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 --
Zuekin partekatzera noa genero indarkeriaren paradigma aldatzera doan ikuspuntu bat. Eraso sexuala, etxeko indarkeria, harreman arazoak, sexu-jazarpena, haurren eraso sexuala... Laburturik, landuko ditudan kontu guztiak, "genero indarkeria kontuak" deituak, emakumeen arazoak balira bezala ikusi izan dira non gizon onek lagundu egiten duten. Baina honek arazo bat dakar eta ez dut onartuko. Hau ez da emakumeen zerbait non gizon onek lagundu egiten duten. Egia esan, kontu hauek gizonenak direla defendatuko dut batez ere. (Txaloak)
(Applause)
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.
Emakumeen kontuak ere badira, noski, ulertzen dut, baina genero biolentzia emakumeei egoztea arazoaren parte da hainbat arrazoi direla eta.
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, "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.
Lehena, gizonei aukera ematen diela arretarik ez jartzeko. Gizon askok "emakumeen kontuak" entzutean "deskonektatu" egiten dugu pentsatuz, ni gizona naiz, hori neskentzat, emakumeentzat da. Eta gizon askok ez dute arreta jartzen lehen esaldiaren ondoren, ondorio gisa. Garunean txip bat aktibatzea bezala da ia, eta bide neuronalek beste norabide bat hartuko balute bezala "emakumeen kontuak" entzutean. Hemen eragina du "genero" hitzak ere, askok "genero" entzun eta "emakume" pentsatzen dutelako. Genero kontuak eta emakume kontuak sinonimotzat hartzen dituzte. Nahasmena dago "genero" hitzaren inguruan.
And let me illustrate that confusion by way of analogy. So let's talk for a moment about race. In the US, 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. 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.
Eta nahaste hau analogia batekin azalduko dizuet. Hitz egin dezagun arrazari buruz. EEBBetan, "arraza" entzutean askok afro-amerikar ulertzen dute, latino, asiar-amerikar, amerikar natibo, Asia hegoaldeko, Pazifikoko irletako, etab. Askok, "orientazio sexual" entzutean gay, lesbiana edo bisexual ulertzen dute. Askok, "genero" hitza entzutean, emakume ulertzen dute. Kasu bakoitzean, talde dominatzaileari ez zaio arreta eskaintzen. Arraza zurikoak arraza identitaterik edo arraza kategoriarik ez balute bezala. Heterosexualek orientazio sexualik ez balute bezala, gizonek generorik ez balute bezala. Horrela mantentzen dira sistema dominatzaileak eta euren burua ugaldu. Talde dominatzaileari ez zaio erronkarik botatzen, ezta bere nagusitasunaz pentsarazten ere, hori baita indar eta pribilegioaren ezaugarri bereizgarria. Aztertua ez izateko gaitasuna, introspekzio faltarekin batera, diskurtsoaren barruan ikusezinak bezala sentitzea neurri handi batean eta batez ere guri buruzko gaietan. Harrigarria da nola funtzionatzen duen etxeko eta sexu indarkerian. Nola gizonak ezabatu diren gai honi buruzko elkarrizketetatik,
And I'm going to illustrate what I'm talking about
bereziki gizonei buruzkoak direnean.
by using the old tech. I'm old school on some fundamental regards. 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.
Zeri buruz ari naizen erakutsiko dizuet teknologia zaharrarekin. Eskola zaharrekoa naiz aspektu batzuetan. Filmekin eta goi mailako teknologiarekin lan egiten dut baina eskola zaharrekoa naiz hezitzaile gisa, eta zuekin partekatu nahi dut ariketa hau zeinak erakusten duen esaldiaren estruktura mailan dugun pentsatzeko erak literalki, hizkuntza erabiltzeko dugun moduak, nola urruntzen duen arreta gizonengandik. Zehazki etxeko indarkeriaz ari naiz baina beste eremu batzuetan aplikatu daiteke. Julia Penelope linguista feministaren lanetik dator hau.
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.
