I would submit that TED talks are the incorrect format for discussing male violence. It requires that the presenter come up with some big-picture summary, and there could not possibly be a subject less adaptable to being tied up with a pretty bow in 20 minutes than male violence.
1. He just barely touches what is essentially the pinnacle of intelligent thought in bringing up language as the protector and propagator of abusive behavior. He needed to spend about another 2 hours delving into that alone.
2. He delved somewhat deeper into a much simpler concept involving leadership.
3. He pre-destroyed his brilliant oratory on leadership by trying to shame men who would like the world (including those women, both gay and straight who indulge in extreme verbal prejudice against men) to know that they are actively, verbally, politically, and in their own homes, doing everything they can to support their fellow female humans. (and men.) There is nothing wrong with making that very clear, and it should be a point of pride for any man, not a cue for some dickwad to roll their eyes and show him polaroids of a fresh battery victim.
The world of course, needs millions more soldiers like Katz for the appropriate social conditioning of male hormones to take place. This particular speech makes very little impression on me as it comes across as a rather simplistic "male ally" presentation.
It goes without saying, whatever starts this conversation is a positive.