Good morning, everyone. Welcome. How are you? Good? All right. Well, welcome to the US Institute of Peace. My name is Kathleen Kinist, and I'm the Director of Gender, Peace, and actually, I said this yesterday, Gender, Peace, and Security. But I'm really the Director of Gender Policy and Strategy on gender, peace, and security. A lot of GPSs, anyway. For those of you who may be new to the Institute, USIP was founded nearly 35 years ago as an independent national institution dedicated to the proposition that peace is possible, practical, and it is essential for US and global security. We are very pleased today to co-host the event on ending sexual violence from policy to practice, along with the US Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security. The working group was established in 2010 as an engaged coalition to offer expert advice and awareness on the effective implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security agenda, often referred to as the UN Security Council Resolution 1325. We are also now involved in the US Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017, which you'll hear more about in the discussions following. Our public event today seeks to bring new questions to the problem of sexual violence, whether in war or in peace. The event seeks to examine our approaches to ending sexual violence and toward advancing the Women, Peace, and Security agenda more broadly. It is being webcast, and the hashtag today is hashtag hear me too. We hope you will tweet about the event and let your networks and friends know about it. As some of you may be aware, this day is one of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. And during these days, we are reminded that one in three women worldwide have experienced some form of gender-based violence. We are reminded that conflict-related sexual violence is not only considered a crime against humanity, but it hinders the reintegration efforts and peace-building processes in post-conflict environments. And we are also reminded today that the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, this coming Monday in Oslo, well bestowed this year's honors on Nadia Marad of Iraq and Dennis Macquegee of the DRC. These two individuals have made a world of difference in bringing awareness about the issues of conflict-related sexual violence. They have also helped us really advance the call to ending sexual violence in war and peace. So I thank you all for joining us today. We will have a keynote speaker, Jackson Katz, who you will meet shortly. And then it will be followed by a panel discussion and a very active, I hope, audience discussion. So we look forward to your comments, your questions, and we'd like to begin. I want to introduce to you the chair of the US Civil Society Working Group, Ursula Knudsenlata, who is also the policy and advocacy coordinator for the organization, Safer World. She will introduce our keynote speaker today. Thanks very much. Ursula, welcome to the podium. Thank you so much, Kathleen, for the warm welcome to USIP. On behalf of the US Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security, affectionately known as CSWG, thank you all, members, and friends, for taking time out of your hectic schedules to spend a morning here exploring new approaches to ending sexual violence and advancing the women, peace, and security agenda. The CSWG is a nonpartisan network of over 40 NGOs with decades of experience working on issues involving women, war, and peace. Since its founding in 2010, the CSWG has promoted, informed, facilitated, and monitored the meaningful implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security agenda. Thank you also to the Compton Foundation for their support in making today's discussion possible and their dedication to advancing the Women, Peace, and Security agenda. To kick off today's event, I am pleased to introduce our keynote, Dr. Jackson Katz. Jackson Katz is an educator, author, filmmaker, and social theorist who is internationally renowned for his pioneering scholarship and activism on issues of gender, race, and violence. In 1993, Dr. Katz co-founded the Mentors in Violence Prevention, MVP, program at Northeastern University Center for the Study of Sports in Society. The mixed-gender multiracial MVP program is one of the longest running and most widely influential sexual assault and relationship abuse prevention programs in both secondary and higher education. The MVP introduced the bystander approach to its gender violence prevention field. Katz is one of the key architects of this now broadly popular educational strategy. Since 1990, Katz has delivered thousands of keynote addresses and conducted trainings in all 50 states, eight Canadian provinces, and across every continent, except Antarctica, though I'm sure there's work to be done in those science stations. Since 1997, Katz has run MVP strategies which promoted sexual harassment and gender violence prevention leadership training to professionals and students and colleges, high schools, the military, human resource organizations, and small and large corporations. Katz is the creator of Tough Guys and Tough Guys II, the award-winning and widely used educational documentary. He's the author of several critically acclaimed books, and his TED talk, Violence Against Women is a Men's Issue, has been viewed more than four million times, and I'm sure many of you in the audience have contributed to that number. Katz became the first man at the University of Massachusetts Amherst to earn a minor in women's studies, and he holds a master's degree from Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in cultural studies and education from UCLA. A native of Boston and longtime resident of Southern California, he and his family recently relocated back to Massachusetts, why you would choose the cold over the sun, I'm not sure. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Katz. Thank you very much. Thanks, Ursula, and thank you very much, Kathleen, to you and your colleagues for inviting me. This is a great honor for me and opportunity, and thank you all, good morning. Good morning. Thank you. I also want to thank my friend and colleague, Gary Barker, for his leadership and Promundo's leadership in the space that relates to some of the stuff that I'm going to be talking about this morning. So thanks, Gary. I'm going to start, I have to say, with an exercise that I'm going to walk across the stage and use the old tech for. Is that OK? OK. And let me just say, I'm looking around the room, and I see there's a number of people who are a bit younger than I am. So I want to explain the technology, because sometimes there's some confusion about technology. And I say that only half jokingly. I have a 17-year-old son, who he's a smart guy, but he doesn't read as much as my wife and I would like him to read. And I would hand him articles in the newspaper. I'm a big newspaper reader. Read the physical newspaper. I'm obviously reading online, but I also pick up the paper and hold it in my hand and read it. And so I would hand him articles of interest. Not to me. It's not like Dad's trying to impose his own interest on his son. My son's a baseball pitcher, for example. And I would hand him articles about pitching, something that's totally related to his interest, and he wouldn't read it. And I would be trying to figure out what is going on here. And I finally figured out he was intimidated by the technology, because some of us take for granted how do you read a newspaper. But if you're somebody who grows up in the digital age and you haven't really read newspapers, it's kind of intimidating, especially when it says, continue it on page 16. And you have to open the pages. You have to scan, look and try to find where it is, right? I'm only half joking on this. So let me just say, this is an easel. And it's a flip chart. And this is a magic marker, just wanted to say. But in all seriousness, I want to start with an exercise before I've said anything on content of what I'm going to say. I want to involve you in an interactive exercise if that's OK. And it's a leadership exercise. And we don't have a whole lot of time, like the speed chess. We're going to do a really kind of quick version of this exercise. I want to ask you to give me and all of us your definition of a strong leader and what are the characteristics or qualities of a strong leader. And I'm going to do my best to write down a few as quickly as I can so we can move to the next stage. But here's my ask. Raise your hand. I'll call on you. Tell us your definition of a strong leader or the qualities of leadership that you admire or aspire to. And we'll go from there. Yes? Courage. Thank you. Courage, empathy, confidence, willingness to listen. I'll do a little haiku, OK? Listener, humility, yes, sir? High energy. High energy, vision. A couple more because we're running out of space. Competence, OK? Empowering others or lifting? Elevating. One last one. Sorry, who's had the hand of longest? Intelligence. OK, this is a good list. I'm sorry, it's kind of messy. And we could go on and you could see that there's a whole lot more. But this is great. This is a great list. So let me ask you a question. Why do you think that I started a talk on preventing sexual assault and relationship abuse and gender violence, whether it's in conflict or post-conflict zones or anywhere else? Why would I start a talk on this subject? And I do this, by the way, in my colleagues do this all the time. In the military, in the sports culture, and on college campuses, we often start with this exercise. Why do you think we would start an exercise on the issues of gender violence prevention with a leadership exercise? Anybody want to give a thought? And by the way, there's no right or wrong answer here. I'm not looking for a, you know, gotcha. You've got the wrong answer or something. It's just perspectives, yes. OK, can other people hear? Just thank you. But do me a favor when people speak. Just there's not going to be a whole lot of opportunity. But when you're going to speak, certainly please know that you're speaking to everybody because I have a microphone and the stage and nobody else does. So thank you for that, yes. The tone is set from the top down. Like for example, in the military, the concept is command climate is the responsibility of the commander. The troops have to take responsibility for their own behavior and whatever their sphere of influence. But the ultimate responsibility for what happens in a military unit, which is a metaphor for other organizations, is at the top. The commander is responsible for the command climate. In the corporate world, it's the CEO or the directors or the managers. In a high school, it's the principal.  It's not about the troops and the lower levels have responsibility, but the ultimate responsibility for setting the tone is at the top, isn't it? Any other thoughts about why we're starting this presentation with that leadership exercise? OK, could you say more about that? She said lots of these qualities are gendered. OK, that's true. Some of them are more likely associated with masculine and feminine. Although I want to say that's a problem because those aren't gendered in some natural law kind of way. These are human qualities, right? They shouldn't be gendered in any way, even though people attribute gender characteristics to some of these things. These are human qualities that I think many of us aspire to and embody. Is that true? OK, thank you. Any other thoughts about why I would start with this and why we often start with this exercise? Yes? OK, good. You would need someone with skills like this to change a culture. And by the way, aren't we talking about changing culture? Isn't ultimately when we're talking about preventing sexual violence in conflict zones or anywhere else about changing a culture? It's not about running from one individual to the next in some hopeless whack-a-mole process of trying to, like, oh, you know, is this problem surfaced here? Let's run over here and address it. Let's run over here. It's about changing the culture that produces the abuse in the first place, isn't it? Yes? It's perpetrated by group members. So this is the key. Yes, thank you. Well said. I'm glad there's research to back up what many of us think is common sense. But thank you. That's great. OK, this is all good. And again, knowing that if we had a longer workshop, we could go into even more detail on all these points. You do know this, right? And so I'm talking fast because of the constraints of the format, not because there's not more to talk about. Let me also ask you a question. Do you have to have a title of leader next to your name, some kind of formal credential to be embodying those qualities or to be leading? You don't, do you? You don't have to be. I mean, yes, if you have a formal title and a formal responsibility, you have an added responsibility. But you can be a leader at all levels.  