We have been making this critique - of military history, PME, NatSec - for years. We have done endless additional work creating groups, databases, and lists to further awareness of the issues. We have written endlessly. Yet the needle hasn't moved.

More from me or us isn't it. https://twitter.com/War_Room_Eds/status/1314391366445694977

At the same time, we know very well that men are largely excused from this labor. Male scholars are allowed to enjoy the status quo and ignore the subject because it's "not important" to their work. And when it does come up, they pass it off to female colleagues.

But women in NatSec should not be treated like the dutiful wives of academia past, toiling in the acknowledgements, to handle the tedious work.

Men must be willing to wholly own the flaw in the status quo. They must start to SEE the gaps in a historical record that --

-- includes no women as subjects, authors and experts as a problem. They must interrogate their writing, projects, panels, and conferences from the beginning for these gaps because they weaken the scholarship. They must take on the burden among themselves to help edit this --

-- manuscript we call the field.

Until that sense of intellectual urgency manifests itself, we are stuck in the same old hapless loop of women rewriting the same blogs and articles, recreating expert lists, building yet more watchdogs, and on and on and on. That is, women --

-- doing a lot of extra work - that won't even necessarily credit to their professional status.

This mad cycle needs to end.