Very valid comments and points Rhrosty, and as for those previous posters who have obviously never experienced the need for welfare, who do you think is contributing to your private health (welfare) payments; the same people you denigrate.

Unfortunately issues like this tend to polarise.

I think that there is a lot of truth to the core of the article but that not mean that no one needs help.

The advocacy groups often do harm in a number of fronts
- The expand the meaning of the causes they support seemingly to make the problem appear bigger than it is (and possibly get more attention). That dilutes the real message when people are confronted with the injustice arising from the expanded definitions.
- At times they will willingly cause harm to be done to real people to give unfair advantage those who were never actually disadvantaged in the first place. Seemingly as some sort of trade off for not being able to solve the real problem in the first place.
- They will sometimes fight hard to undermine acknowledgement of problems faced by those outside their focus to avoid sharing resources or blunting the simple message they wish to portray.

It should not be an either/or scenario. A lot of the causes have a very genuine core which has been lost for many due to the efforts of the advocates to expand their turf.

R0bert

Robert, who are these advocates?

Kipp I have my doubt that the question is asked in good faith but I'll give it a go anyway.

Most of my experience with the output of those advocates has been in the family law/DV field. I've seen the output from some in the welfare and civil liberties fields often enough to have a strong conviction that the tricks are similar. The examples I'll use are gendered, I think that's a result of the current power balance in that area rather than any fundamental difference in ethics of the genders. Some in the mens groups try similar but they are too lacking in power at the moment to get away with it.

Best summed up on OLO by ChazP who after having been caught out posting a highly gendered claim from a report which when checked showed a very distinct lack of gender difference http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212833 " The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate. It is not a crime"

It's the anti-dv campaigners who delight in telling us how often women are assaulted by male domestic partners but don't tell how often the reverse is true (or pretend it's almost never true).

It's those who use claims of abuse which sound like physical assaults but when queried mix very serious physical violence in with the harsh words or a raised voice during an argument (and deny women doing any of that).

It's those trying to ramp up fear of levels of sexual assault who mix feeling uncomfortable into the definitions (I don't have a link available but have seen that one in the past).

It's those who try to use protecting children as an excuse for maternal bias who won't talk about actual rates of substantiated abuse and neglect of children.

It's those leading the attack on Abbott and Jones "hatred of women" who don't care less about the incessant attacks on men by gnder studies groups in Australian universities.

R0bert

My favourite is the drug council.

They don't even approve of any action to get rid of drugs. No way, their thrust is harm minimisation. Keep the poor buggers on drugs, but keep them alive.

If there are no druggies, there is no need for a drug council, with all those lovely, well paying jobs.