That's a good question indeed.
First of all, I do want to comment on the male buy-in point. I think you're absolutely right. Something that the Chief of the Defence Staff's directive has done, that the national action plan outlines, and that I think is really important to keep doing and also relates to your point, is to keep emphasizing that attention to this agenda is not something that we do for women. It's not something that we're doing either as a favour to them or because we want to protect them; it's something that we're doing for all of us.
A study from Harvard a couple of years ago said that the single biggest predictor of whether a country goes to war, either with itself or with its neighbours, is not its GDP or its ethno-religious affiliation: it's how its women are treated. When we look at the relationship between men and women in a community as the blueprint for interaction in the society at large—which does get amplified—getting this right is something that we need to do for all of us. We need to reinforce this point in all of our documentation and in the rationale we provide for why we're doing this in terms of our language—which I agree matters completely—and emphasize that we're doing this not to protect the vulnerable populations of the world but to take advantage of and to capitalize on what they know and what they can contribute. That's something that I think is really important.
Something we also see, I think in a troubling way, is a default to the protection element of this agenda. As you've heard many times, I think, the women, peace, and security agenda has various pillars. We call them the “four Ps”: participation, protection, prevention, and then recovery. That's three Ps and an R. But there's often a default to focusing only on protection, on the things that we will do to secure an environment or to punish people who take action against women or who assault women, etc. By doing so, we're quite subtly undermining their agency as well and saying that they're people who are passive respondents in this process, as opposed to being people who need to be around the table shaping the policy, making the decision, and being consulted, etc. That kind of thing I think adds up in both subtle and overt ways, and it sort of contradicts the idea that women are powerful agents of change and not just, as I say, victims of conflict.
I'd say that it's about watching the rhetoric and also keeping at this outcome level that I was talking about. The reason we're doing these things—and the reasons identified through our process—is not simply for 50% of the population but for all of us, and then that trickles down into a broader range of thinking.
Sarah, would you like to add something?