Inglesezko oinarrizko esaldi batekin hasten da: "John beat Mary" Inglesez esaldi zuzena da. <i>John</i> subjektua da. <i>Jo</i> aditza. <i>Mary</i> objektua da. Esaldi zuzena. Ekin diezaiogun 2. esaldiari, non berdina esaten den modu pasiboan. "Mary was beaten by John". Eta esaldi batean dena aldatu da. "John beat Mary" esalditik "Mary was beaten by John" esaldira. Gure arreta Johnetik Maryra pasatu dugu, eta John esaldi amaieran geratzen da, gure eremu psikikoa uzteko zorian. Hirugarren esaldian John desagertzen da, eta "Mary was beaten" dugu eta dena da Maryren inguruan. Ez dugu Johni buruz pentsatzen, Maryn zentratzen gara. Aurreko belaunaldian, erabilitako hitza <i>jipoitu</i> zen <i>jo</i> ordez beraz "Mary was battered" dugu. Eta sekuentzia honetako azken esaldia besteetatik eratorria, "Mary is a battered woman" da. Orain Maryren identitatea: jipoitutako emakumea da. Johnek hasieran egindakoa zehazten du. Baina erakutsi dugu Johnek aspaldi utzi zuela elkarrizketa.
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: why do they go out with these men? Why are they attracted to them? Why do they keep going back? What was she wearing at that party? What a stupid thing to do. Why was she drinking with those guys in that hotel room? This is victim blaming, and there are many reasons for it, but one is that our 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, wearing. And I'm not going to shout down people who ask questions about women. 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.
Etxeko eta sexu indarkeriarekin dihardugunok badakigu ohikoa dela biktimari botatzea errua eremu honetan, hau da, zerbait egin zaion biktima errudun egitea ekintza egin duenaren ordez. Eta esaten dugu: zergatik doaz horrelako gizonekin? Nola gustatzen zaizkie holakoak? Zergatik itzultzen dira? Ze erropa jantzi zuen? A ze inozokeria. Zergatik edan zuen gizon horiekin hoteleko gelan? Biktima kulpabilizatzea da hori, eta gertatzeko arrazoi asko daude: esaterako, gure estruktura kognitiboa biktimak erruduntzean oinarritzen da, inkontzienteki. Estruktura kognitiboak galderak egiten ditu emakumeen eta hauen aukeren inguruan, pentsamendu eta arropen inguruan. Ez dut isilaraziko emakumeei buruz galdetzen duen jendea. Bidezkoa da galdetzea. Baina argiak izanez: Maryri buruz galdetzeak ez gaitu indarkeria ekiditera eramango.
We have to ask a different set of questions. The questions are not about Mary, they're about John. They include things like, why does John beat Mary? Why is domestic violence still a big problem in the US 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 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. 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?
Galdera desberdinak egin behar ditugu. Ikusten esan nahi dudana? Galderak ez dira Maryri buruzkoak. Johni buruzkoak baizik. Galderek aztertu behar dute, zergatik Johnek Mary jotzen duen zergatik oraindik etxeko indarkeria dagoen EEBBetan eta mundu osoan. Zer gertatzen da? Zergatik hainbeste gizonek fisikoki, emozionalki, berbalki eta bestela erasotzen dituzte emakumeak eta neskak, gizonak eta mutilak maite dituztela esanez? Zer gertatzen da gizonekin? Zergatik erasotzen dituzte gizonek haurrak sexualki? Zergatik da ohiko arazoa gure gizartean eta mundu guztian gaur egun? Zergatik entzuten ditugu behin eta berriz eskandalu berriak instituzio nagusien inguruan eliza katolikoa edo Penn State futbol programa esaterako edo EEBBetako Boy Scoutak etab.? Herrialdeko komunikabide lokaletan eta mundu guztikoetan? Etengabe jasotzen ditugu berriak. Haurren kontrako eraso sexualak. Zer gertatzen da gizonekin? Zergatik bortxatu hainbeste emakume gure gizartean eta munduan? Zergatik bortxatzen dituzte gizonek hainbeste gizon? Zer gertatzen da gizonekin? Eta zein da gure gizartean instituzioen jarrera hainbeste gizon erasotzaile sortzeko kopuru pandemikoetan?
Because this isn't about individual perpetrators. That's a naive way to understanding what is a much deeper and more systematic social problem. 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?
Ez baita erasotzaile indibidualen kontua. Era inozoa da hori sakonagoa eta sistematikoagoa den arazo sozial bat ulertzeko. Dakizuenez, erasotzaileak ez dira ihes egindako munstroak herrira etorri eta gaiztakeriak egiten dituztenak eta gero iluntasunera itzultzen direnak. Hori oso ikuspegi inozoa da, ezta? Erasotzaileak hori baino arruntagoak dira, eta egunerokoagoak. Galdera da ea zer egiten ari garen gizartean eta munduan. Zein da instituzioen rola gizon erasotzaileak sortzerakoan? Zein da sinismen erlijiosoen eginkizuna, kirol kulturarena, pornografia kulturarena, familia estrukturarena, ekonomiarena, eta hauen arteko erlazioarena, eta arrazarena, etniena, eta hauen arteko erlazioarena? Nola funtzionatzen du horrek?