Hey, that's not funny. That's an act of leadership on the part of that 16-year-old, even though he might not be seeing himself as a leader and have some title to back it up. And when I get into the bystander approach in due course and explain what that means, the bystander and the leader, the bystander concept and leadership concept are hand and glove. You know why? Because a bystander, and by the way, the word bystander is a synonym for friend, teammate, classmate, colleague, battle buddy, there's no such category as bystander. It's just another word for friend, teammate, colleague, coworker, fellow, military member, or what have you. The person who speaks up and challenges and interrupts sexism or the enactment of abusive behavior by their peer, by their friend, by their colleague is actually acting as a leader. Because what does a leader do? A leader sees a situation, there's a problem. Trying to assess the situation, tries to understand the complex dynamics that are going on, thinks about their ethical responsibilities to the parties involved and to themselves and to the organization they represent. And then the leader thinks through what are my options for how do I act in these situations? And then a leader chooses an option and acts. Well, that's what a bystander, an empowered bystander does. A friend, a teammate, a classmate, a colleague, a coworker who sees the situation and then does something is essentially executing a leadership protocol, aren't they? A hand in glove, the empowered bystander in leadership. I also want to say one other thing. There's many words there we could get into the etymology of, because I love etymology. But the one I have to say always that I point out, which is the first one referenced, is courage. Does anybody know the Latin root of the word courage? It's cur, right, courage. And in French it's cur, I don't speak French, but it sounds something vaguely like what I just said. That's heart, right? So when we say we need to encourage, and I'll say it specifically, more men to speak up on these issues, to have the guts to stand with women. And I say guts, because the reason why very few men do it is because not enough men have the guts to do it. Let me just say that out loud. We're saying we need to encourage more men and young men to stand with women as their partners and allies. It's another way of saying we need to infuse them with heart. And I think that's an important concept, too, because I think that we do need to encourage men to step out of their comfort zone. And courage is a big part of that. And obviously women's courage is central to all these matters. And in fact, let me just start with this. And why I started with this exercise, although many of the people who just gave responses to my question answered the question pretty well. I think what we're missing desperately in this society is leadership in this world, I should say. The leadership of men is what we're missing, not women. Women's leadership has been incredible in a multiracial, multiethnic sense here in the US, but all over the world.  All these movements were addressing problems that were present in our species for thousands of years, not decades. These are not recent problems in our species, right?  These are not recent problems in our species. Thousands of years old, women's leadership, starting in the 1970s especially, has been unbelievably transformative globally on all these matters. So women's leadership has not been the problem. And by the way, one of the misconceptions that a lot of people have about women's leadership in the areas of sexual assault and domestic violence, and I'll talk globally, but I'm obviously, most of my work is in the States, but increasingly internationally. So many misconceptions about women's leadership in this area, if you will. And one of them is that somehow women and girls have benefited from women's leadership, but men and boys, not so much. And there are actually people who believe that as women have advanced and as the domestic and sexual violence movements have progressed, somehow men have been pushed backwards. Somehow men have been disadvantaged by women's progress. This is in a short, you know, sentence the point of view of the so-called men's rights movement, which I don't even like to say men's rights movement in this context, but that's part of the men's rights movement. And I'm sorry to say, as an American, the President of the United States just validated that ignorant point of view several weeks ago in a public statement. Men have not been pushed backwards by women's advancement, but I don't think most people think that. I think most people think that men and boys are just kind of floating out there. We just kind of haven't been affected one way or the other, and we need more services from men. We need more attention to the needs of men and young men and emotional needs, the mental health needs, which is true. And everybody that I know in the movements against domestic and sexual violence have been saying this and thinking this for 50 years, okay? This is not a new thought in the domestic and sexual violence movement that we need more attention to the needs of men and boys emotionally, developmentally, the trauma. And obviously when we're dealing with sexual assault in conflict zones, we're talking about traumatized men who are hurt people, hurt people. You know what I'm saying?  This happens in the United States too. It's what school shootings are. It's what most mass killings are. It's men who've got issues and problems and self-hatred and all kinds of stuff. And then they externalize it, right? And by the way, girls and women who have been traumatized and violated are often doing the opposite. They're often turning inward and hurting themselves more and putting themselves in more vulnerable spots and at more risk. Is by the way, is the difference between men externalizing their pain and women internalizing it? Boys externalizing, girls internalizing? Is that a genetic difference? That the male child at birth or the female child at birth has some kind of genetic predisposition and when trauma occurs, there's a flip switch that goes in one direction for one and one direction for the other. And I know that I'm using the binary. I know that there's people who aren't men or women and gender is more fluid than that. I understand all that. But do we think it's genetic? Are you kidding me? We teach boys to externalize their pain. We teach boys to take their internal shame and externalize it on other people. We teach girls to internalize it. I mean, this is basic stuff. This is like gender 101 stuff, but it's that basic and it hasn't yet quite made it into the mainstream of discourse even though it's like one of the most obvious things that you could ever imagine. Like the school shootings discourse in the United States is so impoverished. School shootings, which is so pathetically common, right? You know this, right? I mean, I've done a lot of work on school shootings and written about it for 20 years and I mean, really, school shootings? If there was a school shooting today, God forbid, anywhere, say in the United States. And again, this makes a broader point, but if there's a school shooting today, I can almost guarantee what the conversation will be in the mainstream media in terms of the motives or the reason why it happened. And it'll be this simple-minded debate between, on the one hand, people saying that there's a mental health problem, there's a mental health crisis, we need more mental health intervention early in the schools and on one hand.  Until we address that, we're not gonna get anywhere. It's like nobody thinks to say, what to me is the most obvious point, which is gender is the single most important factor in school shootings by far. And I'll give you the simple reason why. Imagine why are 99. something percent of school shootings done by boys, if, excuse me, if mental illness and gun availability are the main factors. Girls have every bit the mental health challenges, boys do. Girls have every bit the access to guns that boys do, but they don't commit 50% of the shootings, do they? In fact, they don't even commit 1% of the shootings. Can you imagine if 99% of school shootings were done by girls? Would anybody be talking about mental illness and guns as the first order of business? No, I think everybody would be saying, what's going on with girls? Oh my God, what's going on with girls? And even though there's a tiny number of girls doing it, like there was a tiny number of boys committing school shootings, they're canaries in the coal mine, they're telling us something about what's happening, what we're doing. They're giving us some indication of something that we're doing wrong. But because it's boys, we go immediately to secondary factors because boys represent the dominant sex class and this is how power works, by being invisible, by being stealthful, by shifting accountability off of itself, right? There's so many ways this happens in international human rights discourse, for example. I was just speaking at a human rights conference in Stockholm a couple of weeks ago and I was the keynote speaker on the opening day and it was a great honor and everything and the main point of my talk was that we have the gender human rights discourse because overwhelming number of human rights abuses are perpetrated by men and young men and states that are patriarchal states that are dominated by men. This is to me the central point about human rights abuses is the gender of the state and the gender of the individuals who carry it out. Hate crimes? How many hate crimes do women commit? A tiny number of the total. But because of the way that power hides itself, we don't talk about that. I'll give you another just a couple of examples of the language, how the language that we use keeps us in the dark, if you will, keeps us from addressing these issues front and center. You hear the passive voice constantly used in discussions. I just used it myself about gender violence.  How many women were raped in conflict zones in this country or that country rather than how many men raped women on college campuses or how many men raped women in this conflict zone? But you'll hear people say like in the DC school district, how many girls were sexually harassed last year rather than how many boys sexually harassed girls? Or how many girls sexually harassed girls? You'll hear people say things like, how many teenage girls got pregnant in the state of Maryland, in the state of Virginia last year rather than how many men and boys impregnated teenage girls? In each case, the use of passive language has a very powerful political effect. The political effect is the shift in focus off of the group with more power onto the group with less. This is not a coincidence. It's not a sloppy thinking. It's how power functions through stealth or invisibility or the shifting of accountability. And I'm here to say that we need to start saying stuff out loud and we need more men who are willing to say this stuff because women shouldn't be on the shoulders of women to have to say this stuff out loud because the problem with that is that a lot of women who work with men who often have more power institutionally, politically, those women often don't want to get called out as the ones who's always bringing up gender, who's always calling out men, who's always the angry feminist, right? So all these women in the field, including women in this room, I'm sure, know that in conversations with men, in interactions with male colleagues, in political bodies in the United Nations and elsewhere, you often hear this discourse that's completely absent from, well, not absent. Well, what's absent from that discourse is an honest discussion about gender, specifically masculinities. And is it anti-male to do this? I mean, to say that men are the ones committing the vast majority of the violence? No, I don't think so for one nanosecond. I don't think this is anti-male for one nanosecond. And in fact, I think it's anti-male not to say these things, because you know who the primary victims of most forms of violence are in the world?  