Voice and Representation
October 12, 2008: My time here in Rome has been both academically and individually fruitful. As a Women's and Gender Studies student I have been able to reflect and theorize both in and outside of the classroom. I am loving my time here being able to study, travel, and have a lot of fun.
Tonight was a very interesting and exciting night here in Rome. Along with the Community of Sant'Egidio (a Catholic lay movement focused on prayer, friendship and social justice) I participated in a candle light vigil that brought thousands of Jews and Christians together to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the the Nazi deportation of Jews from Rome to concentration camps. This event was falling at a very interesting moment after a week filled with a significant buzz around Pope Benedict XVI's support of the beatification of Pope Pius XII (a debated player during the Holocaust). Beginningoutside of the Basilica di Santa Maria in Trestevere, one of the oldest Christian churches in all of Rome, we walked across the city until we arrived in the Jewish ghetto.
Streets were filled to hear the voices of religious leaders and politicians speak about peace, ecumenism, and living every day lives of compassion across religious boundaries. I was able to experience this event from a unique perspective, having been askedalong with individuals from each continent to carry candles leading the procession There was a unique sense of community and family among the people. This event was of particular significance because a government leader, who had once aligned with a fascist Roman party, spoke about unity and creating bonds. While these speeches were significant the moment was made beautiful by a collective energy and hope towards the future. The spirit of remembrance was strong, but the hope and belief in tomorrow rang even louder.
As I walked home I reflected on the evening and when in my life I have been a part of something that has sought this sort of peace. Thinking back on what each speaker had said I realized that every speaker was male. Had any one else noticed this? Was it a problem, and is it worth noting? Was everyone who was affected by this event adequately represented by an all-male speaking panel? Tonight was about human rights, about not letting religious identity create boundaries, and only men spoke on behalf of those affected these horrific historical events.I am left wondering when and where men's voices are the only ones allowed to speak on behalf of everyone.
I have a curiosity reflecting in how men and women are allowed (or not) to speak for all people. Are female voices heard as being universal in the ways that men's often are? Along with many feminist scholars, I have recognized that we live in a androcentric society. In many avenues, from pop-culture to politics, men are viewed as representatives of all people, while women often are only able to be representatives of other women.Tonight was a special night indeed, it was a beautiful night of community, but a moment to think about how history is written and whose voices are heard.
Massacre in Finland
After the world's most recent massacre in Finland, which left 8 women and 2 men dead... is there even a slight bit of surprise that the killer is male? I mean even a little bit? If a woman shot and killed people at this rate wouldn't it seem surprising? Imagine if a teenage girl and her 2 closest girlfriends shot up a High School, would we question things in different ways?
My note is only a response to the reality that we are normalized to men's violence. Be persistent and do not allow the discussion of masculinity and gender to fall out of these conversations. When tragedies like Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, or now in Finland happen there is more we can do than sit and feel bad about the 'violence in the world,' as if it is abstract and by no means connected to a societal valorization of male violence.
Violence and Manhood
Sept 9, 2008: Throughout my studies of Women's and Gender Studies I have held an interest in masculinity, the ways it has been constructed, and how it functions in a society that is permeated with male violence. Last weekend during an evening out with friends the night turned sour when a street fight broke out between six Italian men. While the reason for the dispute was unclear, many interesting things were going on. As the fight began a circle of spectators instantly surrounded the increasingly violent fight.The fight began with punches and angry pushes, but seemed to ebb and flow according to the audience's attention. As the crowd grew the violence grew, leaving me questioning the ways in which masculinity functions as a performance. Not only were these men fighting each other, they were vying for crowd attention. When the fight seemed to calm and the audience seemed to be dissipating, one of the men came running from behind an opponent sitting on the ground and kicked him squarely in the face. The scene ended with a human being laying knocked out in a blood covered street.
This experience left me feeling sick to my stomach and angry at the ways in which violence has been historically drawn as a central quality of masculinity. That evening it appeared that the violence held an entertainment value, even though one individual was left close to death. What does it mean to live in a society where men's violence is both regarded as commonplace and seen as a source of entertainment? Even more so, what does it mean to live in a society where 85% of murder, 90% of assault, 95% of domestic violence, 95% of dating violence, 95% of child sexual abuse, and 99.8% of rape is all committed by men? (Jhally). This conversation is not about making violence gender neutral, instead it is about realizing the forces that create violence as a quality of manhood and taking steps to break this framework. Feminists have noted the ways in which a term like "boys will be boys" has created a box which has confined males to violent and dominant stereotypes. But when do these sorts of phrases become outdated? When young boys fighting with each other is written off as a part of 'boyhood,' doesn't that begin to create a slippery slope to excusing men's violence as a part of manhood? A way to begin this change is to begin to look critically at the media and at the wider society and dissect moments when men's violence is regarded as natural or normal, or even entertaining.
The language barriers presented in this study abroad experience have been challenging, but I seek to take moments such as these to discuss the ways that the construction of a violent manhood leads to a violent society. When men and women are more willing to challenge this definition of manhood, an important step is taken towards reducing men's violence in the world. When this sort of change is created it is not only beneficial for the victims of men's violence, it is a rewarding to all men who no longer have to live associated with this limiting identity. When the rape jokes and the glamorization of men's violence become present in our everyday lives, we can no longer live as silent bystanders, we must challenge these norms and begin to consider the ways in which these everyday occurrences contribute to a violent society.
Tough Guise: Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity. Dir. Sut Jhally. Perf. Jackson Katz. 1999.