This is a constant and deliberate misinterpretation of domestic abuse research data developed by sociologists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles.

Dr Richard Gelles, one of the researchers who created the Conflict Tactic Scales, a method of evaluating intrapersonal violence has criticized radical fathers’ and men’s rights groups for their misleading claims .Gelles, said that when we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of “battered” men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and about ten percent are men.

No doubt there are men who are abused by women; No one said that women are never abusive.

What is galling about this repeated far right tripe is that far from promoting services for abused men it is used for silencing victims and undermining the services of the organisations helping domestic abuse victims.

They antagonise potential supporters. Attacking existing services for female survivors (they are all liars you know) and do male survivors of violence a great disservice. It is an attack on the very people who brought the issue of interpersonal violence to public attention in the first place and who have been leaders in this field. Successful helping models for men could be set up more effectively by working together and without people with grudges running interference.

The opinions they hold are very damaging.

“There can’t be a better illustration of the massive impact of the homosexual propaganda and the extent of the control it has over the media”

Your NOT helping, your hurting

Unless of course, you are, as a significant number of people believe, a deliberate ” caricature” for vested interest to use as an example to dismiss “bloggers” as a bunch of reactionary flakes

Why on earth do you have to get yourselves into such a tizzy about such bloody trivia.

Where were you when kids were being tortured in concentration camps?

I don’t know why Roxon wants a representative of the sole fathers mob though because they are usually sole fathers because they have deserted their own kids while sole mothers are forced to get a job when the kids turn 8 or get branded sluts, whores and losers.

Or just have a good lie down.

The article above was intended to try to tease out exactly the issue of how far making someone an unpaid ambassador amounts to an endorsement of their views, particularly when the Government is explicitly trying to reach out to the marginalised. Given the views about domestic violence programs that Williams has put his name to, and the link between that issue and men’s health, I’m inclined to the view that he is not an appropriate ambassador. But I haven’t seen anything more clearly anti-gay from Williams than his views on same-sex couples that I discussed. If he has made anti-gay comments then that would strengthen the case for his being an inappropriate ambassador, because, again, it goes directly to the issue of men’s health.

However the mere fact that the man might hold views on family issues unrelated to men’s health that I disagree with is not, in my view, a reason to dump him.

As for the notion that selecting someone like Williams is tantamount to picking a racist to appeal to bigots is nonsense. Adherents of any sort of bigotry cannot be a legitimate ambassador for something like men’s health because they’ll inevitably be prejudiced toward a subsection of men.

And for those trying to talk sense into Marilyn, foggedaboudit.