It's men and boys, that's who, when it comes to murder, attempted murder, assault, aggravated assault, gay bashing, bullying, and then men are the primary victims of all these crimes as well as the primary perpetrators. The same system that produces men who abuse women produces men who abuse other men and men who abuse themselves. Gary and my colleague and friend, Michael Kaufman, one of the co-founders of the White Ribbon Campaign, I should be wearing a white ribbon, we're in the white ribbon period right now, the White Ribbon Campaign. Michael Kaufman, in 1987, that is, was that 31 years ago? 31 years ago, wrote an article called The Triad of Men's Violence, which is the triad of men's violence is men's violence against women, men's violence against other men, men's violence against themselves. They're all related and connected and intersected with each other. It's not one or the other. So when you hear men say, well, what about the men? What about violence against men? It's like, are you kidding me? Sophisticated people in the 21st century have been talking about this and in the 20th century as connected for a long, long time. It's not just one or the other, like we're concerned with women but we're not concerned with men. Are you kidding? The same system that produces men, a college man, a 20 year old man who rapes his fellow college student here in DC is the same system that produces a 55 year old man on Wall Street who sexually harasses one of his subordinates or his colleagues in the workplace is the same system that produces men from Europe and the United States who go to Southeast Asia or South America to pay 12 year olds to have sex. It's the same system that produces child soldiers in Africa and other kinds of abuses at all levels is the same system that produces 60 year old white guys in Utah who go out in the woods and shoot themselves in the head which is by the way, the fastest growing category of suicide by gun is white men over the age of 50. The same system that produces all of this is what we're trying to hold under the critical spotlight. It's not one or the other. And by the way, one of the suggestions about how to get more men involved in this work is to make those connections because when you start talking about self-interest beyond altruism, you start talking about self-interest you have on the part of men I'm talking about and young men and men's responsibility not just to women although that's important but to other men and to boys and you make them see that this is all about changing norms that harm both women and men. You're gonna have a lot more men who start paying closer attention and potentially being stronger allies than they've been. And boy, my time is even though I've been talking fast, I only have a few more minutes. So I wanna use it to give you a little bit of a warm up about the bystander approach and I know I'm gonna have an opportunity on the panel but I wanna show you a clip in a moment. I'm gonna show you a clip from a new film it just came out like literally in the last two weeks on the bystander approach but I just wanna give you a very brief discussion about the bystander approach before I show you this clip and then I'll be done, okay? Is that all right? All right. Some of you've heard of the bystander approach, right? But you've probably heard bystander intervention and the problem is that the way that many people have applied my teaching and teaching of others has watered down the transformative power of the bystander approach as I teach it. And the film that we just made that I just made with my colleagues at the Media Education Foundation articulates the more social justice and feminist oriented bystander approach that I and we teach. And I said at the beginning that the leadership concept and the bystander concept go hand in glove. And I'm gonna use the board once more just to show you briefly, a brief illustration of what it means, the bystander approach means and then we'll show you the clip, okay? But just before I do this, let me just say in case I don't get a chance to say it. By defining these issues as leadership issues it means that men who are in positions of leadership need to be in rooms like this all over DC, all over the world. It shouldn't be like oh, I'm a nice guy helping out the women so I'm gonna go to this event or I'm gonna go to this training.  If you're a leader of police forces, of military forces, of political leader, a leader of NGOs all over the world not just in the United States. If you're a man who's in a position of leadership in those organizations you need to be trained on all these issues.  You need to understand the best thinking about it in the 21st century. You need to know the relationship between domestic and sexual violence and a whole range of other problems including problems that men and boys have, emotional problems, mental health problems, physical and sexual health problems. For men as well as for women you need to know all of this stuff. You don't need to be an expert but you need to know about it and then you need to figure out how within your sphere of influence as a man I'm talking about within your sphere of influence that you make it clear that you're gonna support victims and survivors.   That's the old paradigm but because you're a leader and we expect that of our leaders. And if we can change the frame so that we're challenging men and saying if you're not doing these things you're failing at being a good leader and we're gonna figure out ways to critique you and replace you if we have to. I'm serious. If we get to the place where we talk about this fundamentally as a leadership issue then we're gonna have a sea change because there's an awful lot of good men by the way at all levels in our societies around the world who are good people but who have not been challenged in this way and who have not done Jack Squat on these fundamental issues of our species, right? We know enough in the 21st century. It's not like we don't know how to understand these issues and the complexities of them. To me the biggest challenges are not pedagogical by the way. I think I and my colleagues and Gary and his colleagues and others figured out years, decades ago how to work with men and young men. What we haven't figured out as effectively is politically how to get into systems and how to hold people accountable and how to hold men accountable and how to make this a leadership imperative. That's a political question, not a pedagogical question. Anyhow, in brief, the bystander approach came out of this. Back in the 70s and 80s the mainstream approach to sexual assault prevention and I'm gonna say on university campuses in the US just to keep it localized just for the sake of my brain trying to process this. But anyways, back in the day it was the binary women and men, again, we know that that's a limiting understanding but the binary was how people were dealing with this. In the 70s and 80s, most sexual assault prevention so-called programs focused on women and they weren't prevention programs. They were risk reduction programs focused on women. But they were teaching women things about how to reduce their risk, reduce their harm. Don't put your drink down at a party before, because a guy might drop a rape drug in your drink. Look in the back, see the car before you get in. Have a buddy system going. If you're gonna be going out with a group of friends, make sure you know who they're going home with. That's not prevention, it's risk reduction. Because true prevention means going to the root cause of the problem. Women and girls are not the root cause of sexual assault. Back in the day when men and young men were focused on it was almost always as perps or potential perps.  You better know the law. You better know the rules. You better know what consent is defined as in your state or your country or in this area. And if you cross, because if you cross the line going over the line in a sexual encounter in some fashion and you don't have consent or you don't know you have consent you can be crossing the line into committing rape. The problem with that, with focusing on men is that in that way is most men don't see themselves in any way as rapists. For example on college campuses in the United States the vast majority of men who commit rape don't see themselves as rapists. They don't even see themselves as rapists.  The average guy tunes you out and says this isn't my issue. You're not talking about me, I'm a good guy. I don't do these things. That's what the average guy says by the way. Anyways the point is this is the landscape that I was looking at. I was like how do we figure out when I started the MVP program how do we figure out how to not reproduce the idea of going into a room full of men and telling them don't do it. And at the time I had a professor in, this is the early 90s. I had a professor in graduate school who along with his colleagues was looking at an approach to middle school bullying prevention that moved beyond the perpetrator victim binary. Instead of focusing the kid doing the bullying and the kid experiencing it they focused on everybody else. All the kids around the kid doing it all the kids around the kid experiencing it. The goal was to get the peer culture involved to get kids to challenge the kid doing it and make it clear that what he's doing is not acceptable or she's doing is not acceptable. Not because they're gonna get in trouble with the authority figure but because the peer culture itself was gonna police itself. Kids were gonna say to each other you can't do this, this is not right and we don't accept it. And the kids were gonna say to the kid experiencing the bullying what's happening to you is wrong, this is not cool and what can we do to help you? And they called that the bystander approach the beauty of it is that everybody has a role to play everybody in a given peer culture has a role to play and it's not just confined to the perpetrator victim. The last concept and I think I'm out of time after this I think I'm not gonna be able to show you the clip which is my failure. But the, if you can imagine this triangle as a pyramid and you can imagine the tip of the pyramid is an incident of sexual assault an incident of domestic violence of gay bashing it could be a racist incident because the concept is very similar. That's the incident of abuse. But the base of the pyramid is a set of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that create the cultural context and foundation within which the abusive act takes place. This opens up a lot more space for what was saying a bystander needs to do and think about. So it's not just when you see something say something this is how some people have interpreted the bystander approach and mis I think appropriated it and dumbed it down and it's been implemented in parts of the US military with whom I've been working for years and years. We were doing some really transformative work in the military by the way starting in 1997 if the United States military in every service right now implemented what we were doing in 1997 when we started with the Marine Corps when I was the person who started the first sexual assault and domestic violence prevention program in the United States Department of Defense in the Marine Corps in 1997 if the Marine Corps today would implement what we started in 1997 using the same materials that we created in 1997 it would be the cutting edge of the field right now. That's 21 years ago. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. This has been a political question all along with the services to these various organizations college athletic programs. Do they want to do the transformative work or do they want to do the simple stuff? Anyways, the real hard work is happening down here not up here. What I mean by down here this means down here is things like interrupting sexist comments. If you're a guy and you're hanging out with a group of guys and one of your guy friends or starts making derogatory comments about women if you don't say something in a sense, what are you saying?  