TED日本語 - ジャクソン・カッツ: 女性への暴力―男の問題



TED日本語 - ジャクソン・カッツ: 女性への暴力―男の問題

TED Talks

Violence against women -- it's a men's issue
Jackson Katz




I'm going to share with you a paradigm-shifting perspective on the issues of gender violence -- sexual assault, domestic violence, relationship abuse, sexual harassment, sexual abuse of children. That whole range of issues that I'll refer to in shorthand as "gender violence issues," they've been seen as women's issues that some good men help out with, but I have a problem with that frame and I don't accept it. I don't see these as women's issues that some good men help out with. In fact, I'm going to argue that these are men's issues, first and foremost.


Now obviously, they're also women's issues, so I appreciate that, but calling gender violence a women's issue is part of the problem, for a number of reasons.

The first is that it gives men an excuse not to pay attention. Right? A lot of men hear the term "women's issues" and we tend to tune it out, and we think, "Hey, I'm a guy. That's for the girls," or "That's for the women." And a lot of men literally don't get beyond the first sentence as a result. It's almost like a chip in our brain is activated, and the neural pathways take our attention in a different direction when we hear the term "women's issues." This is also true, by the way, of the word "gender," because a lot of people hear the word "gender" and they think it means "women." So they think that gender issues is synonymous with women's issues. There's some confusion about the term gender.

And actually, let me illustrate that confusion by way of analogy. So let's talk for a moment about race. In the U.S., when we hear the word "race," a lot of people think that means African-American, Latino, Asian-American, Native American, South Asian, Pacific Islander, on and on. A lot of people, when they hear the word "sexual orientation" think it means gay, lesbian, bisexual. And a lot of people, when they hear the word "gender," think it means women. In each case, the dominant group doesn't get paid attention to. Right? As if white people don't have some sort of racial identity or belong to some racial category or construct, as if heterosexual people don't have a sexual orientation, as if men don't have a gender. This is one of the ways that dominant systems maintain and reproduce themselves, which is to say the dominant group is rarely challenged to even think about its dominance, because that's one of the key characteristics of power and privilege, the ability to go unexamined, lacking introspection, in fact being rendered invisible in large measure in the discourse about issues that are primarily about us. And this is amazing how this works in domestic and sexual violence, how men have been largely erased from so much of the conversation about a subject that is centrally about men.

And I'm going to illustrate what I'm talking about by using the old tech. I'm old school on some fundamental regards. I work with -- I make films -- and I work with high tech, but I'm still old school as an educator, and I want to share with you this exercise that illustrates on the sentence structure level how the way that we think, literally the way that we use language, conspires to keep our attention off of men. This is about domestic violence in particular, but you can plug in other analogues. This comes from the work of the feminist linguist Julia Penelope.

It starts with a very basic English sentence: "John beat Mary." That's a good English sentence. John is the subject. Beat is the verb. Mary is the object. Good sentence. Now we're going to move to the second sentence, which says the same thing in the passive voice. "Mary was beaten by John." And now a whole lot has happened in one sentence. We've gone from "John beat Mary" to "Mary was beaten by John." We've shifted our focus in one sentence from John to Mary, and you can see John is very close to the end of the sentence, well, close to dropping off the map of our psychic plain. The third sentence, John is dropped, and we have, "Mary was beaten," and now it's all about Mary. We're not even thinking about John. It's totally focused on Mary. Over the past generation, the term we've used synonymous with "beaten" is "battered," so we have "Mary was battered." And the final sentence in this sequence, flowing from the others, is, "Mary is a battered woman." So now Mary's very identity -- Mary is a battered woman -- is what was done to her by John in the first instance. But we've demonstrated that John has long ago left the conversation.

Now, those of us who work in the domestic and sexual violence field know that victim-blaming is pervasive in this realm, which is to say, blaming the person to whom something was done rather than the person who did it. And we say things like, why do these women go out with these men? Why are they attracted to these men? Why do they keep going back? What was she wearing at that party? What a stupid thing to do. Why was she drinking with that group of guys in that hotel room? This is victim blaming, and there are numerous reasons for it, but one of them is that our whole cognitive structure is set up to blame victims. This is all unconscious. Our whole cognitive structure is set up to ask questions about women and women's choices and what they're doing, thinking, and wearing. And I'm not going to shout down people who ask questions about women, okay? It's a legitimate thing to ask. But's let's be clear: Asking questions about Mary is not going to get us anywhere in terms of preventing violence.

