Lillian:

I don’t think you can point to all the things that happen in war and all the attitudes that surround it and then use that as an argument to suggest that men are more violent than women (which is what I think you are arguing).

You cannot say it is a proof that men are more disposed to violence than women unless you know for sure that under the same circumstances women would not be equally as violent. We only know how men react in war because men go to war. We don’t know how women would react because very few of them go to war. That famous image of torture at Abu Ghraib prison with the woman soldier standing over her prisoner might give some indication.

It is possible that women under the same circumstances might turn out to be more violent then where would your argument be? Unless you can prove that they would be less violent in the same circumstances then you do not have evidence to back you claim. The only evidence you do have is that men behave violently under war conditions.

Boys grow up constantly being shown images of men in violent situations and they too know that one day they will be a man and they could well find themselves in that same position. War happens, men get conscripted, many get killed. It is a very real threat for lots of men that they may have to go to war. Would girls react any differently if they knew that such a fate could befall them when they became women?

It is not unreasonable for boys to grow up pre-occupied with a concern for war – not because it is glamorous or intoxicating or exciting but because they know that it could well be that they are forced by their governments into a situation where their very lives are at risk.

Lillian
"Read this interesting article about how "whiteness" was made. To stop the 'sub-human' Irish teaming up with the Africans in Virginia to stop exploitation by their masters."

Can we also get the Humanities and Social Sciences departments to do research into how "blackness" and Asianness" was created, but from a non-white perspective? "Blackness studies" and any other non-white ethnic studies are all about celebrating their "blackness" and ethnicity, but "whiteness" studies is very critical of being white. So maybe we can get some academics to do scathing critiques of what it means to be black and Asian.

"When the Portuguese arrived in Senegal there were huge trading empires run by women. The Europeans were considered smelly and backward as they did not bathe twice a day. Never mind the colonial superiority in arms soon got rid of this type of society and replaced it with colonial repression".

These trading empires sound sexist. Also, Senegal and you sound intolerant of European's bathing habits. You seem to be a bigot. (notice how "bigotry" works both ways in the race and sexism debate?)

"European colonial empire has been going on for 500 years and has massively changed many many cultures and so to assume all were violent and sexist before is wrong. I'm not saying they were perfect but there was a variety of cultures. Have a read of Howard Zinn's "People's history of America" to read about an idyllic people on the island of Hispanola (now Haiti and Dominican Republic). It was a really fantastic place of plenty. Then Christopher Columbus arrived, enslaved the population to work the mines. They died of illness, torture and misery and refused to have kids. I think you would probably classify Chris C. as a white man."

I am sensing a pattern here. White nations = evil; non-white nations = good. Heavy-hitting research here.

lillian
"Neolithic and Chalcolithic evidence, such as at Çatalhöyük in Turkey, shows that more egalitarian communities existed prior to the rise of the city state (but there is no evidence for the existence of matriarchy. Matri- lineality -locality -focus, yes; -archy, no).
(see Hodder, Ian. “New Finds and New Interpretations at Çatalhöyük.” Çatalhöyük 2005 Archive Report, 2005)"

There's nothing in this report that shows the society was egalitarian. In fact, the report is devoid of any kind of moralising on this society.

"As the state matured, bureaucratic (patriarchal) power trumped kinship systems and influence.
(see Richard Lee and Richard Daly, “Man’s Dominance and Women’s Oppression: The Question of Origins,” In ‘Community Power and Grassroots Democracy’ eds. Michael Kaufman et al)."

This text is about South American countries. I also saw no evidence that suggests South America was a paradise before the attempted implementation of bureaucratic control.

"Typically, forager societies are among the most gender-egalitarian economies known, particularly those in which women contribute highly to subsistence.
(see Chafetz, Janet. ‘Handbook of the Sociology of Gender’)."

This text is a Marxist and Foucauldian interpretation of history. In other words, it's going to be dripping with bias, moralising, scathing criticisms of men etc.

Marxists and post-structuralists are not historians. They're moralisers of the conservative order (or what was the conservative order).

"(see Lerner, ‘The Creation of Patriarchy’)."