Attitudes influence actions. Rapists and sexual assaulters and men who batter and others they don't just crawl out of the swamp and do their nasty business they're products of social systems and belief systems and one of the ways that those belief systems get nurtured and get sustained is within peer cultures with where norms are formed, right? And the goal here, the idea here is we need to change those norms. We need to change those norms. At the beginning I started with and I'm finishing now I started with the leadership. Yes, leadership is critical but leadership can come from lots of places it can come from in a vertical sense when you have supervisory authority or it can come laterally or horizontally and I think the bystander approach what the bystander approach does is it gives us another tool to talk to men and young men about lateral leadership. What is it, you know, it's challenging and interrupting, speaking out, being a strong person even if I don't have supervisory authority and a lot of men, let me just say a lot of men can respond to this stuff and I've done it and Gary's research shows that this works, not just my program I'm saying this approach, this works. If you do it, if you hold people accountable if you try to transform systems but the programming, when you're engaging men on these issues has to talk about gender. It has to talk about masculinities. It has to talk about cultural definitions of manhood and how they affect men's behavior towards women, towards other men, towards themselves. If you just keep it on the surface and say if you see something say something you're just superficial and you're not gonna make the transformative change that the moment requires. Thank you very much. Thanks, Jackson. And we're gonna just gather our panel here together and Jackson's gonna join us and we'll have time for a Q and A. Can you hear me? Is this on? Yep, great. Well, Jackson, thanks so much for setting the scene today. We're gonna have a lively discussion and we're going to, I believe, really take these themes and look at them through all sorts of various approaches to ending sexual violence. I am really pleased to introduce my co-moderator today, Shantal Diyunga Udrat, who's the president and CEO of Women in International Security. And we will individually introduce each panelist as we ask them to speak. We've asked them to prepare a few remarks and we'll set off right now. Okay, thank you very much, Kathleen, and thank you very much, Jackson. I think you set us up on a good pace. So we want to broaden a little bit the discussion and I'd like to start with Amanda Blair, who's a program officer here at USIP. But she is also a member of the Missing Peace Young Scholar Network. And this was a network that was established by a consortium of four institutions, including USIP, the Peace Research Institute, Oslo, University of Berkeley, the Human Rights Center, as well as WISE. And Amanda has been, I think, since the beginning, since 2013, been part of this young scholar network. And it's a network that brings together young scholars who are doing work on sexual violence, but particularly sexual violence in conflict-related settings. And I want to ask you, Amanda, tell us a little bit on when and why sexual violence became an issue, both for the international community and how research has evolved in this arena. Of course, so thank you for having me here. It's really a pleasure to be as part of this panel. So how many of you have heard the term spoil of war? Hands? A lot of people. So for a really long time, this is how we thought about wartime sexual violence. It didn't matter. It was normalized. We dismissed it. It wasn't connected to conflict. And this wasn't to say that sexual violence wasn't happening during conflict. It was just, there were only little sparks. It really wasn't until the early 1990s when we have a wave of conflicts across the world, but in particular in Bosnia and Rwanda, that we see widespread ethnic violence. And as part of this, we see widespread sexual violence. So this is really the first moment that the international community is forced to really think about sexual violence during war. So we kind of do a 180. We go from this dynamic about spoil of war to weapon of war. So rather than it being dismissed and normalized, it's something that is very strategic. It's coming from the top down. Maybe it's ordered by the president. And this was the narrative in the early 90s. So we did a total 180. But then it kind of spawned this research agenda and a lot of programming around what do we do with all of the victims and survivors of sexual violence. And as the policy developed, as the research developed, as the programming developed, what we actually saw was, well, maybe it's not working that way. Maybe it's not this top down strategy that's being ordered from the top. But maybe it's happening in the middle. Maybe we're seeing mid-level commanders ordering sexual violence. Maybe it's a practice. Maybe we're seeing just small groups of men on the periphery or maybe like some random lone wolf over here. So we started to talk about it as a practice and a process and thinking about how institutions are playing a role in socializing combatants to perpetrate violence. And so this was kind of the third big way that we talked about it. So spoil weapon. And now, as was mentioned in Kathleen's opening comments, we're thinking about conflict-related sexual violence. And the last kind of one that I would say that we're moving into now, probably in the last five to 10 years, is thinking about sexual exploitation and abuse. So these first three categories really focused on combatants and how they're using sexual violence, particularly against civilian populations. But what about the other groups that are involved in managing and mitigating and mediating conflict? So this is where the dialogue about peacekeepers comes up because we know that peacekeepers have also been found to perpetrate sexual violence against populations that they're working with. So I guess maybe I'll just leave it with one comment in terms of there are both like problems and possibilities. I think Jackson touched on perfectly a lot of the problems that have come up with binaries and assuming that men are perpetrators and women are victims. And this maps on the conflict dynamic of perpetrators or sorry, combatants and civilians. And the literature is kind of stuck there. The scholarship has been stuck there for a really long time. So I think that the narratives around sexual exploitation and abuse are really helpful because instead of talking about men being perpetrators and women being victims, they're really starting to talk about power and inequality and how these imbalances between different groups create vulnerabilities to violence and also create groups of perpetrators. So it's no longer something that's assumed or naturalized as part of your makeup. It's actually something that we can start to understand and think about gender and sexuality in more of a dynamic way. That's fantastic. You've set the scene for us in moving through this and also set it up so that we can talk more about sexual exploitation and abuse. And I'm happy to introduce Anjali Dayal. She's assistant professor at Fordham University, a great information and research she has done on the issue of sexual violence among peacekeepers and a very new and I will say, even as disturbing as peacekeepers, it's we're finding out more and more humanitarian workers who are a part of this situation of abusing and exploiting the vulnerable. Can you bring us up to speed on both of those? So when we think about sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers, much of the sort of data that we're looking at comes directly from the UN. The category of sexual abuse and exploitation, as Amanda mentioned, aggregates both what we would think of as being violent abuse, right? Things like rape, things like domestic violence, right? And actually transactional sex, right? And those are two very different categories of action but they're aggregated together when we think about peacekeepers. And they're aggregated together when we think about humanitarian workers often too. Now that tells us something about the nature of the power relationship between humanitarian workers, peacekeepers and the population, right? Going back to what Amanda said, this is, these are relationships that are shot through with different kinds of power. And as a result, the violence between these populations can be difficult to categorize. But there is variation across peacekeeping missions and there's variation across humanitarian missions which tells us that these are not inevitable outcomes of the relationship, the power differential between groups, right? There's also a zero tolerance policy at the UN which means that the UN is gathering this data in the hopes of actually arriving at a zero count permission. I'm not gonna talk too much about the exact numbers because they're very unreliable. There's, we've got a policy brief out in the hallway I think that you can sort of pick up. There's also wonderful work by the legal scholar Kate Grady discussing why this data is unreliable. People continue to use it. But there's variation across missions and the way that it's collected, there's variation across years. As a result, we don't really know what the scope of the problem is. We do know that missions are not reporting the same amount across missions, right? We also know that the data we have is certainly an undercount, right? So, the data is publicly available since 2007. You can find it on the Department of Field Support's website on the UN. But we know that the data we have is incomplete. We know that just taking a couple of cases off hand, if we look at Liberia for instance, surveys done in 2012, articles published in 2016, tell us that nearly one fourth of the women if we extrapolate outwards, surveyed in Liberia, report having transactional sex with peacekeepers. That would be a number about 58,000 women. The UN's data reports about 1,300 women, right? And so we know that that reporting mechanism is not capturing some pretty significant population, right? Perhaps because of the way women define this experience for themselves and they therefore don't report it. Perhaps because they're scared to report it, we don't really know, right? The research on this is from Beber Adal in 2016, a journal international organization from Sabrina Karim at Cornell, from Kyle Beardsley at Emory. If we take the cases of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic, some of you might have seen the recent PBS Frontline documentary on sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers. It was very easy for interviewers to find women who had not reported their own sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers, right? That already tells us just in a quick cross sample, not a lot of reporting is happening. Independent inquiries done by the UN itself in Central African Republic, for instance, reveals systematic patterns of abuse that their reporting is not capturing. So the data is incomplete. There's variation across the kinds of missions. And the UN is taking it quite seriously. And we can talk about the UN as an entity here in a way that it's harder to talk about humanitarian actors as an entity, but the UN identifies sexual abuse and exploitation as being the largest threat to the public legitimacy of peacekeeping missions, which makes sense. These are populations that are vulnerable, that are health and trust of international troops. And if these troops are abusing them, right? That's a real threat to the very function that peacekeeping is supposed to serve, right? A lot of the explanations we have for peacekeeping center on military actors, right? So we think about the legal difficulty of accountability, or we think about militarized cultures of masculinity, or we think about the breakdown in chains of command, but that sort of masks the fact that most sexual abuse and exploitation is actually committed by civilian members of peacekeeping missions, right? And we don't have really good numbers on humanitarian actors, but they seem to be disproportionately responsible for this kind of abuse. Thank you, Andrali. So I want to go back to the title of our event is Ending Sexual Violence from Policy to Practice, and maybe it should be said from practice to policy, and we come back to policy. And then we have a subtitle, addressing gender inequality can lead to progress, and I think this was one of the issues that Jackson mentioned as well. Anthony, you're a program officer at ABAD, which is Lebanese NGO working for gender equality. Kathleen reminded us earlier that we are in the midst of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, a campaign that was started back in 1991, actually, and that will run until December 10th. So tell us, Anthony, how does this play out in Lebanon and maybe in the Middle East? And I'd like you to emphasize in particular, to what extent do you think gender inequalities are really fueling this phenomena, and maybe talk a little bit about masculinity as well. Sure, thank you for having me here today.  And this is really where we can highlight the gender. So since we all know each other so well, I'm gonna share the story of when I first learned about sex. I was on a playground that wasn't very old, maybe 10, 11 years old, and one of my friends on the playground said he had sex with one of the girls in our class. He didn't use the word sex, he used an F word that I'm not sure if I can use here. And I had absolutely no clue what he was talking about. I had no idea what that word meant, but being astute and like most children looking at my peers to see what sort of reaction I should have, I realized everyone around him was like, wow, like he did something great. And so that was my first lesson, whatever sex is, it's good and I should be doing it. And when other men do that, we should get excited about that. Like, cause that's obviously what the reaction was. And I held in well that I had no clue what anyone was talking about. And so I went home and internet wasn't existing in the early 80s, late 80s. And I looked into dictionary encyclopedia and no help there. It wasn't until maybe a couple of weeks later that I was at this friend's house and I got my first kind of awareness session or a lesson on what sex is from a very reputable source, Double Impact, movie with Jean-Claude Van Damme. It's underrated as our HR tool, I feel. And so he said, oh, here comes the scene where he effs her. And I got super excited, which probably looked good for him.  