We have to ask a different set of questions. You can see where I'm going with this, right? The questions are not about Mary. They're about John. The questions include things like, why does John beat Mary? Why is domestic violence still a big problem in the United States and all over the world? What's going on? Why do so many men abuse, physically, emotionally, verbally, and other ways, the women and girls, and the men and boys, that they claim to love? What's going on with men? Why do so many adult men sexually abuse little girls and little boys? Why is that a common problem in our society and all over the world today? Why do we hear over and over again about new scandals erupting in major institutions like the Catholic Church or the Penn State football program or the Boy Scouts of America, on and on and on? And then local communities all over the country and all over the world, right? We hear about it all the time. The sexual abuse of children. What's going on with men? Why do so many men rape women in our society and around the world? Why do so many men rape other men? What is going on with men? And then what is the role of the various institutions in our society that are helping to produce abusive men at pandemic rates?

Because this isn't about individual perpetrators. That's a naive way to understanding what is a much deeper and more systematic social problem. You know, the perpetrators aren't these monsters who crawl out of the swamp and come into town and do their nasty business and then retreat into the darkness. That's a very naive notion, right? Perpetrators are much more normal than that, and everyday than that. So the question is, what are we doing here in our society and in the world? What are the roles of various institutions in helping to produce abusive men? What's the role of religious belief systems, the sports culture, the pornography culture, the family structure, economics, and how that intersects, and race and ethnicity and how that intersects? How does all this work?

And then, once we start making those kinds of connections and asking those important and big questions, then we can talk about how we can be transformative, in other words, how can we do something differently? How can we change the practices? How can we change the socialization of boys and the definitions of manhood that lead to these current outcomes? These are the kind of questions that we need to be asking and the kind of work that we need to be doing, but if we're endlessly focused on what women are doing and thinking in relationships or elsewhere, we're not going to get to that piece.

Now, I understand that a lot of women who have been trying to speaking out about these issues, today and yesterday and for years and years, often get shouted down for their efforts. They get called nasty names like "male-basher" and "man-hater," and the disgusting and offensive "feminazi." Right? And you know what all this is about? It's called kill the messenger. It's because the women who are standing up and speaking out for themselves and for other women as well as for men and boys, it's a statement to them to sit down and shut up, keep the current system in place, because we don't like it when people rock the boat. We don't like it when people challenge our power. You'd better sit down and shut up, basically. And thank goodness that women haven't done that. Thank goodness that we live in a world where there's so much women's leadership that can counteract that.

But one of the powerful roles that men can play in this work is that we can say some things that sometimes women can't say, or, better yet, we can be heard saying some things that women often can't be heard saying. Now, I appreciate that that's a problem. It's sexism. But it's the truth. And so one of the things that I say to men, and my colleagues and I always say this, is we need more men who have the courage and the strength to start standing up and saying some of this stuff, and standing with women and not against them and pretending that somehow this is a battle between the sexes and other kinds of nonsense. We live in the world together.

And by the way,one of the things that really bothers me about some of the rhetoric against feminists and others who have built the battered women's and rape crisis movements around the world is that somehow, like I said, that they're anti-male. What about all the boys who are profoundly affected in a negative way by what some adult man is doing against their mother, themselves, their sisters? What about all those boys? What about all the young men and boys who have been traumatized by adult men's violence? You know what? The same system that produces men who abuse women produces men who abuse other men. And if we want to talk about male victims, let's talk about male victims. Most male victims of violence are the victims of other men's violence. So that's something that both women and men have in common. We are both victims of men's violence. So we have it in our direct self-interest, not to mention the fact that most men that I know have women and girls that we care deeply about, in our families and our friendship circles and every other way. So there's so many reasons why we need men to speak out. It seems obvious saying it out loud. Doesn't it? Now, the nature of the work that I do and my colleagues do in the sports culture and the U.S. military, in schools, we pioneered this approach called the bystander approach to gender violence prevention.

