For some reason we still do not understand, Peter Lloyd was unable to call in to the Hangout yesterday, so I interviewed Peter without Peter being there.
Yeah, it was awkward.
Here is the real Peter Lloyd, talking to me about his terrific book Stand By Your Manhood.
Peter Lloyd walks into the newsroom at the Daily Mail and sees Liz Jones (I Stole My Husband’s Sperm And Tried to Trick Him Into Pregnancy), Shona Sibary (I Would Rather Mop Than Have Sex With My Husband), Samantha Brick (Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Beautiful) and Esther Walker (I Wish My Baby Wasn’t A Beastly Boy) and remarkably, does not run screaming in the other direction. Instead, Lloyd complains to an editor that one of his female colleagues (he doesn’t say whom) is just a tad sexist against men in her writing.
And thus his first column on men’s issues was born.
Lloyd’s book Stand By Your Manhood takes the same fearless, uncompromising stance against sexism as his regular pieces in the Daily Mail and does so in a way that is both empowering and humorous. Lloyd openly and enthusiastically declares his admiration for men and masculinity, writing “men are bloody brilliant.” The book never descends into self-pitying or shaming tactics as he takes on key issues facing men and manhood. All too often, men’s issues are framed in the mainstream media as something men have done to themselves, or something they could address if they would just “man up,” if they are addressed at all. Lloyd refuses to cast men as pathetic wimps, and his entire book is a call to arms for men to celebrate, acknowledge, and take pride in themselves as men.
A master of the neologism, Lloyd coins some hilarious terms including Gal-qaeda and She-hadists to describe radical feminists. There are several others that left me giggling even as the topics at hand were dead serious. Lloyd backs up his explorations of issues such as pornography and sexuality, parenthood and marriage, body image and double standards with readily understandable data, sources, and interviews with practitioners in the field, many of whom will be known to regular readers of AVfM. I was taken aback by some of his findings, which increased my own knowledge of just how much sexism and control men are subject to. Before reading this book, I was not aware that men need their wives’s written permission to have a vasectomy! “His body, my choice?” Double standards indeed.
When it comes to male sexuality, Lloyd insists that “women do not own sex” and points to the infantilizing assumptions behind things like “ban the lad mags” campaigns. Male sexuality is a force that belongs to men, and men “do not need permission to consume something legal [explicit photos of women in magazines].” Women readers may squirm a bit as Lloyd interviews some of the women who both produced and posed for explicit photographs, as both groups of women identify other women as the main source of sexism and bigotry.
Bitches be jealous, not to put too fine a point on it.
No doubt, Lloyd will be accused of misogyny for writing about women in a less that one hundred percent flattering light. Lloyd is ruthlessly logical when it comes to women’s hypocrisy on certain issues, and pointing out that women have a few flaws is not misogyny. It is very clear that Lloyd is not under any influence and does not seek to appease or appeal to women, but rather demands they act like equals, respected because they have shown themselves worthy of respect. There is an eye-opening exploration of gay men’s sexuality and how it is subject to fewer constraints and rules precisely because it does not seek to appeal to women. Lloyd balances the need to for men to be free of women’s toxic influence, which aligns with Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) quite nicely, but rather than eschew women altogether, he suggests that men embrace themselves as fully human and let women learn to cope with that. Or not.
For me, the most interesting part of Lloyd’s book is his section on marriage, which he calls the Fraud of the Rings. Lloyd details all the ways in which current laws permit the exploitation of men through the marriage contract. Once again, my own knowledge was expanded as I learned that men can be held financially responsible for women through the simple act of becoming engaged to one. The contract need not even be signed to be enforced. The topic of marriage leads naturally into the twin subjects of parenthood and divorce, and Lloyd explores how sexist assumptions about men have led to skewed laws that favor women to a ridiculous degree. He points out that children who grow up without a father figure, both boys and girls, adopt toxic versions of masculinity and femininity in response to the “hole in their soul.” The chapter is a sobering read and should be required for any man even considering marriage. Lloyd also offers some solid precautions for men who choose to go the marriage way.
