Despite endless commentary, few have acknowledged that the alleged killer is a young man—reflecting a broader refusal to grapple with masculinity’s role in political violence.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a major sociocultural event and media spectacle that has generated a tremendous amount of media commentary and social media discourse. Unfortunately, much of the analysis suffers from the same blind spot that typically characterizes media narratives about violence: It is de-gendered.
One way to see how the lack of a gendered analysis has played out in the shooting and its aftermath is to do the following thought exercise:
Read, listen and watch as much commentary as possible across the ideological spectrum, and notice how rarely anyone even mentions that the alleged murderer is a young man. Or a young white man.
You’ll hear a wide variety of gender-neutral terms: the alleged “shooter.” The college-age “suspect.” The “killer.” The “person” who did this. It’s almost as if the pundits and “experts” are intentionally attempting to avoid saying out loud that this act—like the overwhelming majority of both mass shootings and political violence—was done by a man.
Why does this failure to name the gender issues at the heart of most violence, including political violence, matter?
Because in the subsequent discussions about its causes, and ways to prevent it from happening in the future, one of the key elements is missing.
For anyone who remains unconvinced that it’s important to make the gender of the perpetrator visible, and to examine the ways in which cultural norms and narratives about masculinity and violence might be implicated, imagine if women committed the overwhelming majority of political violence, and over 98 percent of mass shootings. Would anyone commenting about the latest violent incident talk about the “shooter,” and fail to mention it’s a woman, and seek to explore the ways in which cultural ideas about femininity might factor in?
The failure to name the gendered nature of most violence (political and otherwise) is especially notable because a large part of Charlie Kirk’s success was due to the ways in which he pushed for a reinforcement of a certain kind of traditional—and very aggressive—(white) masculinity.
Not coincidentally, Kirk was also an avowed and often obnoxious opponent of feminism, which (it must be said) has provided the intellectual foundation and political basis from which to examine and challenge the masculinity-violence synergy. In other words, Kirk has long used his public platform to denigrate and attempt to delegitimize the very people and ideas that possess some of the most important insight into the causes of the violence that tragically took his life.
The alleged killer is now in custody. He is a 22-year-old man who is himself a product of a culture—American culture—that has long glamorized and romanticized violent white masculinity … especially as it is expressed through the ultimate symbol of violent masculine power: the gun.
… a large part of Charlie Kirk’s success was due to the ways in which he pushed for a reinforcement of a certain kind of traditional—and very aggressive—(white) masculinity.
To be fair, this romanticization is not found solely on the political right. It shows up at many other points on the ideological spectrum.
Feminist and pro-feminist thinkers and activists have long maintained that it’s impossible to have a serious discussion about violence without examining its multidimensional relationship to masculinity (actually, masculinities).
And vice versa.
On a personal note, I’ve been beating this drum in my writing, speaking and educational documentaries for more than 30 years.
But here we are, again.
Great Job Jackson Katz & the Team @ Ms. Magazine Source link for sharing this story.