I was just excited to finally find out what this is so I can stop pretending. And yeah, that's the story of how I learned about sex. But I think it's important to highlight these things. And when we do trainings and when we work with men, this is the first question we ask when we start to introduce the topic because where do men and boys learn about sex? They learn about it from media. They learn about it from other men and the way they talk about sex, maybe older boys in the community. Pornography is a big place now where men and boys are learning about sex and all of the sexist or misogynistic or patriarchal concepts that come when we talk about popular media, when we talk about the way young men are dealing and talking about it already or about porn culture and pornography culture and the unrealistic expectations that men put upon themselves and the expectations that they impose upon women based on what they know from those places. Now that was me here, right? Because I grew up here because there was war in Lebanon. But our work with men in Lebanon and refugee populations in Lebanon are very different because in a conflict context, what about when you've seen rape used as a weapon of war? What about when you've seen that in your communities? What about when there's a greater segregation between the public sphere and the private sphere between men and women that usually correlates with conflict and conflict scenarios?   They're supposed to do young boys on the streets, cat calling and victim blaming. I wasn't able to show a video. This year for our 16 Days Campaign, we actually had a video on a girl who says she's raped on the streets of Lebanon in select areas and the responses of the people that we had in hidden microphones. It was a social experiment and it's still very much where she was, what time of night it was, what she was wearing and we throw the responsibility on her. And again, it's not until we start reaching out to men and boys to try to see how they understand sex, where they learn about sex, to debunk a lot of these issues that we're going to continue seeing men grab at any opportunity available to them to learn about these things as unhealthy and as violent as they can be and women bodies will still bear the burden of that socialization. Thank you, Anne. Thank you for tying this all together, also. So we, thanks for the kind of, we've been at the 30,000 foot and now we're moving slowly to the third three feet level and we're going to pivot here to talk about what does it all mean in terms of policymakers and we've invited Teresa Cassell, who's a member of the US Civil Society Working Group and ICRW, to talk about her work working with policymakers and are we making progress on this front? Thank you so much, Kathleen. And as I kind of frame my thoughts on all of this, I think it's really important to recognize that sexual violence is only one kind of gender-based violence. All gender-based violence is a human rights violation and human rights are at the core of the women, peace and security agenda, which is why I think all of us are in this room. So I'm also glad that the subject of, these kind of false binaries have come up so far in our conversation because there's lots of them and I think your question earlier, Jackson, about where is the political will to really address some of this stuff comes from some of those separating factors and false binaries that we deal with. But at the same time, where the places where we are making progress, I think is because of the research. The research has helped policymakers and making sure that it is in their hands that then informs their policymaking has brought us to the place where we are.  I think everyone can agree and everyone does agree that that is something that we can and should address through policy, but of course how to go about that is the place where we start breaking down and disagreeing. But as Amanda was talking about earlier, really came on the scene about 30 years ago starting with Bosnia and then of course into the Democratic Republic of Congo where Wanda more recently South Sudan and Sudan and then most recently Syria where suddenly these conflicts became hugely known for their high rates of sexual violence and gender-based violence in general. So statistics that 25% of women in complex humanitarian settings experience sexual violence as opposed to 7% worldwide or have just been very startling to policymakers and have led to such initiatives as the call to action to end gender-based violence which is of course a multi-stakeholder global initiative but then at the US level led to initiatives such as Stay From the Start that rolled out in 2014. But one more binary that we at ICRW are working to break down particularly when it comes to gender-based violence in conflict and this is an area where we need to make more progress is that the majority of gender-based violence that happens in conflict zones is somehow all external, meaning the rape is a weapon of war which is very headline grabbing and very startling for people is really the biggest thing that we're looking at in conflict zones but it's actually intimate partner violence that really is what spikes during conflict of any kind in any country including here at home. So for instance in the Democratic Republic of Congo 64% of women have reported physical or sexual violence at the hands of a partner. Again, compared to a global prevalence of 30%. In Columbia's conflict the incidence of intimate partner violence was 12% higher in areas that were instable during the long war than in comparison to the rest of the country. We also see spikes in other types of violence such as child marriage which is a form of violence and that increases the likelihood of other forms of violence than going up as well. So that is one other area where we're working to break down in terms of this binary between external and internal violence against women and children at home. But to bring it back to Women, Peace and Security Agenda and the Women, Peace and Security Act which of course the Civil Society Working Group has been so active on for the past few years. I think that it is a huge step in the right direction in breaking down some of these silos and binaries that we have in our policy making sphere. Not the one that may would make us look internal at our own policies unfortunately domestically. It's still globally facing internationally facing. But the fact that it brings in the protection angle in terms of addressing the fact that women do need increased protection and efforts in place to prevent violence during times of war along with the participation angle which was also the main support for that also came from the research as well. It really starts to bring a much more comprehensive policy framework together. And this is all very fresh, very new. Of course there are many national action plans for Women, Peace and Security around the world. But here in the United States with the passage of the act which just happened last year really breaks ground for us in giving us a framework about how to start talking about these things. How to address the needs of women who are victimized in conflict. But how to also look at them and empower them as the actors that they are to bring peace in their own communities. So stay tuned for more good news of course on the Women, Peace and Security Act and its implementation throughout our entire foreign policy apparatus. But it is something that we as a community are celebrating and we'll continue to work on for quite some time. We can get more into the details of its success as we go on. Thank you Theresa. Before we go to the audience I would like to give Jackson maybe some time to remark on what he has heard. And in particular, what are in the policy world there's being always made a huge difference between conflict related sexual violence and what is happening domestically or partner violence. And I'd like to ask you, what are some of the similarities and differences if there are any and how should we approach this so that policy makers actually pay attention? Thank you. Wow, there's so many interesting, and I appreciate that other panelists had a very narrow amount of time and you probably had so much more to share. So thank you for that. I had the opportunity to speak longer. So I appreciate that as well. I'm not sure how to tie it all together. Although as Anthony was speaking I had a thought of a connection between, conceptual connection between say what's happening in the States in a general sense or a specific sense and what's happening in conflict zones in the areas a lot of people here work with. In conflict zones you have a lot of men who are in post conflict zones who are in a sense disenfranchised. They don't have the economies in shambles. They don't have a way to gain respect because if the traditional in a patriarchal society idea of a man is you provide for your family, you provide for yourself, you take care of people around you, but you don't have a job, you don't have any way to gain respect in that traditional sense, then what do you have access to? Violence. Okay, so think about this. Okay, so I've been talking about this for decades in my work in the States. When young men, whether it's working class white men or young men of color are walking around like that kind of thing, that is not a statement of their strength, it's a statement of their power, it's a statement in the sense of their powerlessness because if they are growing up in a culture that's telling them that being a man means gaining respect and they don't have means of respect in other means, they're gonna use violence or the threat of violence as a means of gaining respect. So think about this metaphor. I've often used this in my work. Think about a health club in DC, right? Where the clientele is generally speaking, well-to-do men and women, but well-to-do, in other words upper middle class, you look at the men in that club, people identify as men who are in that club, what are they likely to be doing? They're likely to be working on cardio, like on treadmills and stair masters and stuff, like in other words, keeping their heart healthy if you will and so they can fit into their suits, you know, that kind of thing. But if you go into the same city like DC and go into a YMCA or a blue collar setting and you look at the men in that setting, what are they likely to be doing? Lifting heavy weights, right? Working out with heavy weights, walking around with mirrors everywhere. What's going on, right? Think about this. The men who are in the well-to-do club have abstract means of validating their manhood. They have workplace authority, they have money, they have financial status, they have societal sort of respect. The men in the blue collar YMCA have less access to the abstract means of validation of their manhood, so their body becomes more important, their performance of a certain kind of physicality and the expression of that physicality through dominance over others becomes a way that they gain respect. So if you think about all the men in these conflict zones who are not able to earn a living, not able to gain respect, but they want respect, violence is the single quickest route to that respect. And not just violence against women, violence against other men and sort of buying into this notion of, you know, women might be smarter than me, they might be stronger than me, they might even make more money than me, but I'm a man and I'm tough, I'm strong, she can't be what I am in that sense. And I think that connects across the world certain narratives about manhood. And by the way, media, which I make films about media, is constantly, and obviously Anthony referenced media as well, media is constantly presenting narratives where men are using violence to redeem themselves, to achieve certain things. And last thing, in the United States, you know this, I'll just say it out loud, the United States is the number one exporter of arms to the world and the number one exporter of violent media to the world. So two things that our country and the United States, those of us who are Americans are doing is we're not just, we're exporting the means of violence and the ideology of violence globally. Jackson, thanks so much for that. And it seems that we are really looking for some sort of elusive piece. And by the way, that's the title of a new special report that a group of young scholars, the missing peace scholars just published yesterday. So I hope you'll pick it up because they are looking at this conundrum of sexual violence in war and also in peace. We wanna open up the conversation to the audience. I know we have a fantastic panel and we'll probably take about four or five questions and then bring it back to the panel. Right here. Hello, my name is Maria Markley. I'm a special agent with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. So I've investigated gender-based violence for quite a while. My question is for Dr. Katz.  