In a section appropriately called Bullshit, Lloyd takes on “The Patriarchy,” “independent women,” video games, war, the wage gap, and the concept of being a “real man.” With razor sharp wit, biting sarcasm, and solid evidence, he addresses each topic, encouraging men to take pride in themselves and refuse the demand that they must change to accommodate a “new world order.” He advocates for “conscious masculinity” that interrogates, investigates and ultimately celebrates men and masculinity, in all of its many manifestations. There are indeed many ways to be a man, and the real takeaway from this book is that “fucking up is a human trait, not a male defect.”
Ultimately Lloyd has written a book that celebrates men as human beings, capable of the full range of human emotion and behaviors, both the good and the bad. Being human takes nothing away from being men, and Lloyd’s call to men is to take both comfort and pride in being men. “Men are brilliant,” and it’s time to applaud that openly and energetically.
Stand By Your Manhood is a standing ovation for men.
The book is available for sale here, and has been chosen as the Daily Mail’s Book of the Week.
Please join me on the Suck It Up Buttercup Hangout this Saturday at 3PM EST, where I will be interviewing Peter Lloyd, discussing the book and his ideas in more detail.
[Ed. Note: this review originally appeared at AVfM]
Here we go again.
Just days after Michael LeVell was acquitted of raping a young girl, who claimed the actor had abused her when she was only six years old, we have an entire trial collapsing in the face of new evidence against the nine accused men.
According to the crown prosecutor, a Twitter feed came to light that has basically destroyed the prosecution’s case.
The precise content of the Tweets was not disclosed to the Old Bailey, but prosecutor Samantha Cohen said they had been reviewed at the ‘highest level.’
‘The consequence of the review of that material which has been conducted at the highest level is that there is no longer a realistic prospect of a conviction of any defendant on any charge on the indictment,’ she said.
‘For that reason the Crown offer no evidence against the defendants in this case.’
Wow. That must have been some Twitter feed.
Given the fact that evidence has come to light that ALL the charges all complete bullshit, you would think the media would have some sympathy for the accused. Nope. All the men’s names, who range in age from 21 to 30, are published in the reports.
The false accuser, of course, retains her anonymity.
Peter Lloyd, whom I believe may be the only journalist in the British popular press who covers issues from a men’s rights perspective, has written a column in which he discusses the very real consequences of naming and shaming men accused of gut-churning sexual crimes, who are then later exonerated.
…like thousands of men all over the world, Le Vell’s life has already been destroyed by a system which considers men’s innocence a bonus – not a baseline. And it has to end.
The case not only proved that pre-conviction identification doesn’t work, but reiterated a very pertinent question: why, in our best-ever age of equality and human rights, are men still being denied their right to anonymity ahead of a guilty verdict?
It is – quite frankly – inhumane and has no place in a civilised society.
Peter quite rightly argues that people are irrationally prejudiced against certain men, for a variety of reasons, and will convict that man in their minds regardless of what a jury concludes.
Haters across the world will decide that he is guilty by default. That he is a rapist simply because he is male. Or working class. Or an alcoholic. Perhaps even all three. They will gather around the water cooler and say: ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ or ‘he looks the type’.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why a court of law, not a casual observer who is not armed with all the evidence, should convict a defendant.
In fact, the law in the UK used to extend anonymity to the accused for the simple reason that rape and sexual assault are special crimes with a unique ability to destroy the accused’s life. Prior to 1976, the accused were protected, but the law changed in 1988, ostensibly to assist police in their investigations. Not everyone in the British judiciary agreed with that change. Lord Corbett, who introduced the 1976 mutual pre-trial anonymity law, argued that:
Rape is a uniquely serious offence and acquittal is not enough to clear a man in the eyes of his family, community or workplace. He is left with this indelible stain on his reputation. The case for matching anonymity for the defendant is as strong now as ever
Julie Bindel, one of the most heartless and rabid feminist journalists in Britain had a good sneer at the idea that being accused of rape could have any negative consequences for the accused.
In reality, rape is not really seen as a heinous crime, only those cases Whoopi Goldberg notoriously described as, “rape-rape”. Indeed, the most commonplace rapes – those committed by partners, friends, acquaintances, family members and work colleagues – are often not considered rape at all, which is why the vast majority never get to court or are acquitted if they do.
