Jackson Katzs talk Violence and Silence analyzes many of the
themes of masculinity that we learned in class. He begins by defining
gender violence as any sort of sexual assault, relationship abuse, sexual harassment, domestic violence and abuse of children. Katz argues that the main problem with gender violence is calling it a womens issue because it shifts the focus away from men. Katz makes an important observation on the way dominant systems maintain and reproduce themselves- by having the privilege of going unexamined and unchallenged. He cites the examples of race and sexual orientation and how people almost never think of White and heterosexuality as a race and sexual orientation respectively. Katz further talks about the pervasiveness of victim blaming in domestic and sexual violence. We tend to ask questions like what was she wearing?, Was she drinking at the hotel room?, etc. Katz argues that the questions that should be asked involve men. Why is it that an overwhelming majority of perpetrators of sexual abuse and violence involves men? And more importantly, we should question the systemic role of institutions in place in society that led to these outcomes. One particular argument that Katz talks about is closely related to class discussions we had regarding the intersectionality of oppression. This concept of intersectionality can be applied to the roles that race, family structure, the economic system, sports culture, religious belief systems, definitions of masculinity and how each of these intersects. Another key point of his speech relates to the themes of masculinity in class lectures and Kimmels Guyland. Katz argues that the socialization of boys and definition of manhood is problematic and actually encourages sexism and violence. Kimmel wrote extensively on the themes of masculinity, which is characterized by anti-feminine, success, self-reliance, and aggressive and sexual elements. To be man entails being hypersexualized, violent and aggressive and antifeminine. Boys growing up with these themes deeply ingrained and embedded in them could lead to a lot of sexual abuse, violence and disrespect of women. Katz calls for more men to stand up and call their friends out whenever someone makes a sexist, homophobic or racist comment. He equates silence with consent and complicity. After all, women arent the only ones affected by sexual and domestic violence. Boys whose mothers and sisters are affected, boys who are traumatized by adult male violence, boys who happen to be sexual prey as well, etc. These issues affect both men and women. Katz makes a poignant point about how standing up for these issues and challenge other men to be aware has everything to do with leadership and not sensitivity. Katz cites the Penn State example where the administrators, basically men in positions of power, failing to protect little boys.
I think that Katz would be considered a liberal feminist, because
he ultimately believes that both men and women are disadvantaged by societys gender expectations. He advocates leveling the playing field through socialization (By stander program) in order to bring about gender equality. However, some parts of his speech could be considered multicultural and post-modern feminist, especially when he believe in the intersectionality of race and ethnicity, sexual orientation and economic system (class) in not only producing abusive men, but also affects the way women experience sexual violence and abuse.