Missing component in violence

420

If there's one thing this campus loves, it's conversation. After all, how often do you hear about the idea of a campus conversation? Such a conversation would be one in which we all participate, contribute and learn.

Sometimes it's planned. For example, when President Casey presented his DePauw 20/20 goals, it seemed like everyone wanted to talk about them. Other times it's spontaneous. In another instance, the Westboro Baptist Church almost picketed DePauw's production of "The Laramie Project," a significant chunk of campus came together to hold a Love Rally.

Other times, the conversation doesn't quite become the talk of the campus. Case in point: the recent discussions about gender violence. A Department of Justice sponsorship has enabled the creation of the Violence Intervention/Prevention Project. Events like those held during Women's Week and speakers like Jackson Katz and Don McPherson have worked to raise awareness of men's violence against women. Yet the issue doesn't seem to have become a campus conversation.

I suspect some just aren't interested. At Katz's convocation, for example, my section of the audience talked only slightly less than the speaker did. Some almost never looked up from their cell phones. During McPherson's presentation, I was within earshot of someone audibly snoring.  Fortunately, the disinterested were the minority.

Why such disinterest, though? Both speakers emphasized the point that men's violence against women affects our mothers, sisters, girlfriends and all women close to us. With such stakes, you'd think everyone would be interested. I like to think that most people recognize the importance of this issue. After all, both events were well-attended. Perhaps the next steps just aren't as clear.

Katz and McPherson both offered lots of practical suggestions on how to confront the issue. I would emphasize one, to start: terminology. Rather than talking about "violence against women," talk about "men's violence against women." It's a simple lexical change, but it can do a lot of good.

The phrase "violence against women" sounds natural only because we've heard it so many times. If you think about, it's a really unnatural construction. Would you say that the Ohio Wesleyan field hockey team was beaten? No, because it omits a crucial fact: who won? Instead, you'd say that DePauw beat Ohio Wesleyan. Why is it acceptable to leave out the subject in "violence against women?"

The inclusion of "men" in "violence against women" doesn't implicate all men, but it does acknowledge that in cases described as "violence against women," men are most often the aggressors. Furthermore, the phrase "men's violence against women" makes it into something everyone must confront instead of just women alone.

Men's violence against women should be a campus conversation. Dropping "violence against women" is a simple way to make sure that the conversation includes everyone.

That certainly isn't the end of the issue. Both McPherson and Katz gave other concrete ways to confront men's violence against women. But the use of "men's violence against women" is a good start. Perhaps that will get us talking.

—Holley-Kline is a senior from Anchorage, Alaska, majoring in Spanish and anthropology.

opinion@thedepauw.com