A fair number of celebrities including footballers, musicians, actors and authors have been accused of rape in the past and do not seem to have suffered longer term. To say that an accusation ruins lives is perhaps a sweeping generalisation.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/21/anonymity-rape-defendants
No, Julie, you have that exactly ass-backwards. Rape is indeed seen as a heinous crime, which is why juries tend to require EVIDENCE before they are willing to convict a man for an offense that will haunt him for the rest of his life. Rich men tend to escape the consequences?
Really?
Tell that to Roman Polanski. Or Julian Assange.
But in the rush to protect men from the consequences of a false or unprovable allegation, I think that Peter is missing an opportunity to protect men from a false allegation happening in the first place.
Why not name the women who make the accusations?
It took ELEVEN false accusations and a decade before the delightful Elizabeth Jones was jailed for falsely accusing men she didn’t like of raping her.
While the Telegraph doesn’t name the accused, at the time the crimes were alleged, they would have been well within their rights to do so, all the while protecting Lizzie’s identity.
It took eight years and five false allegations against men who dared to break up with her before Leanne Black was finally jailed, too.
Linsey Black picked a man she didn’t even know off a Facebook page and accused him of raping her, quite nicely destroying his life in the process.
Eventually, Lizzie, Leane and Linsey will get out of jail, and will no doubt be looking about for their next boyfriends.
Let’s hope those boyfriends know how to use Google, huh?
Forcing women to own their accusations by making their identities public provides a valuable public service by letting men known just what their Princesses have been up to in the past. When some little chickie decided to accuse Jose Consenco of rape, he immediately took to Twitter to defend himself by revealing his accuser’s name.
I wonder what happened to that case?
Oh, look. The woman was so intimidated and frightened when Jose posted her details she withdrew all charges. Jose took a lie detector test and passed and the police closed the case.
And what happened to cupcake who claimed Jose drugged and raped her?
Nothing.
Except that now any man who decides to take cupcake for a spin knows just what cupcake is capable of, thanks to Jose.
The obvious objection to revealing the names of the accusers is that it will make women even more afraid to bring forth accusations. Is that really such a bad thing? Perhaps women should be reminded that accusations of rape are very serious indeed, and they should never, ever be alleged without evidence. Charging a man with rape should come with some serious consequences for the accusers, including being named and shamed along with the accused.
The only argument against revealing the name of the accuser that holds any water with me is that women who really were raped and who have secured a conviction against the accused may not want the details of a very terrifying ordeal made public for every person they will ever meet who has access to the internet to know about. Rape is an enormous violation and I can completely understand that women who have experienced it might wish to keep that private.
And that is what it comes down to. Privacy. Only convicted criminals should be forced to surrender their privacy, especially when it comes to allegations of sexual misconduct and assault. The very basic premise of our entire justice system is that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, and it is only the guilty who should face the court of public execution.
Women who are raped and who can prove that in a court of law are not guilty of anything, nothingwithstanding having deliberately put themselves in a vulnerable position. Their right to privacy remains intact.
Which means that Peter is right. Anonymity for the accused protects the accused from being assumed guilty. It assures that justice is carried out.
The overwhelming majority of men are not rapists – not by a long shot, and the law must remember this.
It is true that affording anonymity to men accused of rape who really are guilty but walk away because there is insufficient evidence for a conviction are then free to go on and rape others, and future victims have no way of knowing that previous allegations of assault have been lodged, but that is true for accusers, too. Women who have falsely accused men of rape will not have their identities revealed, and their future victims will also have no way of knowing that previous false allegations have been lodged.
But that is the price that we all pay for adhering to the basic premise of justice.
innocens nisi probetur nocens
Innocent until proven guilty
It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer.
William Blackstone
It’s still a good idea to Google your dates, though. You never know what Twitter might reveal.
And you can subscribe to Peter Lloyd’s RSS feed here. He always has something interesting to say.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?authornamef=Peter%20Lloyd
Lots of love,
JB
judgybitch 