And I just want to give you the highlights of the bystander approach, because it's a big thematic shift, although there's lots of particulars, but the heart of it is, instead of seeing men as perpetrators and women as victims, or women as perpetrators, men as victims, or any combination in there. I'm using the gender binary. I know there's more than men and women, there's more than male and female. And there are women who are perpetrators, and of course there are men who are victims. There's a whole spectrum. But instead of seeing it in the binary fashion, we focus on all of us as what we call bystanders, and a bystander is defined as anybody who is not a perpetrator or a victim in a given situation, so in other words friends, teammates, colleagues, coworkers, family members, those of us who are not directly involved in a dyad of abuse, but we are embedded in social, family, work, school, and other peer culture relationships with people who might be in that situation. What do we do? How do we speak up? How do we challenge our friends? How do we support our friends? But how do we not remain silent in the face of abuse?

Now, when it comes to men and male culture, the goal is to get men who are not abusive to challenge men who are. And when I say abusive, I don't mean just men who are beating women. We're not just saying a man whose friend is abusing his girlfriend needs to stop the guy at the moment of attack. That's a naive way of creating a social change. It's along a continuum, we're trying to get men to interrupt each other. So, for example, if you're a guy and you're in a group of guys playing poker, talking, hanging out, no women present, and another guy says something sexist or degrading or harassing about women, instead of laughing along or pretending you didn't hear it, we need men to say, "Hey, that's not funny. You know, that could be my sister you're talking about, and could you joke about something else? Or could you talk about something else? I don't appreciate that kind of talk." Just like if you're a white person and another white person makes a racist comment, you'd hope, I hope, that white people would interrupt that racist enactment by a fellow white person. Just like with heterosexism, if you're a heterosexual person and you yourself don't enact harassing or abusive behaviors towards people of varying sexual orientations, if you don't say something in the face of other heterosexual people doing that, then, in a sense, isn't your silence a form of consent and complicity?

Well, the bystander approach is trying to give people tools to interrupt that process and to speak up and to create a peer culture climate where the abusive behavior will be seen as unacceptable, not just because it's illegal, but because it's wrong and unacceptable in the peer culture. And if we can get to the place where men who act out in sexist ways will lose status, young men and boys who act out in sexist and harassing ways towards girls and women, as well as towards other boys and men, will lose status as a result of it, guess what? We'll see a radical diminution of the abuse. Because the typical perpetrator is not sick and twisted. He's a normal guy in every other way. Isn't he?

Now, among the many great things that Martin Luther King said in his short life was, "In the end, what will hurt the most is not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends." In the end, what will hurt the most is not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends. There's been an awful lot of silence in male culture about this ongoing tragedy of men's violence against women and children, hasn't there? There's been an awful lot of silence. And all I'm saying is that we need to break that silence, and we need more men to do that.

Now, it's easier said than done, because I'm saying it now, but I'm telling you it's not easy in male culture for guys to challenge each other, which is one of the reasons why part of the paradigm shift that has to happen is not just understanding these issues as men's issues, but they're also leadership issues for men. Because ultimately, the responsibility for taking a stand on these issues should not fall on the shoulders of little boys or teenage boys in high school or college men. It should be on adult men with power. Adult men with power are the ones we need to be holding accountable for being leaders on these issues, because when somebody speaks up in a peer culture and challenges and interrupts, he or she is being a leader, really, right? But on a big scale, we need more adult men with power to start prioritizing these issues, and we haven't seen that yet, have we?

Now, I was at a dinner a number of years ago, and I work extensively with the U.S. military, all the services. And I was at this dinner and this woman said to me -- I think she thought she was a little clever -- she said, "So how long have you been doing sensitivity training with the Marines?"

And I said, "With all due respect, I don't do sensitivity training with the Marines. I run a leadership program in the Marine Corps."