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.
Eta behin lotura horiek egiten hasita eta galdera garrantzitsu horiek egiten hasita, eraldatzaileak izateari buruz hitz egin dezakegu. Nola egin gauzak beste era batera? Nola alda ditzakegu praktikak? Nola alda dezakegu mutilen sozializazioa eta ondorio horietara eramaten duen gizontasunaren definizioa? Hauek dira egin beharreko galderak eta egin beharreko lana. Baina emakumea egiten ari denean zentratzen bagara, eta harremanetan edo beste gauzetan pentsatzen badugu, ez gara gizonengana iritsiko.
I understand that a lot of women who have been trying to speak 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.
Orain ulertzen ditut emakume asko, honi buruz hitz egiten saiatu direnak, gaur, atzo eta urte askotan zehar, eta isilaraziak izan direnak saiakerengatik. "Gizon-erasotzaile" bezalako izen itsusiak jartzen dizkiete edo "gizonak gorroto dituena" edo iraingarria den "feminazi". Badakizue zeri buruz doan hau? Mezularia hiltzea deritzo. Zutik dirauten emakumeei eta beraien eta besteen izenean hitz egiten dutenei, baita gizonen izenean ere, zuzendutako mezua da; esertzeko eta isiltzeko, egungo sistema mantentzeko, ez zaigulako gustatzen gauzak mugitzea. Ez zaigu gustatzen boterea mehatxatzea. Eseri eta isildu, labur esanda. Eta eskerrak emakumeek ez duten hori egin. Eskerrak mundu batean bizi garen non emakumeen lidergotza asko dagoen horri aurka egiteko. Baina gizonok dugun rol boteretsu bat
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. 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.
batzuetan emakumeek esan ezin dituzten gauza batzuk esan ditzakegula da edo, hobeto, entzunak izan gaitezke emakumeak entzunak ezin izan direnean. Badakit hori arazo bat dela. Sexismoa da. Baina egia da. Eta gizonei esaten diedana da, eta lankideei, beti esaten dut, indar eta ausardia duten gizon gehiago behar ditugula altsatu eta gauza hauek esaten hasteko emakumeekin altsatzeko eta ez hauen aurka iradokiz nolabait hau sexuen arteko gerra, edo horrelako zentzugabekeria dela. Elkarrekin bizi gara munduan. Kezkatzen nauen gauza bat
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 US military, in schools, we pioneered this approach called the bystander approach to gender-violence prevention.
feministen aurkako erretorika horretan zera da, emakumeen aurkako borrokan eta munduan zehar dagoen krisian nolabait, emakume batzuk gizonen aurka daudela. Zer gertatzen da hunkitu egiten diren mutilekin gizon askok egiten dutenagatik beraien ama, arreba edo eurengatik? Zer gertatzen da mutil guzti horiekin? Zer gertatzen da gizonen indarkeriagatik traumatizatuak izan diren mutil eta gazteekin? Emakumeak erasotzen dituztenak sortzen dituen sistemak gizonak erasotzen dituztenak ere sortzen ditu. Gizonezko biktimei buruz hitz egin nahi badugu, egin dezagun. Gizonezko biktima gehienak gizonen indarkeriaren biktima dira. Gizon eta emakumeek komunean duten zerbait da hori. Denok gara gizonen indarkeriaren biktimak. Beraz gure interesa da, ez esatearren ezagutzen ditudan gizon gehienak inporta zaizkien emakumeak dauzkagula, gure familia eta lagunartean. Horregatik hitz egiteko arrazoi asko ditugu. Bistakoa dirudi altuan esatea, ezta? Beraz, nire eta lankideen lana kiroletan, EEBBetako armadan, eskoletan, lekukoaren hurbilketa deiturikoa da genero biolentziaren inguruan.
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?
