up again sexism sexual harassment assault and it is those things are very troubling. So when we know we ought to consider what it is we know then about being an ally on what we don't know. We talk often about our biases we need to understand them but but sexism has, you know, a dual component, there is hostile sexism and there is benevolent sexism but they are both very deeply damaging. When we think about this where you, there's paternalism that has, you know we're talking about interfering with autonomy and we're then on the hostile side we're talking about how it is dominantive how we dominate women by women who are incompetent to serve in these, you know, in areas of economics and areas of policy and all these areas and we integrate their service if they try to, or on the other extreme and benevolent is protective. And how we create spaces where they need to be domesticated and in the home and that's where they need to be. And we get gender differentiation and whether it's competitive only men are strong enough to do this, or whether or not as complimentary and of course, women are men's better half right they complete men it's all about men, or the header sexuality of it, and how it is hostile. We put it in sexual harassment or sexual assault, or the intimacy level where there is this contract where men provide protection and love as long as women are subordinated to men. This is a dichotomy and how we how how sexism is manifested. Real quickly then let me finish men. And when we think about teams men and women are different. But then again all people are different. And so we devalue women, either through sex or through gender. We could talk more about that but leaders are responsible for the safety and welfare of their people. I was familiar with the Fort Hood independent review committees findings when just recently they determined that the command climate down in Fort Hood was ineffective and it was permissive environment for sexual harassment and sexual assault. It is an insider threat we talk about insider threats. This is a real insider threat I mean it destroys lives, it corrodes trusts, it decays readiness. When we think about concern for others too often. We quote, but less frequently adhere to Teddy Roosevelt's admonition about care and that is that nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care. Show our care. Let me, let me end here real quickly because time is short talking about the do of work, working of the allyship. And we must do now. We must not wait until the system has evolved to a point where women are prevalent everywhere because it's not a time issue women are just not going to get there with more time is going to take active work. We must create this culture of belonging and so if building teams is hard, creating a culture of belonging is harder but we must get after it. We must promote women leaders men occupy most of the positions. The only way women are going to go forward is if men will promote them into these, these areas. We must systematize the diversity and inclusion. It is a deliberate process, and it requires implementations of policies practices and procedures and we must review those that are currently existing and see whether or not. We must support this and we must institute professional scaffolding that will guide model council coach and mentor our people to be inclusive and to have this type of environment and so I'll, I'll use time there. Thank you, James. I, I find your your call to action really inspiring and you are the way you describe belonging is an inclusive. The notion of what diversity equity inclusion is about. This is not a nice to have this is this is essential. This is not a zero sum game, where one one group advances at the expense of another, the reality is, and you can you talk about this in your in your research that the US military is falling. This is short of recruiting targets 25% last year, and retention is a challenge as well so if you cannot even fill the bill that you have, and you cannot grow your people. You cannot deliver security, and that requires a whole effort and that includes requires inclusion of women, and it will not representation is important. It is a mandate for women to be a bear more responsibility to advance women without allies. You extrapolate it would take 165 years at the current rate of progress for us to reach equity. There's a lot of work to do. Thank you. Want to add. Yes. We have heard throughout this conference that this is just a problem of time we just, we will get there if we just give it more time. And I started off Sam we. Okay we've been at it for 75 years. I've been at it for 45 years. We will get there when we change the culture, and we stop expecting. This is a boys club you can join it. No this is a this is this is a security sector that women have every right to be in. They've been excluded. We need to restructure the entire sector so that it is inclusive. You're so spot on and when we do that. We won't have retention issues. People will want to belong to the organization. We won't be hemorrhaging.