I hear, I know that person, that person is a great person, he's a great Marine, he's a great sailor. He would never do that. And somehow they connect the successful career of this individual and their likability to whether or not they've committed this crime. How can we better educate people so we can avoid hearing that? Great, thank you. Right up here, please. Right in the center. Yeah, we'll need your mic because we're webcasting. Thank you so much. Could you, yeah, just pass it along. Thank you. Thanks for really provocative and thoughtful presentations. I'm so thankful. Can you introduce yourself? Oh, sorry, yes, Mika Polanco. I'm a AAAS fellow at USAID. Otherwise, I'm a professor of anthropology at James Madison University. I'm really thankful that power is front and center in a discussion about gender-based violence because so often, and particularly in the humanitarian aid space, that piece is completely missing. And I especially appreciate, Amanda, your, so a lot of you nodded toward the fact that gender is not a binary. I think Amanda was the only one kind of really challenged us to focus on it and I would like to ask you as a panel what happens to research, to monitoring, to reporting, to prevention when we stop imagining that gender-based violence is simply men doing bad things to women and recognize that it's people in power doing bad things to people or disempowered. Thanks very much. I just move it that way. Where's our next? We have two mics. Why don't we come around to you? I'm sorry, I can't see where. Okay, keep your eye, yeah. Thank you. Hi, I'm Sarah Williamson. I'm the managing director of Protect The People that does civil military training. And my question is for Mr. Katz. A lot of us in the room also are involved in programs to combat gender-based violence. So I'm curious from your perspective, how long does it take to change the bottom of the pyramid? I mean, what should we expect in terms of our training, in terms of our programs? Does it take one exposure, two exposures, three exposures, one year, three years, a lifetime to change the attitudes of people who have a proclivity to commit violence? How should we anticipate the effectiveness of our interventions? Thank you. Great, and Marie? Thanks, Marie Berry, professor at the University of Denver. My question actually builds nicely on that past one about the bottom of the pyramid. And what I wanted to do is actually interrogate that that's actually the bottom. I wanna pick up on something you said a second ago, Jackson, about the way in which the U.S. exports arms all over the world, and tie that into this question about what you talked about, about the same systems that create all these different forms of violence from exploitation of sex trafficking and so forth in Southeast Asia to intimate partner violence in the U.S. to suicide and so forth, whether war and war systems in militarism is actually at the root of that pyramid itself. And if so, how do we change that? It goes beyond changing attitudes and beliefs and behaviors and really questions the systems that are causing gender inequality and gender oppression all across the world in the first place. And may I have a two finger on that to sort of challenge that it is the bottom of the pyramid because beliefs and norms, et cetera, they're not created from the bottom up. Most of the time it's elite systems who create and perpetuate these norms. And I think all of our panelists have something to say about how you change norms, so. Can I get one more question in here? Woman in the red, thank you. Hi everyone, my name is Briana. I am a graduate student at American University in the International Peace and Conflict Resolution Program. I have two questions actually. So one of my questions, we talked about not discussing binaries that is more based on power, but in that conversation, you're missing out on vulnerable groups like transgender communities or the LGBTQI community and boys who also experience sexual violence. So in your policy and practice, where is that conversation or those programs? And then my second question is for Jackson specifically. You were talking about in your conversation about gender and economy, but you weren't talking about race and ethnicity and that does play a large role. So I wanted to know how that plays a role into the work that you do because it does play a role in our society as well as the world. All right, let's bring it back to the panel and then we'll have another round of questions. So I hope you have a few. Jackson, I'm gonna start with you just because a lot of the questions were directed to you but I want the other panelists to step in. Thank you, Kathleen. Boy, thank you for all the great questions. I'll do my best in the time to respond to the specifics and the general. Commentary. I agree by the way that the base of the pyramid is deeper than when I was talking about the tip of the pyramid being the incident and the base being attitudes and beliefs. I think obviously you can talk about capitalism and global capitalism and consumer commodified. Capitalism as the driving force behind militarism and imperialism. The challenge there is when you don't wanna disempower people by talking about these enormously powerful and deep, to some people, abstractions when you are trying to make change within institutions. And so I'm always conscious of that. I agree and I appreciate that. In this forum, yes, if we should talk about it, we should reference it, but when you're working within systems, you have to figure out ways, at least from my point of view, you have to figure out ways to be effective within the confines of the institution that you're working with and the people's access to making change while keeping maybe in mind the larger systems because if we went into, for example, U.S. military, I'll give you an example, the U.S. military, I work with the U.S. military and I have been for a long time and I have lots of differences with U.S. foreign policy, for example. I have critiques of U.S. military training techniques or something, I mean who knows. The point is I'm in the military, working in the military to help to reduce sexual violence and domestic violence and other forms of abuse perpetrated by military members against other military members and against civilians and I know that that's my and our mission when we're in there, right? If we were in there to critique U.S. foreign policy and training techniques, we'd be kicked out in 10 seconds but I use a Venn diagram as an example. You know the Venn diagram, overlapping circles? There's one circle is my ideology or belief system, the other circle is the DOD's belief system, whatever that might be. There's some areas of disconnect but there's an area of overlap. We share the goal of reducing sexual violence and domestic violence so we focus on that knowing that that doesn't answer all the questions. Another thing about programming and how do you measure the change in social norms? This is a really important question and I think one of the challenges in the sexual assault prevention field and I'll use the word sexual assault, it could be intimate partner violence, it could be a number of things is how do you measure success in terms of changing social norms? It's very difficult, it's a long-term project, it's a very long-term project and what people need is they need to get the grant, they need to prove that they've been effective and to prove that they've been effective they have to use these measures that have been developed and usually, by the way, the field of psychology has dominated the measuring of sexual assault prevention programming and I'm sorry, it's not a psychological problem. This is not an individual problem, it's a sociological problem. The field of sociology has to a certain extent abrogated responsibility for addressing issues of sexual violence and measuring it over the last generation. That's a problem because sociology has, in my opinion, better conceptual tools to understand how do you measure social change and social change is what we have to get to, not just individual change and so this is a challenge because people need funding and they need to get support but they have to prove that they've been effective but how do you prove social norms change? That's another, race and SNS? I'm gonna let you step in on that. Just because we'll come to each of the questions but do you wanna comment on the research problem? Yeah, I wanted to thank you for your question about power. I mean, it was coming up yesterday as part of the talk, some the day long event and some conversations that were happening afterwards but I think that the short answer that you probably already know is it gets messy. It gets messy when you move around binaries because they're really convenient and they're really good policy maneuvers too to use. It's nice to be able to talk in neat, consistent terms but when you actually turn that back on people that you're working with and you say well what are your primary needs? What are your concerns? You get a totally different answer and maybe it's not that we might not even be looking at the right thing so maybe we're not actually thinking about sexual violence. Maybe we're thinking about access to resources being more important. So we're flipping it back on the people but that aside, I think if we move away from the binaries, that's where the hard work is. That's where the prevention work is because when we actually talk to people about how they're experiencing violence and the things that they need to mitigate that violence then we can actually identify solutions for it. I mean it seems like a strange thing to say because it's so simplistic but just one example. So my work is really focused on sexual exploitation and abuse but not from armed actors or from formal actors from community members. So you have girls and women being forced into prostitution during a conflict by their family members by people that they went to school with by teachers and the people of course that are soliciting that sex are armed actors, humanitarian actors but it's totally left out of this conversation because of this binary around who's a combatant. That's who we're thinking about as the potential perpetrator. We're not thinking about civilians as perpetrators but this is the exact type of violence we need to be thinking about because it's the type of violence that's going to continue after the conflict is over after the armed groups dissolve, hopefully they do this is the type of violence that continues. It's just always there on a dress. So I think the binaries, yeah, we get rid of them it's very messy but that's where the really hard preventative work can be done to start addressing the bottom of this pyramid and to start to think about the interconnections between the variety of issues that allow for this type of violence to continue. Anyone else wanna jump in here? Back to you Jackson. So maybe I'll just say, just hearing some of the comments and so yeah, we know that gender isn't binary because if anything Judith Butler, gender is performative but I still, I think that's the important point. I don't think the binary is dead. I think the binary is very well and alive. I think that's still what a lot of people perform despite the fact that it's false despite the fact that there's a million different points on that spectrum. I still think those concepts are very salient and I would say maybe here it's a different reality. Again, I haven't been here for the past like 18 years living but it is very much still the reality in Lebanon when we talk about Lebanon, when we talk about the Middle East that binary is still very much there despite how false that is. And just so on the point of civilians or military, even that's a bit too neat because in the conflicts that are in our region, who is militia and who is civilians, they're the same people. And so like yeah, sometimes categorization of different things and different issues do help us kind of work them out in our own minds but yeah, we also need