Lekukoen hurbilketaren inguruko zerbait esan nahi nuke, aldaketa nabarmena suposatzen duelako, eta bereizgarri asko eskaintzen ditu. Oinarrian, gizonak erasotzaile gisa ikusi beharrean eta emakumeak biktima edo emakumeak erasotzaile eta gizonak biktima, edo edozein konbinazio. Genero binarioa darabilt. Badakit gizonak eta emakumeak baino gehiago dagoela. Eta badaude emakume erasotzaileak, eta noski gizon biktimak. Espektro handi bat dago. Baina modu binarioan ikusi beharrean, lekukoen ikuspegia defendatzen dugu, eta lekukoak ez erasotzaile ez biktima direnak dira; hau da, lagunak, taldekideak, lankideak, familia kideak edo edonor erasoaren diadan sartuta ez dagoena, baina baditugu gizartean, familian, eskolan, lanean, eta beste erlazioetan eraso egoeran egon daitezkeenak. Zer egin? Nola hitz egin? Nola egin aurka lagunei? Nola babestu lagunak? Nola egin isilik ez geratzeko erasoen aurrean?
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. 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?
Gizon eta gizon kulturari dagokionez, erasotzaile ez direnek badirenei aurre egitea da helburua. Eta erasotzaileak ez dira bakarrik emakumeak jotzen dituztenak. Ez da soilik gizonei esatea neskalaguna jotzen duen gizona geldiarazi behar dutela erasoaren momentuan. Hau aldaketa soziala ulertzeko modu inozoa da. Kontinuum batean saiatu behar dugu gizonok elkarri geldiarazten. Adibidez, gizona bazara eta gizon talde batean bazaude pokerrean jolasten, hitz egiten, emakumerik gabe, eta gizon batek zerbait sexista esaten badu edo mingarria emakumeentzat, barre egin beharrean edo ez entzunarena egin, zera esan behar dugu: "Aizu, ez da barregarria. Nire arreba izan liteke hori, beste zerbaiti buruz egin dezakezu barre? Edo beste zerbaitez hitz egin? Ez nago gustora gai honekin." Zuria izango bazina bezala eta beste zuri batek komentario arrazista egitean, esperoko zenuke zuriek ez onartzea beste zuri batek egindako komentario arrazista. Heteresoxuala izango bazina bezala eta jokabide erasotzaileen aurrean ezer egingo ez bazenu, beste orientazio batzuen aurkako komentarioa egiten duen heterosexualari ezer esango ez bazenio, ez al litzateke zure isiltasuna modu batean onarpen bat izango? Lekukoen ikuspegiak tresna bat eskaintzen du
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?
prozesua gelditu eta altsatzeko eta kide kultura klima sortzeko non jokabide erasotzailea ez den onartzen, ez bakarrik ilegala delako, okerra delako baizik eta onartezina berdinen kulturan. Eta lor badezakegu gizonek modu sexistan jokatzean estatusa galtzea, modu sexistan jokatzen duten mutil eta gazteek eta emakumeekiko modu iraingarrian baita beste mutilekiko ere, estatusa galtzen badute, badakizue zer? Erasoen gutxitze radikala ikusiko dugu. Erasotzaile ohikoa ez delako gaixo eta zoroa. Gizon normala baizik, ezta?
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.
Orain, Martin Luther Kingek bizitzan esandako gauza bikainenetarikoa: "Azkenean, min gehien ematen duena ez dira etsaien hitzak lagunen isiltasuna baizik". Azkenean min gehien ematen dutenak ez dira gure etsaien hitzak, lagunen isiltasuna baizik. Isiltasun ikaragarria egon da gizonen kulturan gizonen indarkeria trajiko honen inguruan emakume eta haurren aurka, ezta? Isiltasun beldurgarria egon da. Eta esaten dudana da isiltasuna apurtu behar dugula, eta horretarako gizon gehiago behar ditugu.
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. 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?
Errezagoa da esatea egitea baino, esaten ari natzaizuelako, baina ez da erraza gizonen kulturan gizonek elkarri salatzea, eta paradigma aldatu behar dela erakusten duen arrazoi bat da hori. Ez delako gizonen gauzak direla ulertzea bakarrik baizik eta gizonen lidergo kontuak. Azkenaldian, hitz egitearen erantzukizuna ez litzatekelako jauzi behar eskolako mutil gazteengan edo unibertsitateko mutilengan. Boteredun gizonengan baizik. Gizon boteretsuak dira behar ditugunak kontu hauetan liderrak izateko, berdinen kulturan norbaitek hitz egitean eta erronkak jarri eta oztopatzean, gizon edo emakume, lider bat izaten ari da, ezta? Baina eskala handian gizon heldu boteretsu gehiago behar ditugu kontu hauei lehentasuna emateko, eta oraindik ez dugu hori ikusi, ezta?
Now, I was at a dinner a number of years ago, and I work extensively with the US 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?"
