Author: Ophelia Benson

  • It’s mine and you can’t play with it

    This is no good. No good at all. The video of the Haught-Coyne Q and A is mysteriously gone. Just gone. Page unavailable.

    Perhaps there is some explanation other than the obvious (and discreditable)? I don’t know. I await further knowledge.

  • My ladder doesn’t go that high

    From Tigerbeatdown, less than a month ago.

    It’s concerted, focused, and deliberate, the effort to silence people, especially women, but not always, as I can attest, and particularly feminists, though again, not always, as I can attest, online. The readers, the consumers, the fans, may not always notice it because people are silent about it. Because this is the strategy that has been adopted, to not feed the trolls, to grin and bear it, to shut up, to put your best foot forward and rise above it.  To open your email, take note of the morning’s contents, and then quickly shuttle them to the appropriate files for future reference or forwarding to the authorities. To check on the server, fix what needs fixing, and move on with your day. To skim the comments to see what needs to be deleted, to know that when you write a post like this one, you will have to delete a lot of heinous and ugly comments, because you want to protect your readers from the sheer, naked, hate that people carry for you. To weigh, carefully, the decision to approve a comment not because there’s a problem with the content, but because you worry that the reader may be stalked by someone who will tell her that she should die for having an opinion. And when it happens to people for the first time, they think they are alone, because they don’t realise how widespread and insidious it is.

    I really despise this idea that you’re supposed to “rise above it.” I fucking hate it. It makes it our problem, while the shit-throwers don’t have to do anything – they just get to go right on throwing shit. I despise the idea (that I’ve seen touted approximately seven trillion times in the last few months) that saying this is misogyny and it sucks is “playing the victim.” I beg your pardon? If you’re mugged is it “playing the victim” to say you were mugged? Sure, it’s childish to make too much of a fuss about one cross remark; it’s spoiled and whiny to talk about your own thin skin while ignoring tanks running over other people; but that doesn’t mean anyone should “rise above” deliberate calculated sustained campaigns of vituperation. If people are trying to bully you into shutting the fuck up, you really do get to resist. Not “rise above”; not ignore; resist.

  • US warns of attacks on Lagos hotels

    The Hilton, Nicon Luxury and Sheraton hotels were named as possible targets of Boko Haram.

  • Boko Haram attacks kill at least 100

    An unnamed local government official in Damaturu was quoted by AFP as saying that hundreds of wounded people were being treated in hospital.

  • How Many More People Will Boko Haram Kill in Nigeria…..?

    The news has just come in that at least 150 people have been killed in a coordinated attack by the radical Islamic sect in Nigeria known as Boko Haram. Many government buildings have been reportedly destroyed. The group’s leader has threatened to carry out more attacks. And that means more innocent lives will be lost in the coming days, weeks or months.

    My question is this: should the world keep quiet, stand by and watch this bloodthirsty group continue its killing spree? How long will the international community continue to pretend not to know that Boko Haram is a deadly terrorist group that is capable of destroying and destabilizing the country and the region? I mean how many deaths will it take till the world knows that too many people have died and many more are to die? How many people will be killed before the UN decides to intervene?

    It is obvious that Nigeria is battling its own version of al-Qaeda. There is ample evidence that Boko Haram has allies in North Africa and the Middle East who are supplying it with arms, training and intelligence. Boko Haram has openly used and advocated violence. It has not hidden its extremist agenda.

    Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for so many attacks and killings including the attacks carried out at the Police Headquarters and the UN House in Abuja. This group has literally declared a war against the government of Nigeria and against any individual or groups locally or internationally which it suspects to be opposed to its Islamist cause. No one knows who will be the next target or the names of the individuals, agencies or embassies on their hit list.

    How many more people will Boko Haram kill before the world comes to the aid of Nigeria? It is obvious that the Federal Government of Nigeria is too weak and has proved incapable of defeating these Islamic jihadists. This is particularly the case in a region where militant Islam has local and political sympathy and support.

