The dissonance between #ReadTheReport and #BUTstandards is stunning, but not surprising. It is much easier to reconcile and talk about the report if Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault in the ranks are evidence of BAD people and BAD decisions
And not fundamentally part of the same conversation about how women are treated within military organizations. If you don’t think women speaking up about how they EXPERIENCE something as simple as a haircut regulation,
Then why on earth would they trust you to listen to their EXPERIENCES of harassment and assault?
If a uniform regulation cannot be seriously reconsidered and modified to support the physical needs of service members; if it is impossible to procure gear that fits; if it is unimaginable that an organization might have to BEND itself to meet needs of actual people
If it remains acceptable to denigrate the idea of women’s military service, to tell women that have no place in the military, to threaten and diminish women in online spaces and in in/person spaces
Then how can you even begin to tackle the problem of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault. When you expect women to conform to imagined “male” spaces, and expect nothing from men or organizations to move toward women,
Then you have NO IDEA how to tackle the much more spectacular problem of SH/SA. It’s not that not knowing the women’s hair regs or not understanding why they are problematic is the equivalent of sexually harassing or assaulting a woman. They are obviously different,
But the dissonance evident in many circles right now is stunning, and really depressing. We are begging you, listen to women when they tell you how they experience the world and make suggestions about what might make it better.
Until women are *FULLY* part of the team — and remember, that might mean changing the culture of the team, not changing women — the SH/SA shitshow is going to seem intractable and unsolvable. It is neither. It IS hard.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Jacqueline E. Whitt

Dr. Jacqueline E. Whitt Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @notabattlechick

22 Dec
The prevailing narrative of #DADT repeal seems to be that it was no big deal, a nothing burger, all hat and no cattle. Evidence of the professionalism of the force and a broad commitment to inclusion. The evidence: None of the dire predictions came true...and yet.
This narrative, while tempting and self-congratulatory, oversimplifies the momentousness and significance of the repeal and, in many cases, erases the continued discrimination, intolerance, and harm suffered by LGBTQ service members even after the formal appeal.
It paves the way for “it’s no big deal. They’re just doing their job. Why do you have to flaunt it” responses when important “firsts” are achieved and barriers broken.
Read 7 tweets
11 Feb
The excellent Professor Fred Gellert, Prof of Science and Technology at @ArmyWarCollege for the @Strategy_Bridge Carlisle Strategy Session.
The history of warfare and the history of technology are closely linked.

Ex: the history of armored warfare - tech changes warfare and warfare influences technological development
Dev of tanks requires advances in metallurgy, propulsion, ammunition, mobility, engines, etc.

Much of the tech is borrowed from agricultural machinery.

But it could have gone another way.
Read 34 tweets
19 Jun 19
At a workshop sponsored by the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy on Historians and Public Engagement.
#historiansengage #SHAFR2019 #twitterstorians @GUDiplomacy @SHAFRhistorians

Last session for the day: @derekchollet in a conversation with @McFarlandKellyM
KM: Could you talk a bit about working on books with senior policymakers and in the Obama administration - what role did history play in your day-to-day work?

@SHAFRhistorians @GUDiplomacy #historiansengage #twitterstorians
DC: I’m a political scientist, but I trained with Bob Jervis. So it’s ok. I love history. I’m a member of SHAFR.

When we think about how policymakers see and use history. . . Some of it is from their own experience (they were “in the room when it happened”)
Read 32 tweets
15 Jan 19
It's been interesting to process the outcry over this tweet, and especially the phrase "open-ended, affordable strategy for not losing." People are losing their minds. But this is, I think, the crux of the matter. A thread. 1/24
Strategy, as I'm coming to understand and teach it, is about making a whole series of choices about your goals, priorities, resources, and risk-tolerance. Sometimes these choices will be less-than-optimal. 2/24
You have to consider the consequences of any choice you make - and you have to deal with the consequences of past choices, which you can no longer change. In Afghanistan, as Haass writes, neither winning, nor negotiating, nor leaving seem like real or good options. 3/24
Read 26 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!