to stretch ourselves to look way beyond that because it's not that simple. If it was that simple, it would be easier to have changed by now. Anjali? Just going back to this idea of gender as a binary as well, research is neatly done in these categories, policy is neatly made in these categories but we know that LGBTQI plus individuals are disproportionately likely to suffer from sexual abuse and exploitation and we know that boys are systematically less likely to report. And so when we think about these, we're really missing enormous categories of violence when we think about the sort of construction of a performative gender mapped on to an actual lived experience of trauma and that's really important to think about when we think about like pathways forward in terms of policy, in terms of measurement, in terms of putting together studies. And just wanted to add one more thought onto that as well and that goes back to your question about vulnerable communities being left out of this binary question. From the research standpoint, there is a huge amount of data that we don't have on those communities. They are somewhat missing in terms of the numbers that we need to be able to start programming and to start measuring and to start making policy around that but it is a burgeoning area but because these communities are underrepresented and under-reached and under-reported, it is a problem to gather that data. So for the researchers in the room, that's something that we need to build out in terms of an agenda. Thank you. Again, I think this is all very interesting conversation. I would, my strong feeling is that, yes, we have to acknowledge that there is, the binary has its limitations, although again, I'm glad Anthony brought in sort of a piece of realism. The vast majority of the world, the binary is still the main organizing principle but let me just also say, the vast majority of violence, whether the victims are men, women, or LGBTQ or people who aren't identifying as men or women, the vast majority of perpetrators are people who identify as men. And so when we talk about, what about violence against marginalized communities, sexual minorities or sexually marginalized, the violence is coming from the hegemonic center, it's coming from people who identify as men who are self-authorized police officers to maintain that binary by policing against the deviation from the binary. So for example, if you wanna work in a high school, just to give a specific localized example, if you wanna work in a high school and reduce violence against transgender kids and kids who are gender non-conforming and LGBT kids, if you wanna reduce violence and harassment against them, you don't work with them, you work with the football team, you work with the hockey team, you work in the center, the hegemonic center, because the policing of the margins comes from the center. If you wanna provide services to victims and survivors, you wanna be inclusive, you work on the margins. If you wanna reduce violence, you work in the center. So I would say that that's true when you're working with militaries, when you're working with peacekeeping forces. If you wanna reduce violence against marginalized communities, you work in the hegemonic center to the extent that you can. And I think that a lot of people in progressive movements have been so intimidated by power in the center and then the only access that they've had is on the margins. The result is that the power system doesn't ever get challenged. And this is why in my work, when I started doing my work institutionally, I was a street activist before I was institutionally affiliated. It was deliberate strategy of working in the sports culture first because I wanted to establish credibility beyond the sports culture with men who are not in the sports culture. In other words, when I started the MVP program in college athletics back in the early 90s, the first, you know, again, first systematic program in the sports culture, gender violence prevention, the idea was not that there was a problem in sports that we were gonna fix by going into the sports culture. It was, we had this giant global problem. How are we gonna find more men to speak out on it? Historically, women had been providing all the leadership, where have been the men? If we can get men who already have some status to speak out, it would make it easier for other men. That was the reason for going to sports. And the second piece of it was military. So I was thinking if we have established our credibility in the sports culture, then we move into the military. And so now we have sports and military. Both hegemonic centers of the production and reproduction of gender ideology in a very traditional way, mostly, but with exceptions. Then we would have the opportunity to go well beyond the sports and military cultures into these societies. Think about all the societies that you all work with and think about how prevalent sports is and how powerful sports is and think about how military has such a role in shaping sort of norms of manhood. Let's go back to the audience. And I have one and then two, three way up at the end. So maybe if you could get that one up there, we'll bring this. So Mirgo Kunz, I'm so happy to be here. And as Kathleen mentioned, we just, I'm a member of Missing Peace scholars of this class. So we just finished the report that you guys hopefully will read and discover maybe a few new things when conflict, when conflict can make sexual violence more visible, but at the same time it doesn't begin, sexual violence doesn't begin or end with conflict. So my question, I'm originally from Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan. My question, I guess to everyone in the panel, I like that you pointed out that any kind of gender-based violence is not genetic, it's cultural. At the same time when it comes to culture on the ground, when we move from policies to practice, we find this backlash from local cultures which have been in Central Asia developing for thousands of years, where the older generation does not easily, the older generation that holds the power does not easily get convinced with the new notions where gender equality is a thing. So how do we tackle that, given that resources are always lacking, thank you. Right at the top. Hi, my name is Anne Speer, I'm from the University of. Could you put your mic closer? Sure, I'm a graduate student from the University of Maryland. And my question is exactly that. So my dissertation work is examining what secondary teachers in Burkina Faso, West Africa understand and how they choose to respond to gender-based violence in schools and around this discourse. And what I'm finding is the blowback. So Burkina Faso is on the margins of conflict, but what's really happening is a repetition. Do you have a question? Yes, I do. So my question is, how do you address blowback? So especially in societies that are not completely conflict but yet are really going through a power shift and conflict is about power, gender-based violence is about power, so where does this in-between play in and that blowback, that was just referenced.  Good morning, I'm Mason O'Wheff. I'm currently a graduate student at Shai's Johns Hopkins, but before that I worked in India where I researched how civil society uses resolution in 1325. Not that much was my conclusion, but on the other hand I worked with a local NGO on gender-based violence. They ran a statewide network called Man Against Patriarchy. So there was certainly a lot happening, but nobody was really interested in using these UN international tools. So what is, does the panel think, is the balance between addressing these issues from the UN or international level or letting it happen bottom up? Thank you. Thank you very much, and we have a question right up there. Have you as the last, and we'll go back to our pet. My name is Sarah Lubiner. I work at Public Citizen, which is a non-profit located in DC. Thank you all for your great comments. This has made me really excited to be back in this space. I think my big question that I've had in my studies about masculinity and that have come up here is what does a healthy masculinity look like when we're talking about implementing either policy or practice? What is healthy masculinity? Great question, and the final question right here. Thank you. I'm Julia Dahl, and I'm working at the Army Research Institute on gender integration. Can you guys hear me? I was wondering about the bystander intervention, and I was curious about, Dr. Katz, your comment about how some people are not implementing it correctly. What do you think the key mechanism is to be effective? What makes it work? And what are the most common things that people miss? I'm gonna start of, this will be your final comments. So, Anthony, I'm gonna put you on the spot, and Jackson, I'm gonna end with you, all right? But we'll just go right down the road here. So, about 1325, I think that's the... And you don't have to answer every question. Everyone, yeah, absolutely. So, we were talking about this recently with someone who works on the SEDAU committee, and she also said when we go to communities and we say, what do you think about 1325 and 1820, and they don't know what that, because again, that's not language that people use. So, it's about bringing it down to the essence of what those are. Peace and security and the involvement of women and the effects on women as gendered bodies in conflict and post-conflict. So again, how that gets translated to the international community, I think that's the trick. I don't think that's been done extremely well, despite the fact that the document itself relies so much on civil society. And so, you're right, there's a lot more that can be done. The only thing I might say about resistance, because we deal with resistance all the time and blow back and it's expected. I mean, to assume that we're gonna come in and we're going to tweak people's schemas of the world as they've understood it and as they've been erased and as they've built their own value systems and self-esteem on for X amount of years, which is why it's easier when we intervene earlier. You can expect some form of resistance and I mean, again, colleagues at USIP and other people, we had a conversation yesterday, there's a lot of things on it. One thing you can do is we try to, if we expect resistance, we maybe start conversations about stress and anger management, which is a peripheral thing to gender where we discuss gender within it, but we don't use trigger words that would make men shut off just automatically upon hearing these words. And then when we've built a substantial amount of rapport, it's easier to have those conversations. And that also comes back to resources and how long we're able to work. The longer, obviously, the easier it is to work through the blowback and the resistance to get someplace. Andjali, in terms of the UN, the international political environment, have we made any progress there? That's a really good question. You know, clearly this is an issue that people within the UN system are taking very seriously. There's real variation in how seriously they're taking it, right? Because the way peacekeeping missions authorize and work, the chain of command is decentralized. And so the relationship between national capitals and troops is equally important as a relationship between the force commander and the UN in troops. And that really makes accountability difficult. And that's something people point to repeatedly and say, decentralized legal accountability makes it very difficult to hold people accountable, decentralized conceptions of military justice make it very difficult to hold perpetrators accountable. One of the ways the UN has addressed this is to deal with victim by centering the victim, right? So to make victim restitution an important part of dealing with the aftermath of sexual abuse and exploitation. Another way we might think about this though, they've done that through the special representative Jane Hall Lute, for instance, as we were discussing earlier. But another way to think about this is going back to the earlier question about norms. Someone asked about how to change norms and it goes back to Jackson's initial point about leadership and to Dr. Berry's point earlier about the research on chains of culture, internal culture of militaries. Stephen Moncreff has a piece from last year in the Journal of Peace Research that tells us that basically disciplinary breakdown within military troops explains when we see higher levels of sexual abuse and exploitation. That tells us something about the fact that at the sort of military level it's possible to have troops that don't commit sexual abuse and exploitation. There is a real variation, right? That tells us that internal codes of