'A man who has the political view that he wants to fight feminism wouldn't normally do so by gunning down women surely?'

I dunno.... Ever been tempted Anti?

Ah yes sorry; Marc Lepine's father was the abuser. I just now looked it up. He was exposed to his father's violence and was also bashed around by him until the age of 7. One can only speculate on how it resulted in a hatred of women/feminists; but maybe he felt that his mother didn't protect him, or he continued to identify more closely with his father.

The difference in assault of women and children V other men as victims, is that women and children are most often assaulted by men they love and trust and who claim to love them. A fair amount of DV begins during first pregnancy; and for some women after separation. That is, abusers making good on threats of revenge if they leave. It is also the time of greatest risk of homicide.

* 31 per cent attacked by a current or former male partner
* 28 per cent by a male family member or friend, and
* 15 per cent by a male stranger

In contrast, men are most often assaulted by strangers or acquaintances. It's still horrible, but less likely to occur in the context of an intimate relationship or ongoing situation:

65 per cent of assaults on men - committed by male strangers.

13 % of 185 male murder victims in 2006-07 year were killed by a partner.
Of 81 female victims of homicide in 2005-07 41 died at the hands of their intimate partner.

One of my primary areas of concern is male on male rape, which also often occurs in conjunction with assault:

http://open.salon.com/blog/bobbot/2009/05/29/rape_survivor

All violence is needs to be addressed, but first of all surely it makes sense for people to stand up against any form of violence. Suppressing expression of opposition to domestic violence isn't contributing anything positive whatsoever.

Interesting that both mjpb and Howler omit a rather important part of Foxy's quotation - you know, the bit about White Ribbon Day being "extremely worthy".

White Ribbon Day doesn't seek to address all violence, but rather specifically addresses violence against women - of which there is far too much, most of it perpetrated by men. I would also support a general campaign to eliminate all interpersonal violence in our society - of which there is far too much, most of it perpetrated by men.

What I don't support are the efforts, as illustrated in comments here, by those who wish to undermine White Ribbon Day as a symbolic stance by men who condemn violence against women by other men. I reject the notion that White Ribbon Day denigrates men generally, since the more men who support it means the less men who are likely to commit violent acts against women, which actively negates any 'all men are bastards' claptrap.

By all means conduct and promote a campaign to eliminate all interpersonal violence in our society - it's not an either/or situation. I'd happily sign up to both campaigns.

mjpb - of course the Canadian mass-murderer was deranged, but are you suggesting that his deliberate selection of exclusively female victims, his hit-list of intended feminist targets, and his own statements about conducting a fight against feminism are irrelevant?

Pynchme,

"...or he continued to identify more closely with his father"

...or he was a lunatic who was inclined to gun down people and formed the belief that women created a current problem for him and he was going to get 'em. Whether he was messed up because his father beat him or because his parents broke up(?) or it was genetically inevitable or something unknown occurred like a pack rape we can only speculate on.

There naturally will be differences between assaults on men and women and perhaps 31 percent of women are attacked by a current or former partner (although I suspect that is inflated) which is higher than the 13 percent of men attacked by a partner (which I suspect is deflated as I suspect most would be embarassed to report it). But in both cases it occurs and should be addressed and it invites opposition from people like anti when only one gets targetted.

"All violence is needs to be addressed, but first of all surely it makes sense for people to stand up against any form of violence. Suppressing expression of opposition to domestic violence isn't contributing anything positive whatsoever."

As Foxy originally raised it is likely that the measure is ineffective by misrepresenting the problem. The only action that counts is action that will help. We can all pretend that a sizeable proportion of men are beating up women and urge all men to behave but if that doesn't affect the underlying cause of the problem it is a pointless feel good exercise.

CJ,

I left it out deliberately because I didn't agree with the apparent diplomacy. If it isn't effective I wouldn't describe it as worthy even it is well intentioned. Thats how I use the term. The author of the quote is entitled to use it differently.

"White Ribbon Day doesn't seek to address all violence, but rather specifically addresses violence against women (by men) ..."

I'm suggesting that that fact alone is a problem as it is too narrow. You don't have to go to violence generally to avoid the problem. Just include all domestic violence from men and women and you don't invite anti's to bag it on that ground.

"...which actively negates any 'all men are bastards' claptrap."

It is arguable but it is unfair to put men in a position where they need to prove they aren't. I see that as a problem. You are correct at an intellectual level for people who look at it like that but how many do? Many people go on first impressions not intellectual analysis of outcomes. Raising awareness of Catholic priests interfering with children was worthy but it didn't help the perception of them even though it resulted in studies finding paedophilia much less common in Catholic priests than in the general population and even lower proportions than protestant denominations. Intellectually that also stops people from thinking all Catholic priests are bastards but the perception didn't go that way. To say they still suffer an image problem is an understatement.

I'm suggesting that his statements may well have been irrelevant. They are apparently all derived from a day when he engaged in some pretty crazy behaviour. I note that his father's name was Gharbi and he changed his name to his mother's. Therefore in saner moments he apparently hated his father not his mother.

Last white ribbon day last year, my ex boss spoke at a national conference.
I took his speech photo copied it very many times.
And dropped it on inch room tables in a very wide area.
Some time I knew men I gave out too had a history of wife bashing, almost every one , long term suffered more than the wife.
After they left, kids too,
I can not run with you here anti, sorry I think you are anti women.
But wife bashing remains a gutless act, this day see,s many say so, and it can not be wrong.
Yes blokes get bashed,and hurt unfairly, saying t is wrong too is quite right, but your claims are unacceptable to me.
Years ago, I saw a bashed wife , often flogged , run out of her house and stab and kill her husband, his last words God save me I do not want to die.
She just said nothing ,tell me who was more wrong?