This piece by @AaronMehta speaks to so much of the reality I've experienced as a woman in NATSEC for the last decade plus. A few thoughts. (1/6) https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/06/24/no-maam-pentagon-down-to-just-handful-of-women-appointees-spotlighting-history-of-inequality/#.XvNN099dr6k.twitter

Lack of representation doesn't just mute the differing POVs that yield better results. It also fosters tokenism in which the few represent the whole: if you don't get along with the one woman on your team, your issues with her become issues with employing women writ large. (2/6)

Weirdly, the reverse does not seem to hold true: getting along with the one woman on the team doesn't tend to lead to a search for female talent. More often, in my experience, it leads to a pat on the back for the "diverse" team that can use the exception to prove the rule. (3/6)

That there have been "70 women appointed to political roles in the department" from 1950 to 2016 is shocking and helps explain why the exhaustingly frequent focus on "female talent" is part of a vicious cycle:

Women are too underrepresented to not stick out, leading to...(4/6)

...periodic searches for more women, which keeps the focus on "female" rather than on "talent," which then makes the few women hired standard-bearers, once again, for their sex, so they better be - this dreaded word again - "likeable." (5/6)

I've had professional success *while* being demeaningly labeled, "severe" being the most polite.

A combination of luck and, yes, grit has kept me in the field I love. But it's no wonder why so many younger women see only a ceiling - and a pretty opaque one at that. (/end)