    Nigeria lacks the intelligence and expertise to battle this local al Qaeda group. Boko Haram is a transnational Islamist terrorist group. There is need for a transnational operation to battle and defeat it.

    Before it is too late.

  • A guide to online abuse

    And the excuses given to pretend it doesn’t happen.

  • You come to expect the vitriol

    Laurie Penny knows about misogynist abuse of writers who have the effrontery to be women.

    You come to expect it, as a woman writer, particularly if you’re political. You
    come to expect the vitriol, the insults, the death threats. After a while, the
    emails and tweets and comments containing graphic fantasies of how and where and with what kitchen implements certain pseudonymous people would like to rape you cease to be shocking, and become merely a daily or weekly annoyance…

    An opinion, it seems, is the short skirt of the internet. Having one and
    flaunting it is somehow asking an amorphous mass of almost-entirely male
    keyboard-bashers to tell you how they’d like to rape, kill and urinate on you.
    This week, after a particularly ugly slew of threats, I decided to make just a
    few of those messages public on Twitter, and the response I received was
    overwhelming. Many could not believe the hate I received, and many more began to
    share their own stories of harassment, intimidation and abuse.

    Note to self: Follow Laurie Penny on Twitter.

    Perhaps it should be comforting when calling a woman fat and ugly is the best
    response to her arguments, but it’s a chill comfort, especially when one
    realises, as I have come to realise over the past year, just how much time and
    effort some vicious people are prepared to expend trying to punish and silence a
    woman who dares to be ambitious, outspoken, or merely present in a public
    space.

    Quite. The time and effort create a very sinister impression of dedicated, indeed downright Spartan, rage and hatred. The lack of proportion is unnerving.

    Many commentators, wondering aloud where all the strong female voices are,
    close their eyes to how normal this sort of threat has become. Most mornings,
    when I go to check my email, Twitter and Facebook accounts, I have to sift
    through threats of violence, public speculations about my sexual preference and
    the odour and capacity of my genitals, and attempts to write off challenging
    ideas with the declaration that, since I and my friends are so very
    unattractive, anything we have to say must be irrelevant.

    And one starts to think it’s not worth it.

    I’d like to say that none of this bothered me – to be one of those women who
    are strong enough to brush off the abuse, which is always the advice given by
    people who don’t believe bullies and bigots can be fought. Sometimes I feel that
    speaking about the strength it takes just to turn on the computer, or how I’ve
    been afraid to leave my house, is an admission of weakness. Fear that it’s
    somehow your fault for not being strong enough is, of course, what allows
    abusers to continue to abuse.

    I believe the time for silence is over. If we want to build a truly fair and
    vibrant community of political debate and social exchange, online and offline,
    it’s not enough to ignore harassment of women, LGBT people or people of colour
    who dare to have opinions. Free speech means being free to use technology and
    participate in public life without fear of abuse – and if the only people who
    can do so are white, straight men, the internet is not as free as we’d like to
    believe.

    Well then, the internet is not as free as we’d like to believe.

  • Laurie Penny on the normalization of misogyny

    Many commentators, wondering aloud where all the strong female voices are, close their eyes to how normal this sort of threat has become.

  • Women bloggers call for an end to misogynist trolling

    The violent online invective levelled at female commentators is now causing some of the best known names in journalism to hesitate before publishing their opinions.

  • Fat, ugly, desperate or a bitch who deserves to be slapped, hit or gang-raped

    And here’s the New Statesman on the subject.

    Helen Lewis-Hasteley –

    The sheer volume of sexist abuse thrown at female bloggers is the internet’s festering sore: if you talk to any woman who writes online, the chances are she will instantly be able to reel off a Greatest Hits of insults. But it’s very rarely spoken about, for both sound and unsound reasons. No one likes to look like a whiner — particularly a woman writing in male-dominated fields such as politics, economics or computer games.