Now, I know it's a bit pompous, my response, but it's an important distinction, because I don't believe that what we need is sensitivity training. We need leadership training, because, for example, when a professional coach or a manager of a baseball team or a football team -- and I work extensively in that realm as well -- makes a sexist comment, makes a homophobic statement, makes a racist comment, there will be discussions on the sports blogs and in sports talk radio. And some people will say, "Well, he needs sensitivity training." And other people will say, "Well get off it. You know, that's political correctness run amok, and he made a stupid statement. Move on." My argument is, he doesn't need sensitivity training. He needs leadership training, because he's being a bad leader, because in a society with gender diversity and sexual diversity -- (Applause)- and racial and ethnic diversity, you make those kind of comments, you're failing at your leadership. If we can make this point that I'm making to powerful men and women in our society at all levels of institutional authority and power, it's going to change, it's going to change the paradigm of people's thinking.

You know, for example, I work a lot in college and university athletics throughout North America. We know so much about how to prevent domestic and sexual violence, right? There's no excuse for a college or university to not have domestic and sexual violence prevention training mandated for all student athletes, coaches, administrators, as part of their educational process. We know enough to know that we can easily do that. But you know what's missing? The leadership. But it's not the leadership of student athletes. It's the leadership of the athletic director, the president of the university, the people in charge who make decisions about resources and who make decisions about priorities in the institutional settings. That's a failure, in most cases, of men's leadership.

Look at Penn State. Penn State is the mother of all teachable moments for the bystander approach. You had so many situations in that realm where men in powerful positions failed to act to protect children, in this case, boys. It's unbelievable, really. But when you get into it, you realize there are pressures on men. There are constraints within peer cultures on men, which is why we need to encourage men to break through those pressures.

And one of the ways to do that is to say there's an awful lot of men who care deeply about these issues. I know this. I work with men, and I've been working with tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of men for many, many decades now. It's scary, when you think about it, how many years. But there's so many men who care deeply about these issues, but caring deeply is not enough. We need more men with the guts, with the courage, with the strength, with the moral integrity to break our complicit silence and challenge each other and stand with women and not against them.

By the way, we owe it to women. There's no question about it. But we also owe it to our sons. We also owe it to young men who are growing up all over the world in situations where they didn't make the choice to be a man in a culture that tells them that manhood is a certain way. They didn't make the choice. We that have a choice have an opportunity and a responsibility to them as well.

I hope that, going forward, men and women, working together, can begin the change and the transformation that will happen so that future generations won't have the level of tragedy that we deal with on a daily basis.

I know we can do it. We can do better.

Thank you very much. (Applause)

これから ジェンダー・バイオレンス… つまり 性的暴行 DV セクハラ 性的虐待等の問題への 革新的視点をお見せします 「ジェンダー・バイオレンス」は 総じて こう捉えられてきた 「善き男性が助けるべき女性の問題」 でも 私は正しいと思えない 受け入れられない 「善き男性が助けるべき女性の問題」ではない 何よりもまず問題があるのは 男性の方なのです


女性の問題でもある それはわかる でもこの問題を 女性の問題だと言う事自体 問題の一部なのです

まず 男性が気にしなくなる 「女性の問題」と聞けば男は それを頭から追い払う 「俺は男だ 女の子の問題なんか」とね そして 文字通り一歩も先に 進まなくなるのです まるで「女性の問題」と聞くと― 頭の中のチップが神経回路に命じ 違う方向を向かせるように 「ジェンダー」と聞いても同じ そう聞くと 多くの人が 「女性」という意味だと思う 「ジェンダーの問題」とは「女性の問題」だと 用法が混乱しているのです

アナロジーでこの混乱を説明します 人種の話をしましょう 米国で「人種」と聞けば 「アフリカ系アメリカ人」 「ラテン系」「アジア系」「ネイティブ」 「南アジア系」「太平洋諸島系」その他だと思う 「性的指向」と聞けばそれは 「同性愛者」「両性愛者」の事だと思う 「ジェンダー」と聞けば それは女性の事 誰も支配層の事は気にしない 人種的なアイデンティティや カテゴリー 概念等白人にはなく 異性愛者に性的指向はなく 男性にジェンダーはないようだ こうして支配のシステムは 維持・再生産されるつまり― 安定した支配層は自分の優位に無自覚 権力と特権の特徴とは 考察の対象にならないという点 内省する事のない不可視の存在である事 私達が抱える主な問題は 大体がそうなのです DVや性暴力でも 見事なほどに 男性について語られる事は ほぼありません 問題の中心は男性なのに

