Jessica Eaton penned an article for the Guardian (17.10.18), which source immediately sets the scene for the pinko rubbish which it would inevitably contain; on reading, it did not disappoint on that score.

Eaton was defending the token woman sycophant MP Stella  Creasy, who has been campaigning to make misogyny  a crime. Some more rational soul in government suggested that logic and intrinsic fairness should dictate that misandry  should also be included in any bill.

However, Eaton argues that “The concept of misandry is dangerously vague in comparison to the reality of misogyny.” Turn to the Oxford English Dictionary and it defines the latter as “Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.” and the former as  “Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men “. These are the same, with gender inverted;  however, Eaton chooses to make up her own interpretation of English, which in reality simply highlights her own distorted world view.

There is a danger to fundamental concepts of law in this thinking, on which Grumpy has previously  pontificated. [ http://grumpy.eastover.org.uk/distorting-law-stella-creasy/   and at http://grumpy.eastover.org.uk/guilty_by_assumption/

Eaton has spent her whole career in the ‘victim industry’ , which has never been balanced in its approaches to the real challenges of domestic and sexual violence (against men as well as women). The old ‘1 in 4 women’ mantra is still being propagated years after the biased and naive research which led to this ‘statistic’ was originated, but it serves the PR purpose.

There is no doubt that society has a problem with violence, both physical and mental, perpetrated by a minority of individuals on unfortunate victims, and this needs to be addressed in a serious – and forceful – manner. But this should be done in a logical, balanced way regardless of the sex of perpetrator or victim, preferably without the depressing pscho-babble which too many of those involved in the area seem  incapable of communicating without  resorting to.

Should a reader dismiss Grumpy as a misogynist with no knowledge of the area at all, the fact is that he has probably  analysed more incidents of domestic violence than even most academics in the field have done (at least 15,000 domestic violence incidents) and hence he can at least claim to have some insight into the demographics and extent of such acts.