    Hmm…I don’t seem to have that problem. Maybe that’s because I don’t see talking about it as being a whiner at all; I see it as political. That’s because it is political. The misogyny is political and talking about it is political. Goebbels was political; Radio Mille Collines was political; why would misogynist campaigns not be political?

    While I won’t deny that almost all bloggers attract some extremely inflammatory comments — and LGBT or non-white ones have their own special fan clubs too — there is something distinct, identifiable and near-universal about the misogynist hate directed at women online. As New Statesman blogger David Allen Green told me: “In three years of blogging and tweeting about highly controversial political topics I have never once had any of the gender-based abuse that, say, Cath Elliott, Penny Red, or Ellie Gellard routinely receives.”

    Kate Smurthwaite –

    I get abusive comments on my blog or under my videos. Some is straight up hate-speech: fat, ugly, desperate or a bitch who deserves to be slapped, hit or gang-raped. Other times it is in the form of unsolicited advice: subjects I “shouldn’t” cover or opinions I “shouldn’t” have. I’d say in a typical week I get 10-20 abusive comments though there are undoubtedly more that I don’t see on other sites.

    The vast majority of the abuse is gender-related. There is a clear link to internet pornography. Much of the language used could have come straight from pornographic sites.

    …

    There is an underlying issue though — the people who post these comments reveal a deep-seated hatred towards women. I find that unsurprising in our culture. Violent extreme pornography is normal internet fare. Gang rape and prostitution are subjects for popular music. At least 95 per cent of actual rapists are still on the streets. That’s the real problem. We need to address that.

    Eleanor O’Hagan –

    On the whole I’ve managed to avoid the worst threats and misogyny that other women writers endure, but I don’t think that’s luck or because my opinions are more well-argued. I think it’s because, very early on, I became conscious of how my opinions would be received and began watering them down, or not expressing them at all. I noticed that making feminist arguments led to more abuse, and as a result, I rarely wrote about feminism at all. I was so nervous about the abuse I would receive when I wrote an article about cultural misogyny. It felt like I was exposing myself as a feminist.

    Yikes! That’s a scary one. Not at all surprising, but scary.

    Cath Elliot –

    How am I supposed to know for instance whether “Let’s hope she doesn’t end up getting stabbed in the head or something” is a throwaway comment by a sad little man sat in his bedsit in his underpants, or whether it’s something slightly more sinister that means I need to keep looking over my shoulder whenever I leave the house? At what point does “a bit of online abuse” cross over into sexual harassment or hate speech? And how do you determine when a ‘nasty comment’ has crossed a line and become a genuine threat to kill?

    I.don’t.know.

    That’s all I can stand to read for the moment. To be continued.

  • Crude insults, aggressive threats, unstinting ridicule

    Wo. What was that we were saying about misogynist comments and sexist epithets and stereotype threat and the way racist and homophobic comments are uncool but misogyny is edgy and funny?

    Maybe there’s actually something in it?

    Crude insults, aggressive threats and unstinting ridicule:  it’s business as usual  in the world of website news commentary – at least for the women who regularly contribute to the national debate.

    The frequency of the violent online invective – or “trolling” – levelled at female commentators and columnists is now causing some of the best known names in journalism to hesitate before publishing their opinions. As a result, women writers across the political spectrum are joining to call for a stop to the largely anonymous name-calling.

    Largely anonymous, is it? Oh but surely that doesn’t matter. Surely that doesn’t make any difference, and anyway it’s a sacred right. Everybody has a sacred right to anonymously call non-anonymous women bitches and cunts. Obviously.

    The columnist Laurie Penny, who writes for the Guardian, New Statesman and Independent, has decided to reveal the amount of abuse she receives in an effort to persuade online discussion forums to police threatening comments more effectively.