Duela urte batzuk afari batean nengoen, askotan egiten dut lan EEBBetako militarrekin, zerbitzu guztiekin. Afari horretan nengoen eta emakume batek esan zidan -- Zena baino azkarragoa zela uste zuela iruditu zitzaidan -- "Zenbat denbora daramazu sentikortasuna entrenatzen marineekin?"
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."
Eta esan nuen: "Errespetu guztiarekin, ez dut marineen sentikortasuna entrenatzen. Lidergotza programa zuzentzen dut Marine taldean".
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, "He needs sensitivity training." Other people will say, "Well, get off it. That's political correctness run amok, 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 --
Badakit nire erantzuna harroa dela, baina bereizketa garrantzitsua da ez baitut uste behar duguna sentikortasuna entrenatzea denik. Lidergotza entrenamendua baizik. Izan ere, saskibaloi talde bateko entrenatzaile preofesional batek edo futboleko batek -eta askotan egiten dut lan eremu horretan ere- komentario sexista egiten badu, homofobikoa, arrazista, eztabaidak sortuko dira kirol blog edo irratsaioetan. Eta batzuek esango dute: "Sentikortasun entrenamendua behar du". Eta beste batzuek: "Irten hortik. Politikoki zuzena izatea ahaztu du, eta komentario okerra egin. Ahaztu". Diodana da ez duela sentikortasun entrenamendua behar, lidergotza entrenamendua baizik, lider txarra izaten ari delako, gizarte batean genero eta orientazio aniztasunarekin -- (Txaloak) --
(Applause)
arraza eta etnia aniztasunarekin.
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 the paradigm of people's thinking.
Horrelako komentario batekin lidergotzari huts egiten dio. Esaten ari naizena helarazi badezakegu gizarteko gizon eta emakume boteretsuei autoritate instituzional maila guztietara, aldaketa emango da, aldatu egingo da jendearen pentsaera.
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.
Esaterako, askotan egiten dut lan EEBBetako eskola eta unibertsitateetako atletekin. Ondo dakigu nola ekidin etxeko eta sexu indarkeria, ezta? Ez dago aitzakiarik unibertsitate batentzat indarkeria ekiditeko programarik ez edukitzeko ikasle, atleta, entrenatzaile eta administratzaile guztientzat, beraien hezkuntza prozesu gisa. Nahikoa dakigu jakiteko erraz egin dezakegula. Baina badakizue zer falta den? Lidergotza. Baina ez atleten lidergotza. Atleten zuzendarien lidergotza unibertsitateko zuzendariarena, arduradunena, erabakiak hartzen dituztenena, instituzioetan erabakitzen dutenena. Porrota da, gizonen lidergotzarena gehienetan.
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.
Begira Penn State. Penn State da lekukoen ikuspegiaren irakasgai nagusia. Hainbat egoera daude eremu hartan non gizon boteretsuek porrot egin duten haurrak babesterakoan, mutilak. Sinestezina da. Baina barruan zaudenean ohartzen zara gizonek presioa dutela. Behartzeak daude gizonengan berdinen kulturan, horregatik animatu behar ditugu gizonak presio horiek hausteko.
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 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.
Eta horretarako bide bat da esatea gizon asko dagoela kontu hauekin kezkatuta. Badakit. Gizonekin dihardut, eta milaka gizonekin egin dut lan ehundaka milakarekin hamarkadetan zehar. Beldurra ematen du zenbat urte izan diren pentsatzeak. Baina gizon asko dago kontu hauez kezkatzen dena, baina kezkatzea ez da nahiko. Gizon ausart gehiago behar ditugu ausardi, indar eta osotasun moralarekin isiltasun hau apurtu eta elkarri salatzeko emakumeekin altsatzeko eta ez kontra egiteko.
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.
Emakumeei zor diegu. Ez dago zalantzarik. Baina gure semeei ere zor diegu. Hazten ari diren gizonei ere zor diegu, mundu guztian dauden horiei, aukeratu ez dituzten egoeretan, gizonak izan daitezen gizon izateak zerbait esan nahi duen kultura batean. Ez zuten aukeratu. Hautatu dezakegunok aukera bat daukagu eta erantzukizun bat ere.
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.
Espero dut, aurrera egin ahala, emakume eta gizon, elkarrekin lanean, aldaketa hasiko dela eta eraldaketa hasiko dela eta etorkizunean ez dela hainbeste tragedia emango egun ditugunak bezala.
I know we can do it, we can do better.
Badakit egin dezakegula. Hobeto egin dezakegu.
Thank you very much.
Eskerrik asko.