In pursuit of answering the question, "Are college age women more prone to sexual

assault?" I have come across several more questions that dig deeper into my research.
Why are women more targeted victims? Why is it so rare for men to be sexually
assaulted? What makes this a problem about women? What are men being taught that
makes them apart of this statistic? Why

aren't men looked upon for

answers to sexual assault? I stumbled upon a TED talk by Jackson Katz,

one of Americas leading anti-sexist male activists, called "Violence against Women-It's
a men's issue." Jackson is recognized for his groundbreaking work in the field of gender
violence prevention education and critical media literacy. Jackson questions men in
relation to sexual assault and domestic abuse towards women.
The main point of this TED talk is that sexual assault is looked at as a "women's
issue." Men are taken out of the equation, when in reality, they are very much apart of
the issue (Katz). Jackson makes the point that when guys hear the word "gender," they
immediately think "women" and at that point they are turned away from the subject and
tune out in avoidance of the topic. This connection made by men is the same as when
society interprets racism as a reference to African-Americans, or that sexual orientation
means gay. These are broad assumptions that are incorrect and improper, however, are
practiced by a majority of society. Not

every racism issue deals with

African-Americans, heterosexuals have a sexual orientation,
too, and, gender does not just refer to women. With this
assumption, men are being erased from an issue that involves them. The way that
society uses language when referring to violence against women keeps men out of the
issue as a whole.
Jackson Katz uses a few sentences to prove his point about the language choice
of society. He writes down a few sentences that all have the same story, but are
interpreted differently.
1.) John beat Mary. <A sentence that puts the emphasis on an action that John
took.>
2.) Mary was beaten by John. <Here, the focus is on Mary, and John is almost an
ignored component of the sentence.>
3.) Mary was beaten. <Again, the same point is being made, but John is
completely out of the equation, even though the result of Mary's beating, was an action
that John took.>
4.) Mary was battered. <Mary is a battered woman. But why? Because of an
action taken by John, but he is left out of the statement.>
5.) Mary is a battered woman. <Mary is a battered woman because of John,
however, John is not mentioned in this at all.>
The sequence of these sentences shows how the bottom line is the same, but the
blame is altered. In the beginning, the emphasis is put on John's actions. By the last
statement, John is taken out and a title is being placed on Mary, even thought she was
the victim. This

is a prime example of how men are taken out of

the issue. The real question that Jackson poses is, "What is going on with men?"

Jackson makes the claim that perpetrators aren't evil predators that are creeping
in the night looking for their prey. Perpetrators are every day, regular men. Oftentimes,
women who are abused, rather sexually, physically, or verbally, are abused by people
they know. When women speak out against these perpetrators, they are attacked with
the notion of "killing the messenger" and they are often forced to "sit down and shut up."
The reason for this is because people don't want to believe that the issue lies within
men, however, the issue does not solely revolve around women. It is a two way street
that is often not perceived that way. Jackson suggests that what we need is for more
men to stand up and say something.
Instead of viewing women as victims and men as perpetrators, society needs to
start recognizing anyone not abused or assaulted as a bystander. In other words,
Jackson reasons that we

need to get men who aren't abusing or

assaulting women to stop the men who are. Sexual assault has
reached a point that is unacceptable and there are so many voices that care about the
issue that aren't being heard. Jackson presents the idea that maybe it is an issue of
leadership. Society needs more adult leaders in all areas of life.
Young boys need fathers who are leaders who show them what being a leader and
speaking out and standing up looks like. Men need to stand up against the way other
men talk about women. Jackson uses the example of men around a table having dinner.
If a man started talking racist about someone else, more than likely, another man
around the table will speak up and suggest that the topic be changed. However, when a
man starts talking inappropriately about a woman, it is very rare that another man will
speak up. This shows a lack of leadership. So many men care deeply about women
being abused and assaulted, but caring isn't enough. Action needs to be taken by male
leaders. How does this relate to a college campus? If college educators were to take the
opportunity to teach classes about abuse and assault and what it looks like to stand up
against it, more leaders would be formed. Who takes initiative for making classes like
these mandatory? Adult leaders within a campus. What Jackson suggests throughout
his TED talk is that the underlying issue of sexual assault is a lack of leadership.
Jackson Katz really opened my eyes up to a whole new idea. I had never thought
of campus sexual assault being an issue of male campus leadership. We have taken
men out of the equation but it is time to bring them back into the conversation. Rather
than questioning if a girl's dress was too tight or if she was drunk as reasons for sexual
assault, it is time that we look at the men's side of the issue. Jackson's information
helped me realize this. Men are rarely examined as reasons for sexual assault, when in
reality, they are just as involved in it as the women are. Society has taught men that this
isn't there problem. Society is wrong. Sexual assault is a men's issue.

Katz, Jackson. "Violence against Women-it's a Men's Issue." TED. TED Talks, 1 Nov.
2012. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.