    “I believe the time for silence is over,” Penny wrote on Friday, detailing a series of anonymous attacks on her appearance, her past and her family. The writer sees this new epidemic of misogynist abuse as tapping an old vein in British public life. Irrelevant personal attacks on women writers and thinkers go back at least to the late 18th century, she says. “The implication that a woman must be sexually appealing to be taken seriously as a thinker did not start with the internet: it’s a charge that has been used to shame and dismiss women’s ideas since long before Mary Wollstonecraft was called ‘a hyena in petticoats’. The net, however, makes it easier for boys in lonely bedrooms to become bullies.”

    …

    Linda Grant, who wrote a regular column for the Guardian in the late 1990s, has stopped writing online because of the unpleasant reaction. “I have given it up as a dead loss. In the past, the worst letters were filtered out before they reached me and crucially they were not anonymous,” said Grant.

    “What struck me forcibly about the new online world were the violence of three kinds of attitude: islamophobia, antisemitism, and misogyny. And it was the misogyny that surprised me the most. British national newspapers have done little, if anything, to protect their women writers from violent hate-speech.”

    The author and feminist writer Natasha Walter has also been deterred. “It’s one of the reasons why I’m less happy to do as much journalism as I used to, because I do feel really uncomfortable with the tone of the debate,” she said. “Under the cloak of anonymity people feel they can express anything, but I didn’t realise there were so many people reading my journalism who felt so strongly and personally antagonistic towards feminism and female writers.”

    Neither did I. I do now though – boy do I ever.

  • Archbish of York tells Lords about exorcism

    The Church of England has a Deliverance Ministry with a cleric on standby in each of its 43 diocese to cast out evil spirits if required to do so.

  • Helping patients by casting out their demons

    The NHS, working with the CofE, uses exorcism as an alternative form of treatment for mental health problems.

  • Vatican stunned by Irish embassy closure

    “After all we’ve done for them!” sobbed the pope.

  • Ireland closes embassy to Vatican

    This will save up to €700,000 per year.

  • The Vatican sees its diplomatic role as

    Can I be mean? Can I laugh a cruel laugh at the Vatican’s shock-horror that Ireland closed its “embassy” to the Vatican on account of how it was useless?

    Catholic Ireland‘s stunning decision to close its embassy to the Vatican is a huge blow to the Holy See’s prestige and may be followed by other countries which feel the missions are too expensive, diplomatic sources said on Friday.

    Too expensive and too worthless, being as how the Vatican isn’t actually a real state and therefore “embassies” to it are kind of pointless. It’s been very kind and theocratic and respectful for countries to send ambassadors all this time, but all the same the Vatican really does need to learn to stand on its own two feet in their pretty red shoes.

    Ireland will now be the only major country of ancient Catholic tradition
    without an embassy in the Vatican.

    “This is really bad for the Vatican because Ireland is the first big Catholic
    country to do this and because of what Catholicism means in Irish history,” said a Vatican diplomatic source who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    Yes and what does Catholicism mean in Irish history? Centuries of being priest-ridden; Magdalen laundries; industrial “schools” which were actually prisons for children; child rape; refusal to do anything about child rape.

    Dublin’s foreign ministry said the embassy was being closed because “it yields no economic return” and that relations would be continued with an ambassador in Dublin.

    The source said the Vatican was “extremely irritated” by the wording equating diplomatic missions with economic return, particularly as the Vatican sees its diplomatic role as promoting human values.

    Promoting human values. Human values.  What the fuck does the Vatican have to do with promoting human values – the whole point of the Catholic church is that the values are goddy values, not human values. What human values? Kidnapping single women who get pregnant and then keeping them in prison at hard labor for years, after taking their babies away from them? Kidnapping the children of poor women and keeping them in prison at hard labor for years? Telling poor women their babies died and selling those babies to people with more money, as nuns and priests did in Spain? Protecting child-raping priests and bullying their victims into silence? Ordering people not to use condoms for no earthly reason, in the full knowledge that many people will die as a result, leaving orphan children? Human values – how dare the Vatican “see its diplomatic role as promoting human values”?