Another feminist writer. Hardly impartial. It's like judging Kurds through the eyes of Turks.

"What do you think might be the biggest obstacle to this simple and promising solution?"

Well, for a start, stop blaming all men for the actions of a few and for the actions of men in the past. All this does is create resentment and a strong counter-movement to feminism.

Anyway, academics and feminists aren't interested in solutions. They want revenge. They perceive men as the cause of the ills of their lives.

Having now listened to Katz I don't see that he offers a solution. He's a good showman as TED talkers tend to be, but apart from high dudgeon he mostly asks questions along the lines of "what is it with men!", the tacit message being that violence, exploitation and predatory behaviour is unacceptable! His solution is that men build peer networks in their respective cultures whose members speak out against passive/aggressive sexism, racism etc.
This is to underestimate how resilient established cultures tend to be. But also how covert. Political correctness "has" driven much of it underground and spokespersons are typically careful how they couch their hate-speak, or to whom. For what it's worth, I do challenge sexism/racism/denialism, but rather than changing cultures I tend to get excluded.
Barking at men to stop the violence! stop the depravity! in the way Katz recommends is ironically an appeal to just the kind of no-nonsense, Pattonesque, bloke-speak that has been used to rouse men forever. There's no depth or subtlety here, it's just, "pull yourself together, soldier!"
The first thing we have to do is acknowledge that probably all men are capable of vile and violent behaviour given merely the right circumstances. Circumstances overmaster virtually any man's self-control and a pep-talk isn't going to stop it. Something primal inhabits the soul/psyche and only waits for an opportunity to break out.

Education yes, but this means philosophy "and" self-discipline; the province of the privileged and still subject to corruption.
These are unbridled times. We are taught that life's about extracting the last drop of pleasure (whatever that is), but it never satisfies or appeases the boredom, the inanity.
Our precious freedom, which we don't know how to measure or put to good use, has to be curtailed if we are to protect the weak and the innocent. You cannot rely on men's benevolence, pity, compassion, sobriety. At best they're whimsical and at worst they whet the appetite once aroused.
But none of this even begins to address what more I would say..

Sqeers:

“The first thing we have to do is acknowledge that probably all men are capable of vile and violent behaviour given merely the right circumstances. Circumstances overmaster virtually any man's self-control and a pep-talk isn't going to stop it. Something primal inhabits the soul/psyche and only waits for an opportunity to break out.”

It might be the first thing that you have to do because you are trying to convince yourself it is true. What if it was true? Being capable of something and actually behaving in that way are two entirely different things. If we were all judged according to what we were capable of then every one of us would be condemned.

It is no wonder you display an embittered and disillusioned outlook on men because you seem to have an embittered outlook on life. It is not men who seem to be the problem but life itself. No one can reason with someone who is absolutely determined to find the worst in humanity. I do not think you are part of the discussion to find a solution but to convince yourself that one can never be found because that is the kind of defeatism you seem to enjoy.

I think it is an abuse of the forums to use them to enhance your own misery

phanto.
embittered? Never; that would suggest that like you I'd been taken in.

My last was just a preamble; one has to acknowledge the existential condition first. There are still such universals. Just watch Game of Thrones.
Back down on Earth, the problem with the progressive approach is it validates the status quo. Treating male misbehaviour as scandalous conceals the fact that it's a commonplace.
Jean Baudrillard said something similar about Watergate:
"Watergate ... succeeded in imposing the idea that Watergate 'was' a scandal". Similarly, "Capital, which is immoral and unscrupulous, can only function behind a moral superstructure, and whoever regenerates this public morality (by indignation, denunciation, etc) [he must have watched Katz too!] spontaneously furthers the cause of capital [or call it patriarchy if you like]".

So are our feminists tough enough to face the reality and condemn it, or will they be satisfied with Disneyland? (Disneyland was for Baudrillard an elaborate mode of deterrence, "set up in order to rejuvinate in reverse the fiction of the real. Whence the debility, the infantile degeneration of this imaginary. It is meant to be an infantile world, in order to make us believe the that the adults are elsewhere, particularly amongst those adults who go there to act the child in order to foster illusions as to their real childishness".)