So let's talk about what the Fort Hood Report misses. I'm talking about this publicly and On Here because a lot of folks tend to listen to people On Here that they shut down in real life.

The report says "This climate, is not attributable to any one commander or command staff. Nor did it spontaneously combust during the review period or as a direct consequence of recent events. It was a culture that...developed over time and out of neglect over a series...

of commands that predated 2018. A toxic culture was allowed to harden and set." pg 114

So what is this culture? The report implies a lot but misses the point. It was tasked to investigate whether gender integration into combat units was a causal element to this.

Do we have a regulation that talks about causality? Why yes we do. AR 735-5 Property Investigations for Financial Loss aka the dreaded FLIPL. Let's see what it says about proximate cause. (and yes, I realize talking about property when we're talking about people is problematic)

AR 735-5 says "Proximate cause. Before holding a person financially liable for a loss to the Government, the facts must clearly show that the person’s conduct was the “proximate” cause of the LDDT....

"...That is, the person’s acts or omissions were the cause that, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by a new cause, produced the LDDT, and without
which the LDDT would not have occurred."

Well, why talk about property loss and liability when we started talking about gender integration. Let's go back to the Fort Hood report.

"The risk of female gender discrimination at Fort Hood was also high at an assigned level of 5." Let's break this down causally or in the case of property, proximate cause.

female gender discrimination = causal outcome. This is not a cause of a situation but the result. Okay fine. So if this is the result. What is the cause?

Same paragraph:"Areas of potential climate concern for Fort Hood included high levels of supervisor workplace
hostility, gender discrimination against women and underage drinking among women, coupled with
low levels of peer respect and cohesion, responsibility & intervention...

and supervisor response
climate." So the causal element to the female gender discrimination is "high levels of supervisor workplace hostility" - okay fine. I'll buy that. But the next section of that sentence is eyebrow raising.

"gender discrimination against women and underage drinking among women". I find it very interesting that the report puts gender discrimination in the same clause as underage drinking among women.

What is missing from that is the causal factor. "underage drinking among women" is not inherently problematic. The problem comes from **who thinks they can do what** to these women when they underage drink

Alcohol is ONLY a causal element in harassment and discrimination WHEN accompanied by a person doing the harassing or discriminating or assaulting. It is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for harassment or discrimination without the PERSON doing the actions TO the women

Telling on myself a little. Once upon a time, I was a private living in the barracks in Germany. The first time I drank, I drank Bacardi 151 - don't judge who among us hasn't done stupid shit as a private.

But amazingly, my stupidity as a private DID NOT result in assault BECAUSE I didn't end up having an rapists as friends. See how that works? When we break down the logic, saying underage drinking among women is a climate problem no longer holds up.

The report did not dig into men's attitudes with any real depth. The problem with the gender integration of women into combat units was MEN's responses to this NOT the presence of women.

The very brief discussion of "supervisor workplace hostility" is a few sentences scattered throughout the report. But there are places that are enlightening as to what this looks like.

When female Soldiers spoke up about their concerns, they were frequently shut down and essentially drowned out by the male Soldiers. There were many incidents when a courageous female Soldier would speak up regarding her experiences with the SHARP Program or...

the flaws in the program, only
to be contradicted and even ridiculed by other male members in the group in front of both the
interviewer and the JAG Officer annotating responses."

"This dynamic exposed the hardened attitudes
of a number of male Soldiers towards female Soldiers and the SHARP Program in general...

The responses of the male Soldiers primarily revealed a satisfaction with the status quo and their belief that it is incumbent on female Soldiers to adjust to the male environment since they volunteered to join the Army." pg 41

Let's unpack that for a sec. Male soldiers...belief that female Soldiers needed to "adjust to the male environment" What does that mean?

The report is largely silent on this (and if I missed a deeper discussion of it in the report, please feel free to correct me). So we have a major problem where 55% of men surveyed DON'T BELIEVE THERE's A PROBLEM.

More, the report doesn't explicitly address what these men believe a "male environment" is. Perhaps we should do some deeper digging into what that means. Now, we could make an argument that this entire report lays that out.

One argument could be made that the male environment fundamentally rejects the female perspective. https://twitter.com/JessicaScott09/status/1337042623996043267?s=20

Let's bring in some sociology, shall we? How do we define a situation? "Park and Burgess cited a Carnegie study published in 1919 which apparently used the phrase. They wrote, "common participation in common activities implies a common 'definition of the situation."