  • Atheism for the World

    When we organize atheism to benefit atheists only, when we promote atheism among atheists and for the good of atheists, when atheist groups defend only the interests of atheists, we make the world poorer and rob humanity of an inestimable good. This is often the way I feel when I try to reflect on how atheism is being organised today. I come from a part of the world where atheism is not something many people will openly identify with. I come from a part of the world where many people are suffering and dying due to theism’s stranglehold on their lives. I come from a part of the world where there is so much need for atheism. I think it is the rest of the world, not only atheists, that needs atheism most. So atheists have the moral obligation to put this liberating and enlightening outlook at the world’s disposal, at humanity’s disposal. Atheists should strive to ensure that other humans enjoy the atheistic good, because there are many out there yearning for it. Many people are longing to experience the atheistic good or live in an atheistic space in their life time, particularly those languishing and suffocating due to religious exploitation and theistic tyranny.

    They are so many of them out there. Women, children, people with disabilities, the elderly, minority groups, victims of religious persecution and inquisition, you name them, who are longing to experience and enjoy the atheist land of promise even without being atheists themselves.

    No question, over the years, decades and centuries, atheists have been demonized and denounced. Atheists have been persecuted, executed and discriminated against. In fact atheists have been equated to fools. One of the authors of the bible says it is only the fool that says in his heart that there is no God. This verse is often quoted by christians to discredit atheism, and to make the atheistic outlook seem so terrible, so unfitting for human beings. But in spite of that, atheism has been growing from strength to strength. Atheistic groups and activists are emerging in different parts of the world including Africa.

    The enduring value and vitality of atheism has been vindicated, thereby making a fool of the biblical author.

    In many parts of the world atheists have managed to organised themselves. Organized atheism is waxing strong. Atheism is gradually being mainstreamed. Many christian believers are beginning to think that the author of the biblical psalm might have fooled them. Some believers in other sacred writers are beginning to question the so called revealed wisdom. In many societies, people are beginning to wake up from their theistic slumber. Many are rethinking their faith and voicing their doubts. Many people are beginning to realize the necessity of atheism. Many people are beginning to experience and embrace the liberating and enlightening promises of the atheistic outlook.

    Still there is a lot of work to be done. Many parts of the world are still in the dark, under religious darkness. Many parts of the world are still in the woods – the theistic woods. Humanity still has a long way to go before it can be said to be truly free from religious, superstitious and theistic bondage. So many parts of the world are still yearning for the freedom, hope, light and happiness that come with atheism, with an atheistic awakening. So the world and the rest of humanity are looking up to atheists to deliver this important good. Yes, many human beings around the world are looking up to atheists for support, salvation and solidarity, because they think it is only atheists who have the cognitive and moral courage to challenge and unmask the theistic tyrants, exploiters, enslavers and oppressors.

    They believe that it is only atheists that can deliver this secular good unadulterated. That is why I am appealing to our atheist friends to realize this fundamental need and take steps to fufill it. The time has come for us to change the way we do and organize atheism so that we can address this need, and render this service to humanity. Atheism is a global good and requires a global approach.

    Atheism should not just be organized for atheists alone. Atheism should be organized for the world. Atheists should look less inward and more outward so that we can extend atheistic moral excellence to others. We should devote more time and energy to reaching out and getting more people out there to experience and have a taste of atheistic solidarity.

    We, atheists, do not need atheism, do we? No, we don’t. We are already atheists. We embody the values, principles and sentiments of atheism.

    Atheists do not need atheism. The world needs it. Humanity needs it to grow develop and flourish. Humanity needs atheism for emancipation and enlightenment. So let’s strive to organize atheism and put the atheistic goods at the world’s disposal, at humanity’s disposal.

