I understated the awfulness of Steve Moxon. Google turns up more.
Like the fact that he was dropped by UKIP because he said nice things about Anders Breivik.
Steve Moxon, author of the classic anti-feminist book ‘The Woman Racket‘, was dropped as a candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in this week’s local elections over comments he made on his blog previously regarding Anders Breivik. Whilst stressing how appalling and insupportable Breivik’s actions were, Moxon had noted that his manifesto presented an accurate account of the spread of political correctness in Europe. This was picked up by a local paper in the city that Moxon was standing in (Sheffield), forcing UKIP to drop him as a candidate – despite the vast majority of UKIP supporters no doubt sharing the same anti-PC views.
He’s too right-wing for UKIP. His special flavor of right-wingness is anti-feminism and belief that women get all the nice things.
He explains everythings on his blog, like for instance the fact that domestic violence is women beating up men.
Make that two pints, and a bottle of gin.
Who the fuck let’s these people in?
Sounds like a typical Rethuglican in the US.
Just clicked the link to his book and read the blurb and some of the reviews. That is some awful screed, what in the world were Leeds Skeptics In The Pub thinking?
That’s a very good question. A friend of mine has asked them; if they respond we’ll soon know more.
“A PC-fascist does not accept that anyone who challenges the PC hegemony can be moral; and that therefore such a challenger is ineligible to stand in any election.
“That PC is itself the height of immorality — seeking to label the disadvantaged as ‘oppressors’ and the privileged as the ‘oppressed’ – completely escapes PC-fascists. They feel obliged to stick rigidly to this self-delusion rather than to admit the failure of their whole ideology. But this vehement denial inevitably cannot long survive being comprehensively found out.”
-Steve M
Is a “PC-fascist” anything like the Totalitarian Feminazis and Worse Than East Germany Femistasis I’ve been hearing so much about recently?
The concepts that are slanged by being labled “PC” are politeness and tolerance. It’s inconceivable to me that anyone could crusade effectively against either politeness or tolerance and get very far.
I have to conclude that the label of “political correctness” was made up to obscure what is really being talked about and replace it with some kind of blurry sock puppet.
I guess I will challenge the next 12 people who say “PC” to define it before I will talk to them about it.
Can I please unmeet him now?
“I have to conclude that the label of “political correctness” was made up to obscure what is really being talked about and replace it with some kind of blurry sock puppet.”
Yes.
To paraphrase Julius Caesar: “I went, I saw, I returned nauseated.”
Perhaps it’s an ambush?
The real speaker will be eviscerating Mo
rxon when he arrives.I read the post on DV. I am. I have no clue. If I were a cartoon there wouldn’t be steam coming out of my ears there would be flames 6 foot wide.
I really like, particularly, the “WELL RESEARCHED FACTS” (things are more accurate if you put them in caps) that he has pulled from his fucking ass. I am now going to have to leave the computer and go do my fucking laundry because otherwise I would throw the damn computer through the window.
I think I would rather not meet Steve Moxon.
Well all right then. I’ll let you get out of the comfy chair. It’s my Stasi lunch break.
His blog is eye-popping. I love the way he heads up his stream of misogynist sewage with the capitalised phrase: “WELL RESEARCHED FACTS”. Then cites no actual research.
Odd.
You should see the Sheffield Skeptics in the Pub facebook page. Moxon hangs out there a bit, regularly causing explosions of annoyance with his ridiculous pronouncements. He’s a tiresome idiot posing as a radical thinker. It’s pointless trying to argue with him rationally about anything, as he refuses to engage except to call you a “PC-Fascist”. I speak from bitter experience.
It was however very amusing when his comments on Breivik were drawn to UKIP’s attention and they were forced to drop him. Lots of people laughed a lot at that.
Well I’ll take a look at the Sheffield Skeptics in the Pub facebook page. Amy’s already pointed me to the Leeds one, where Chris W is now rethinking the invitation. Yay crowd-sourcing.
Moxon sounds very like that guy who sued LSE for being all misandrist ‘n shit. Tom Something. He used to leave comments exactly like that here.
Tom Martin and Moxon have met – at least once: http://www.manwomanmyth.com/mens-rights-movement/ucl-debate-is-feminism-sexist-and-does-the-mrm-even-exist/.
Ah how perfect.
I’ve just found the bit on the Sheffield SITP FB page about UKIP’s dropping Moxon, with 94 thrilling comments to read. This should be fun.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/sheffieldsitp/
I find Moxon seriously disturbing. Since the posthumous outing of ‘Sir’ Jimmy Savile as a paedophile, Moxon has produced ‘scientific’ evidence that Savile’s behaviour was normal, and only stupid people would object to it. He says girls reach puberty ie menarche at eleven. He seems to think it follows that it is acceptable to indecently assault those over that age.
He sets the average age of menarche lower than it really is. Nor is it even true that the onset of ovulation usually coincides with this event. It most often happens two years later. Scietifically, he is quite wrong about puberty.
But, more importantly, since when does puberty make rape and sexual exploitation accepatble? One story tells how Savile pinned a girl up against a wall and raped her. This led to pregnancy and an agonising illegal abortion. She must have reached puberty or it couldn’t have happened. Did that make it better for her? Or did it make it worse?
Perhaps Moxon hasn’t heard claims that Savile offended against boys and girls under ten and is now thought to have been a necrophile. If accurate, this is hardly normal even by the most generous standards.
I see no point in remonstrating with Moxon on his blog. He seems to be beyond reason and would probably get nasty. But it is a bit worrying that this is in the public domain. it could be seen as advocating sexual exploitation of females of eleven and over.
Moxon may be a ridiculous character but that does not mean that he is harmless. I fear that like all idiots, he is dangerous. Do you think something should be done about this?
Presumably with the approval of the devout Roman Catholic.
Well, in terms of opposition and argument, yes, definitely. In terms of anything more coercive, no, probably not. (Then again I think it’s fair for members of skeptic societies to put pressure on other members who invited Moxon to speak to the society. Moxon naturally sees that as “coercive” but I don’t…)
Oh, he was that too on top of everything else? Oy.
Savile was made a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great by Pope John Paul II in 1990. There has been a campaign to persuade the Vatican to posthumously revoke the honour. They have refused to do so formally saying that such honours expire at death. I guess if they did they might find themselves embarrassed by calls for similar action concerning all the other obnoxious characters who have received Papal Knighthoods throughout history.
Not to mention defrockings and unbishopings and decardinalizations.
UK folks—don’t these “skeptics in the pub” events have at least an informal network where they talk? If so, why hasn’t the alarm klaxon been sounded across the whole British Isles? Why are we having to pick off Moxon invitations one by one, with each group acting like he’s a wholly unknown quantity? This is outrageous.
But you know what else is outrageous? That any skeptic group sees an author who wrote a book called The Woman Racket and then thinks it may be a good idea to invite him without further checking. What IS it with “skeptics” who are utterly without guile when it comes to blatant misogyny?