I had never really thought about an underlying factor to violence, but after reading this article Katz brings up some interesting points that I somewhat agree with. It made me think about all the violence that I can think of in real life and also in commercials, movies, and TV. While I was able to think of some that involved women, most that came to mind were ones dealing with men. Katz talks about how the mainstream advertising has set to normalize male violence. It is not necessarily meaning that all men are violent, but rather that violent behavior can be considered masculine. I found that very interesting and I do agree that our society would see it that way as well. A point that I found very interesting was when he talks about how not all men can be in control of their work, so they need some way to feel dominant and like they are in control. The easy way for them to get that feeling is to use their body to attain power and size. I think that small insecurity that males might have is definitely something that could lead to being more physical and powerful. It makes sense to compensate for other areas that aren't necessarily as strong. Another thing I found to be true in most media is that masculinity is associated with violence whereas femininity is associated with passivity. The man is usually the one to be the dominant force or role in most of the action or violent movies, and the woman is usually there to make the man look good in his role. I don't necessarily think that is the best way about it, but it does make for a good plot line.
The author never really touched on the violence that happens in every day life, but do you think all these messages that are being sent out about being masculine and "violent" are changing the way men think and allowing them to think violence is okay? Does it change the role of being the protector to more of a dominant force, or does it enforce the protector role?