discipline at the national level, at the ground level, they matter, right? What is deemed appropriate by your force commander matters. And so even if there isn't this ability from the top down, from the UN straight down to the troop level, to sort of force clear legal accountability or to sort of have clear rules of engagement, there is still the ability at the national level or at the level of the sort of the on the ground to change this. Yeah, I think maybe the other, where I see some progress in terms of the UN in particular is that in the documents both of the UN Secretary General as well as the special representative on sexual violence, gender inequality is now recognized as a root cause of sexual violence. And I think that is a huge step forward because that was not the case early on. This brings us right into policy again in Women, Peace and Security Act. How is it gonna make a difference? Absolutely. I think that, and two things I really wanna end with your question about 1325 and the disconnect that happens at the global level, between the global and the local, I think that there's obviously a huge gap there but if there is something positive about 1325 that does kind of build in a little bit of connection is the national action plans that then are meant to trickle down. I mean that like I mentioned earlier is how our US Women, Peace and Security Act came about was through the US National Action Plan because as Anthony was saying, the civil society's involvement is really kind of built in to 1325 but of course it depends on civil society that is connected to power and has a lot of access to those centers of power to be able to then implement national action plans and have a movement built around them. So any kind of policy movement that is going to be successful needs to have action and engagement at all levels from the grassroots, from the top down, from the middle, sideways and that is, so we still have our work cut out for us and have to at every single angle that we have access to continue to engage because the work is absolutely not done. And on this idea of, to bring us back to norms which is a place where we keep landing, this idea that conflict does highlight sexual violence and gender-based violence but that it doesn't begin or end there but the reason that we see a spike in gender-based violence during conflict is because of the breakdown of social fabric during conflict situations and those norms start to get thrown out the window and suddenly things have become that weren't acceptable in a time of non-conflict become acceptable. And so yesterday as we were talking about some of ICRW's research on this and please come see me for reports if you're interested, my colleague Ali Glinsky was of course talking about then the fact that conflict becomes an opportunity because these norms start to break down and things kind of, for lack of a technical term, go haywire during conflict that progress can actually be made in those settings because when things break down, then it's time to rebuild. So that's also a positive note that I wanna end on and that the research does back that up. And finally with regards to research, Amanda, where do we need to go? Oh man, I'll say two things. I'll kind of just return to a point that I mentioned earlier. I think this conversation of power is really important. I do understand that the binary has tremendous power and that it has power for a reason because people buy into it, people want to hold it up, people want to regulate it and enforce it, but it still needs to be critiqued. So every time that we're thinking about this binary, whether it's a gender binary, whether it's combatant civilian binary, like you brought up Anthony, we need to, yeah, we need to challenge that binary because with just assuming that that will continue in those concepts, continue to have power in those categories will continue to be stable is how they will remain. So just kind of pairing that, but I also wanted to end by addressing both of these comments about blowback because the reason why I got involved in this work was actually as a service provider. And so I'm very familiar with blowback. I was working in sexual assault in Wyoming, very conservative, and we wanted to see wide scale reform across any institution that's dealing with sexual assault. So hospitals, district attorneys, police officers. And so we, of course, get everyone in a room because that's what you do. And we realized that we just all had different priorities. And so while our priority was protecting the victim and making sure that they could move through the process how they wanted to and be represented how they wanted to, that's definitely not the priority of a district attorney. So by building rapport, but then also by what Jackson mentioned earlier, playing to their absolute self-interest. We were able to make real progress. We had to figure out how to sell them on the ideas that we had, but in the frame that they would digest. So I'm sure you're already using this a little bit or a lot. But at first that felt very disingenuous.  I mean, this was my 23 year old self, so I apologize. But yeah, I had all these assumptions about how amazing the work that we were doing how retrograde the other work was. But that's what it really was. It was stroking egos. It was playing into self-interest and really selling the ideas that we had and why they would matter for the institutions that they were a part of. So it's not easy by any means, but any way that you can try to figure out their priorities, their assumptions, and then tap into that by reframing the work that you're doing, I think can be really successful. Thanks, Amanda. Jackson, you have the final word this morning. Thank you, I appreciate that honor and I've had it all morning, so thank you. I do acknowledge that. Thank you. One thing quickly, Amanda, I would say that that's still radical, but it's radical pragmatism. I see my work as radical pragmatism. I don't think that it's a compromise with my core values. It's about how do you be effective within institutions and that's being smart and knowing what you're trying to do and then using the tools you have available to you. I wanna talk about race and ethnicity because you asked it earlier. Race and ethnicity is marbled into all of this work. It's all over the world, but here in the States and the pedagogy that I and my colleagues have developed in the military and the sports culture and schools is open enough to acknowledge that there's all kinds of complexities of race and ethnicity in power differentials within peer cultures. Some people are authorized to speak, for example, as bystanders and others aren't based on race and ethnicity within a group, so you have to talk about that or you're ignoring a fundamental reality of how power operates in terms of race and ethnicity. But let me just say that these problems are pervasive in the world, in every racial and ethnic group and patriarchal cultures have different colors and different ethnicities and different religions, but they're still patriarchal cultures that enforce certain kinds of men's, people identify as men's prerogatives. Changing norms, your comment about how people say he's a nice guy, so how could he do this? He's a good performer in the workplace, but so how could he do this? This is one of the challenges we have because the typical perpetrator is an otherwise normal guy. This is true in conflict zones, it's true in peacekeepers, it's true in professional athletes or corporate executives or political figures. The typical perpetrator is not some ogre, some monster, some Freddy Krueger character. That makes people very uncomfortable because people would prefer the typical perpetrator to be some ogre because then they could dissociate themselves from him. And the reason why, and this relates to victim blaming. The reason why victim blaming is so pervasive in these areas, I wanna say areas, I don't mean geographic areas in this discussion, is it's the low hanging fruit, it's the easiest thing to do because blaming the victim means that you don't have to hold the perpetrator accountable, but holding the perpetrator accountable if the perpetrator is an otherwise normal guy means you're holding yourself accountable because you're part of the society that's producing the norms that produce the abusive behavior in the first place. So whether people can go through the algorithm in their own head or not, this is what the resistance is to thinking about holding perpetrator accountable because there's an introspection that's forced when you hold perpetrator accountable that's not forced when you blame the victim. You follow me on that? And then in terms of bystander intervention, the thing that people have done is taken my teaching and others teaching and emptied it of its transformative power by taking gender out of the conversation, by taking social justice concepts out of the conversation. So what's happening in the military now and lots of college campuses is people are running quote unquote bystander intervention programs that don't talk about gender at all. They just say we have to develop the skills for self-efficacy to intervene when we see situations of potential harm and they use terms like I'm sorry, power-based violence, which are emptied of their gender transformative content. And to me, the heart of the matter is gender. And if you don't talk honestly about gender, which means masculinities, then you're just skimming the surface. And the question up there about healthy masculinity, I would say it's healthy personhood. It's not healthy masculinity. A healthy man or a person who identifies a man is a person who's a person of integrity, who cares about other people, who wants to be strong, but in ways that don't involve dominating other people. And that's the other thing, by the way. Let me just say, this will be my last comment. A lot of people will push back, talk about pushback against some of the concepts, not just in this room, but more generally in the field of domestic and sexual violence prevention. They'll say, what are you trying to do? Make men weak, make men soft. This is the wistification of America. You'll hear on a particular network. This is a constant theme. Anytime you talk honestly and critically about men's power illegitimately expressed, you'll hear that you're trying to make men soft.  You're trying to wistify America, right? And I get this all the time. And I completely reject that notion. This is not about making men weak. This is about redefining strength. Because if we still in the 21st century equate strength with the ability to dominate another person through your physical power, that's the definition of strength, especially for men. Are you kidding me? Haven't we grown further than that as a species to understand that strength involves moral courage and social courage and character and standing up to bullies and all the kind of stuff that isn't measured by how big your muscles are, big the gun is that you're holding and your ability to impose your will? So I would say that when people push back and say you're making men soft, no, we're not making men soft. We're defining strength more broadly and we expect more of men than to express their power through their physical ability to dominate others. And I think that's more, by the way, aspirational for men. It's not critical of men. It's actually more respectful of men. Why? Last thing, boys will be boys, right? You'll hear this all the time in defense of bad behavior by boys and by men. What do you expect? Boys will be boys. That's just how guys are. It's often said in defense of bad behavior by men, especially by people who are more conservative or traditional on these matters. Boys will be boys. Well, you know what? It's anti-male to say boys will be boys because it suggests that boys and men are not ethical beings who can make decisions based on moral and ethical reasoning. Those of us, including feminists and pro-feminist men, have higher expectations of men. We know that men are capable of more than this. Well, you'll never hear people like me say boys will be boys. You'll always hear that boys can either rise to our expectations or they can sink to them. And I think we need to rise our expectations for boys and men. That's not anti-male. The irony is that feminists who have been saying this forever get called anti-male when they actually have more respect for men than conservatives who defend men's bad behavior by saying boys will be boys. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Thank to the panelists. Thank to the audience for your questions. And I would say stay tuned for more events from the US Civil Society, working group on women, peace and security. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Have a good day. Thank you.