これから古いやり方で 説明します 基本的な所では古い人間なので 映画作りではハイテクを使います 教師としては旧式です このエクササイズで分かるのは 文構造のレベルで 私たちの考え方 言葉の選び方が いかに男性を無視するか エクササイズのテーマはDV でも 他の問題にもあてはめられます 言語学者 ペネロープ氏の研究成果です

非常に基本的な文があります 「ジョンがメアリーを殴った」 問題ない英語です 「ジョン」は主語「殴った」は動詞 「メアリー」は目的語 次の文に進みましょう 同じ事を受動態で言っています 「メアリーはジョンに殴られた」という文です こうすると― 文はがらりと変わります 「ジョンは殴った」から 「メアリーは殴られた」へ 焦点がジョンからメアリーになった ジョンは文末に近づいて 私達の頭から消えそうです 三番目の文で彼は消えます その文は「メアリーは殴られた」 主題はメアリーのみ ジョンの事は考えもしない 昔は「殴られた」ではなく 「ぶちのめされた」と言った だから こう言える「メアリーがぶちのめされた」 これまでのものに続く 最後の文とは 「メアリーはぶちのめされる女だ」 「ぶちのめされる女である」という彼女のアイデンティティは 最初の文でジョンにされた事です そして 彼は話題から消えて久しい

DVや性暴力に関する仕事だと 被害者を責める傾向があると分かる 何かをした人ではなくされた人を 責めるという事です 「何であんな男と出歩くんだ?」 「何であんな男がいい?」 「何で出て行かない?」「何を着てた?」 「ホテルの部屋で 男たちと飲むなんて何てバカだ」 被害者を責める理由はいろいろですが 1つには人間の認識構造は 疑問を抱くよう できている為 無意識に問うのです 女性の事 彼女の選択何をしていたか 何を考え何を着ていたかを 「やめろ」とは言いません 女性の事を訊いても合法ですから でも はっきりさせましょう それでは暴力は防止できない

違う質問をしなければ もう お分かりですね メアリーではなくジョンについてです なぜ ジョンはメアリーを殴るのか? なぜ DVは未だに 世界中で深刻な問題なのか? 何が起きてる?なぜ 男性は 身体 感情 言葉 その他の面で― 女性や他の男性を虐待する? 愛する人をなぜ?男性に一体何が? なぜ 多くの成人男性が子どもに性的虐待を? なぜ 米国そして世界中で それが共通の問題に? 教会やサッカークラブ ボーイスカウト等大きな団体で スキャンダルが次々 出てくるのは一体なぜなのか 地方でも 国全体でも 常にその話題を耳にします 子供への性的虐待です 男性に何が?なぜ 多くの男性が 世界中で女性を暴行する? あるいは他の男性を? 男性に一体何が? 米国のいろいろな慣習がどのようにして 虐待する男性を大流行ばりに 作り出すのか

犯罪者個人ではなく より根の深い社会制度の問題を 理解する道です 彼らは怪物とは違う 沼から這い出て 町に行き 悪事を行い また暗闇に帰るのではない 「怪物だ」なんて甘すぎる考えです 彼らはもっと普通で 平凡な人間です 問題は 米国含め世界中での 人の行いです いかにして様々な慣習が 虐待する男性を作り出すか 宗教の信念体系 スポーツ ポルノ 家族構造 経済等がいかに交わるか 人種や民族は? どんな仕組みなのか

それらの要素を組み合わせ 重大な問題に目をやれば どうすれば変われるのかを語れる やり方を変え しきたりを変え 現状を引き起こす― 少年の社会化や「男らしさ」を変えるには? 疑問に思わねばならない事 やるべき事は多い いつまでも女性の行動や 対人関係にこだわっていては そこにはたどり着けない