  • On the vilification of rail enthusiasts and what this tells us about contemporary society

    Rail enthusiasm (or ‘railfanning‘ as it is known in the US and some other countries) is a hobby with an international following which involves and incorporates a number of different interests in railways and trains. In the public imagination (at least in the UK), rail enthusiasts in general tend to be automatically seen as ‘trainspotters’, despite trainspotters actually being a minority in the rail enthusiast community.

    Trainspotters are people who go out and about seeking to ‘spot’ as many locomotives as possible. The point is not, as some assume, to simply ‘collect’ numbers as such, but really to enjoy watching trains in action and to attempt to see as many as possible. As noted above, trainspotting is really a minority interest in the overall rail enthusiast hobby, which has many aspects including railway photography and videography, researching railway history, and an interest in art and architecture related to railways, the mechanics and engineering of trains and railways, the politics of railways, railway preservation and heritage, the building of intricate models of trains and railway settings, and, of course, an enjoyment of rail travel. While some enthusiasts may have an active interest in all of the above, it is more common for enthusiasts to have their own specific areas of interest.

    To be a rail enthusiast is simply to have an interest in some or many things related to trains and railways. It’s a harmless hobby that gets people out of their houses, travelling to new places and socialising with other enthusiasts. Like many other hobbies, it is also a relatively ‘niche’ interest, with its own specialist language, slang, and so on, and of course it is not a hobby for everyone, just as many other hobbies such as following football don’t appeal to everyone. That said, it is nonetheless a perfectly ‘normal’hobby, not that you’d know it from the negative reputation it has gained, particularly in the UK. Indeed, this reputation is so bad that many enthusiasts are hesitant about telling non-enthusiast friends and colleagues about their hobby for fear of enduring mockery or even bullying.

    Until relatively recently, having an interest in railways was seen as a perfectly ordinary thing, and in previous decades trainspotting was a mainstream hobby, particularly enjoyed by children and young people. Many children today continue to love trains, and Thomas the Tank Engine days at heritage railways provide a major revenue stream for many enthusiast-run preserved lines. While this is generally seen as unremarkable, for some reason if someone continues to have an active interest in trains and railways through adolescence and into adulthood they are suddenly seen as ‘odd’, ‘weird’, ‘geeky’, and so on. In the UK at least, this can be traced back to the early ’90s, when a media image of rail enthusiasts developed in which they were presented as ‘a bunch of geeky losers, with no lives, whom society has marked as outcasts and lepers, worthy only of contempt and ridicule’.

    Arguably a key contributory factor in the transformation of rail enthusiasm into a hobby with a social stigma was the way in which in which a number of well-known British comedians decided to incorporate mockery of trainspotters into their routines. The most egregious example of this attack on rail enthusiasts was the ‘trainspotters‘ sketches on the popular Harry Enfield and Chums BBC TV series. These sketches took some of the worst stereotypes associated with trainspotters, exaggerated their features, and presented an archetype of the rail enthusiast as an ugly, unfashionable, dirty, dreary oddball with no social skills and an obsessive personality. Rail enthusiasts were presented as ‘weird‘, abnormal, and quite possibly suffering from some kind of personality disorder.

    These sketches were not merely an example of observational humour or gentle teasing, but were arguably designed to encourage viewers to revel in mocking and ridiculing trainspotters and, by extension, rail enthusiasts in general. The underlying message was that here we have people who are not ‘normal’ and are worthy of ‘normal people’s’contempt, and the image of trainspotters presented in the programmes has stuck firmly in many people’s imaginations. A BBC article, illustrated with a Harry Enfield and Chums image, begins:‘To many people, train-spotters are a joke’. This is no great surprise, and the BBC was actually instrumental in bringing this about, although it was far from alone in doing this.

    Some examples of ‘definitions’ of trainspotters found online are based precisely on the image of enthusiasts seen on Harry Enfield and Chums. For example, here is an everything2 definition:

    Incredibly sad people … Many trainspotters fall firmly into the “nerd” catagory [sic] and there are more of them than anyone would like to believe. