Peter Lloyd is the author of Stand By Your Manhood and a contributor to MailOnline, The Guardian, The Mail on Sunday and Telegraph Men.
Laura Perrins: Your book, Stand By Your Manhood, has been out for a while. Why should we read it?
Peter Lloyd: Because it’s just been updated for the paperback edition, which is out 7 July! The new version has fresh artwork and two extra chapters – the first about college campus hysteria, the second on outspoken celebrity feminists. For the latter I got to trash a whole host of annoying people – including Lena Dunham and Benedict Cumberbatch – for their smug virtue-signalling, which was delicious fun. I didn’t hold back. In fact, I really went for the jugular, so it should probably come with a trigger warning – but it doesn’t. In fact, my book is the anti-safe space, which is another reason people should read it. That and the fact it’s pretty funny, apparently…
LP: I think we both agree that modern feminism is a dangerous mix of being silly and poisonous but dominant on the internet? Why do you reject it? What parts in particular?
PL: Feminism is like the political equivalent of Sea World! People who’ve seen the Blackfish documentary on Netflix will know what I mean.
For years people flocked to it on the understanding it was innocent fun. But, since then, thinking has shifted and people are starting to see the darker reality. It’s the same with feminism.
For a long time I believed it was synonymous with equality, so bought into it – but, as a man, it always felt like treason.
It took me ages to admit the reason for that is because it doesn’t want equality – it wants power and the collapse of masculinity. It really does have misandry at its core. That’s why they ignore the very real men’s issues such as homelessness, the life expectancy gap and boy circumcision.
Everyone with a brain agrees that equality of opportunity is crucial for a fair society, but that’s not feminism. If people aren’t convinced the acid test is simple: if a feminist campaign or ‘solution’ doesn’t also set men free, then it’s just trade unionism for women. And that’s not equal.
LP: Off the top of my head, feminists have labelled the following as sexist: high-heels, air-conditioning, home-cooked meals, men giving up their seats to women on a lifeboat, and make-up to name just a few.
What is your favourite feminist meltdown?
PL: It is hard to say because there are so many to choose from, but I do love the claim that Hamlet is now sexist. That’s a really funny one. I mean, what took them so long to decide that? It’s been around for 400 years.
The X-Men poster furore was golden, too. Only feminists could take offence at two fictional characters having a pretend fight. It’s living proof that the feminist movement is a victimology spinning out of control.
I’m just waiting for the day when they say being a feminist is sexist. Then we’ll know it’s truly eating itself.
LP: Although it is easy to laugh at them, the feminists drive the agenda to an extent that is totally disproportionate to their numbers. Only 7 per cent of women identify as feminists, yet the professional feminists are never off the airwaves and, of course, the internet. This is because the sisterhood/victimhood is an industry, but other issues do get squeezed out.
White working class boys do worse at school than any other group is one issue. The over-charging of rape is another. What are your main concerns?
PL: What scares me is the general vilification of men and boys – it’s classic scapegoating. That’s the whole patriarchy theory, right there. Gender warriors putting the nazi in feminazi.
Look at the evidence: It’s no co-incidence that the rise of men’s issues (including their suicide rates) correlates to the spread of the feminist narrative – and the implementation of this narrative in government and social policy.
The space in which men can be themselves and take pride in their gender is getting smaller and smaller. And not by accident.
LP: Why should there be all-male sports clubs or indeed clubs of any kind. Surely that is just sexist?
PL: I’m not a huge fan of single-gender spaces, but I do think it’s natural for people to want to be with their own kind sometimes.
More importantly, people, groups and private companies must have the right to exercise freedom of association – the ability to decide who they fraternise with and where. This is utterly dependant on the ability to ‘discriminate’ with a small ‘d’, which is actually quite healthy.
Sadly, because of feminism’s inconsistencies, it’s automatically considered sexist when men do it – just look at the recent Muirfield golf club scandal. There are countless women-only golf clubs, and that’s fine. When men want the same, it’s seized upon.
Germaine Greer once said women have no idea how much men hate them. I disagree – I think men have no idea how much feminists despise them – and want their downfall.
LP: Do you believe that men and women are different is some very fundamental ways, or gender is just a social construct?
PL: It always baffles me that people think gender is not rooted in biology – centuries of robust, scientific research proves it. The male and female of every species on earth is crucially different in a complementary way. This is smart design by Mother Nature and is the reason we’re all here. People need to stop making nature politically correct. We are constantly told that diversity is good when it comes to race, age or class, but biological differences are seen as a slight. It’s madness.
LP: I understand that sadly you are not a supporter of marriage? Why? If it is because of easy no-fault divorce, then perhaps it is the case that you could be a supporter of marriage if we did not have such a liberal divorce regime?
PL: My parents recently celebrated their fiftieth wedding anniversary and my three sisters are each in really happy, long-term marriages – so my personal experience of it is a positive one, but – contrary to what millennials think – facts trump experience. I don’t advise against marriage because I’m a bitter cynic, but because of the mathematical probability of it going wrong. Currently, data proves that one in three marriages collapse, with 70 per cent of divorces initiated by women. The same women who get the best settlements, including the house and the children. So for men it’s a raw deal. Even the likes of Johnny Depp can’t make it work, so the rest of us are screwed.
I also happen to be a 35-year-old gay guy, so marriage was never an option for me while I was growing up – and I think this helped me see it more objectively, which is liberating.
Pursue long-term relationships by all means – but just don’t put a ring on it. Marriage is the fraud of the rings. Love is the real deal. Don’t confuse the two.
The 5 reforms Peter Lloyd wants are:
- The introduction of a male contraceptive pill, available on the NHS. It would be the ultimate sexual revolution – and deliciously provocative. The so-called liberals would be furious, so it’d have great entertainment value, too.
- An overhaul of family and divorce law to stop men being shafted, financially and emotionally. I know there are plenty of women who also suffer in divorce, but the system is largely set-up to protect them. Most blokes don’t know this and are sitting ducks. It’s pitiful to see.
- An end to women’s studies classes at universities. As the book points out (with the help of Lauren Southern and Janice Fiamengo – whom I love!) these courses are basically just radicalisation programmes for shehadists. Oh – and they have no real academic merit, so are a total waste of precious time, money and resources. Let’s spend that cash on something like closing the education gap. Or teaching people about the tenets of free speech.
- Stop the criminal sentencing gap. No more lenient jail terms because of that handy second X chromosome!
- Mandatory fact-checking for all media coverage of gender issues. In fact, I want Christina Hoff-Somers to sign everything off before it goes to print. That’d be awesome.