今まで多くの女性が これらの問題について 発言しようとしそのせいで 黙らされてきた そして不快なあだ名をつけられた 「男性叩き」「男嫌い」 汚らわしく 攻撃的な「フェミナチ」に至るまで この現象は何か? 「使者殺し」です 女性が立ち上がり 自分 他の女性 男性 少年の為 発言すれば 彼女らはこう言われる 「座って黙れ今の制度を続けるんだ」 人は波風を立てて 権力に挑む者を嫌う 基本的には黙って座った方がいい 幸い 女性はそうしなかった 幸い 世界では 多くの女性リーダーが立ち向かっている

男性にできる重大な事とは 女性が言えない事を 言う事ができる事 女性が言えば無視されても 男性が言えば 人は聞く それは性差別主義という問題ですが 実際 あります私達はいつも― 男性にこう言う 「もっと多くの男性が 立ち上がり 発言し 女性に寄り添わなければ」 「男対女の戦いだと 馬鹿を言って対抗するのではなく」 共に生きるのだから

ところで本当に頭が痛いのが― 女性の暴力被害やレイプに反対する 運動を行ってきた フェミニスト等がどういう訳か 反男性的と言われる事です 大人の男に自分や母親 妹や姉が― 酷い目に遭わされ 悪影響を受ける少年はどうなります? 数に入らないのですか? 大人の男の暴力に 心の傷を負った少年や若者は? 同じシステムが 男性を虐待する男性も産むのです 男性被害者について 話しましょう 男性の暴力被害の大半で加害者は男性です 男女共通して言えるのは 加害者は男性だという事 私の知る男性の大半に 家族 友人等大事な女性がいますが 彼女たちだけでなく 男性に直接関わってくるわけです 男性が発言すべき理由は多い それは明らかですそうでしょう? スポーツ 米軍 学校で私と仲間達が 行なっているのはジェンダー・バイオレンスの― 防止に向けて開発した 「傍観者アプローチ」です

大事な部分をお話しします テーマを大幅に転換する試みだからです 様々な例がありますが 核となるのは男性が加害者 女性が被害者 または女性が加害者で男性が被害者 と 考えるのをやめる事 「男」「女」と言いましたが 男女以外のジェンダーもある 女性が加害者で 男性が被害を受ける事も 何でもあり得る 二分法で物を見るのをやめ 全ての人を傍観者とみなします 傍観者とはある状況下で 加害者でも被害者でもない人です 友人 チームメイト 同僚 仕事仲間 家族― 虐待の被害と加害に直接 関係がない でも 社会 家庭 学校等の一員として 虐待の関係者らしい人と 関わりがあったらどうする? いかに声を上げ友人に挑み 手を差し伸べる?どうすれば― 虐待に直面し黙らずにいられる?

男性文化では目標は― 虐待しない男を連れて来て する男と対決させる 虐待すると言っても女性を― 殴る男だけじゃない 友人が恋人を虐待していたら その場で止めねばならない それだけではない これで社会を変えようというのは甘い そうなる前から 男性がお互いに 口を挟むようにさせたい 例えばあなたは男性で 男だけで遊び 話し 出かける すると 別の男が性差別的  あるいは― 女性を貶めるような事を言う 一緒に笑う? 聞こえないふりをする? 代わりに言ってほしい 「笑えないね 妹の事を思うとさ」 「違う冗談言えない?」 「他の事 話すとかさ」 「こういうのダメなんだ」 あなたが白人で 別の白人が― 人種差別的発言をしたら 仲間の白人による差別発言を 別の白人に 遮ってほしいと思う あなたが異性愛者で 様々な性的指向を持つ人に 対し 自分は嫌がらせをしないが している異性愛者に 何も言わないなら ある意味 その沈黙は 同意し 加担するのと 同じでは?