In fact, every single act, and eventually all moral life, is dependent upon the definition of the situation. A definition of the situation precedes and limits any possible action, and a redefinition of the situation changes the character of the action." https://www.thoughtco.com/situation-definition-3026244

So what we have here is a failure to communicate. A failure to develop a shared understanding of the situation because some men in the room refuse to accept the female perspective as valid.

That's some fundamental disagreement. We can NEVER solve the problem until we define it and AGREE on a definition. So long as the "male environment" involves ignoring, shutting down and denying the female perspective, sorry folks, we're at an impasse

There's a reason that part of the metoo movement involved a simple statement: believe women. believe their perspectives are valid. By not digging further into that aspect of the situation at Fort Hood, the report misses an opportunity to really dig into the underlying culture

Note that what this does not say: it does not say accept everything on face value. It does not say women never lie, cheat or steal. It is saying that their input into defining a situation is equally valid. And that's not happening here.

Now, again, you could make an argument that this report, because it does heavily weight women's perspectives is doing that. And you may be right. But how many are reading it, if they read it at all, and are dismissing what they read? Consider why that is?

If this report manages to hit a whole bunch of leaders upside the head and go whoa, we weren't listening, then good. Now what are you going to change because of it. Because again, there are wide gaps in shared understanding.

"Three groups consisting of a total of 131 E5 and E6 male NCOs expressed that they had no concerns about
sexual assault and sexual harassment. They did not take responsibility for any of the prevalent issues
at Fort Hood or the Army at large."

"Another group of 48 E-7 to E-9 male Soldiers also saw no problems with sexual harassment or sexual assault at Fort Hood. Many in this group felt that compared to colleges, Fort Hood does a better job taking care of their Soldiers regarding sexual assault and sexual harassment."

"The last two groups consisting of WO1s to Majors (O-5) were of mixed views. Some in the room said they did not feel Fort Hood was safe for female Soldiers, especially junior enlisted."

"Most in this group were concerned with
the climate at the lower levels regarding professionalism in the workplace; but all Soldiers in the group
stated they were doing what they could to educate their Soldiers on appropriate conduct."

"They believe the junior enlisted Soldiers do not trust field grade leaders because they see some of those individuals actually committing the acts of misconduct."

The E1-E4s repeatedly said throughout the report that they believed senior leaders were the ones having their allegations swept under a rug and covered up. Captains and Majors saw the same thing.

And so here we have VERY different views about WHAT THE PROBLEM IS between the E1-E4, E5-E6, E7 and up, vs the lower level officers warrants. Senior leaders are reading this report and going yep, problems in the junior enlisted ranks.

How do you see something that isn't there? Officers and senior NCOs are MUCH less likely to have reports filed against them. There are also fewer of them.

But I would argue the damage that any instances of hiding/covering up/ignoring these allegations are more damaging to the institution b/c it CLEARLY demonstrates the profession WILL NOT police itself.

There's a reason I heard about Vanessa Guillen from other women veterans. There's a reason that this narrative of the chain of command not doing what they were supposed to caught on and stuck. I call it the good dude problem.

And it goes back to, once again, the definition of the situation. If I'm friends with Joe then it is assumed that Joe is probably not a dick to me. If someone else comes to me and says Joe is a dick to them,

then I can to either a) accept this other person's definition of Joe or b) reject their definition of Joe. Guess which one is more likely to happen? Moving someone from the friend category to the rapist/harasser category is REALLY difficult from a social psych perspective

So once again, we don't agree on the definition of the situation. "I didn't see it ergo it *didn't happen". "I didn't see it ergo it *couldn't have happened." If I don't believe something could have happened, why would I respond as though it was a criminal action?

So, to end where we began, read the report. Make your soldiers read the report. Every PME should make it mandatory. Change PME to spend a LOT more time on soldier issues and learning to listen to perspectives that fundamentally challenge your worldview.

Also, this thread is definitely not all the report misses. There is NO discussion of male survivors at ALL and continually frames sexual assault through the male/female lens. Which is a WHOLE nother thread

I also want to say that this report is VERY thorough despite the things that it misses. It should be mandatory reading and further investigations conducted. But by pointing out the way they frame issues helps us see how we're not getting after the problem effectively