傍観者アプローチでは 人々に このプロセスを断ち 声を上げ 対等な文化を作らせる そこでは 人を傷つける行動は 法に反するだけでなく 間違っていて 受け入れられないのです もし 性差別的な男性が 地位を失うようになれば? 女性に対し 性差別的で 他の男の子や男性にも 態度の悪い少年や若者が そのせいで立場を失う ようになれば? 虐待は格段に減るでしょう 加害者は病気や 天邪鬼ではない 虐待する以外は普通なんです

キング牧師が短い生涯で残した 名言の一つが― 「結局一番傷つくのは 敵の言う事ではなく 友の沈黙である」 その通り 一番傷つくのは 敵の言葉でなく 友の沈黙です 女性や子供への男性の暴力 この現在進行形の悲劇に対し 男性文化は沈黙してきた 何も発言しなかった この沈黙を破らねばなりません それももっと多くの男性が

ですが言うほど 簡単ではありません 「破らねば」と言いましたが 男性文化で他の男性への挑戦が‐ 難しい事もあり 男性の問題である だけでなく 誰が主導権を握るかの問題だ という パラダイムの転換が必要です 立場をはっきりさせる責任を 最終的に 幼い男の子や 高校生 大学生には 負わせられない 力を持った 大人の男性でなければ 問題対策のリーダーとして 責任を持ってもらわねば 仲間文化で誰かが声を上げ 仲間に挑み 割って入るとしたら その人はリーダーでしょう? 大局的には 有力な大人の男性がもっと 優先的に取り組まねば しかし 現状は違います

ずっと昔 米国の陸海空軍 全部を相手に 取り組んでいた頃ですが 夕食の席で ある女性に言われました 自分を賢いと思っていたのか 「どれぐらい 海軍に感受性訓練を?」 と訊いてきました

「失礼ですが 感受性訓練を‐ 海軍にするのではなく 海兵隊で‐ リーダーシップを教えてます」

感じの悪い答え方ですが 重要な違いです 必要なのは 感受性訓練ではなく リーダーシップの訓練です スポーツの世界でも 仕事をしますが プロの野球やサッカーの監督らが 性差別的 同性愛嫌悪的 人種差別的な 発言をすれば ブログや ラジオで議論が起こる 「感受性訓練が必要だ」と 言う人も 「放っておけ」と言う人も 「差別語禁止の行き過ぎだ」 「馬鹿な発言だが 引きずるな」 私の意見では 必要なのは リーダーシップの訓練です 発言者は酷いリーダーだから ジェンダーやセクシュアリティ‐ (拍手) 人種 民族が多様な社会で その発言? リーダー失格です 私が行っているこの主張を あらゆるレベルの 権威 権力を持つ 有力な男女に皆で主張できれば 事態は変化します 人の考え方は変わります

例えば私は 北米のあちこちの大学の スポーツチームと働いている DVや性暴力を防ぐ方法は 良く知られている 教育プロセスの一環として 全ての選手 コーチ 管理者の為に 義務付けられた防止訓練を しなくていい理由はない 簡単にできる事です でも リーダーシップが足りない 学生選手ではなく チームの監督や 大学の学長等の責任者 資金 組織内の優先順位を 決める人々に リーダーシップがない ほとんどの場合 「リーダー」は男性です

ペンシルバニア州立大では アプローチのお手本が生まれた 有力な立場にある男性達が 子供達 この場合 少年達を 守れなかった 例は信じ難いほど多い 足を踏み入れれば分かります 男性にかけられた圧力が 男性は 仲間文化で制約を受けるので その圧力を突き破るよう 働きかける必要がある

例えば こう言う 「大勢の男性が この問題に懸念を抱く」 本当なんです 何万人 何十万人という 男性と 何十年も働いていると分かる そんなに経つなんて ぞっとしますね 懸念を抱いている男性は 大勢いるんです ですが「懸念」では足りない もっと多くの― 根性 勇気 力 モラルを 備えた男性に 共犯者の沈黙を破り 仲間に挑んでもらわねば 女性の敵でなく 味方として

これは 女性に果たすべき義務です 疑問の余地はない 息子達への義務でもある 選んだわけではないのに 「男としてのあり方」を 押し付ける そんな文化で育つ世界中の― 若者達への義務でもある 彼らの選択ではない 我々大人は選択する事ができる 機会があり 彼らに対する義務がある

願わくば この動きが前進し 共に問題に取り組む男女が 変化を起こせるように 今は毎日起きている悲劇を この先 なくせるように


ご清聴ありがとうございました (拍手)

― もっと見る ―
― 折りたたむ ―


  • 主語
  • 動詞
  • 助動詞
  • 準動詞
  • 関係詞等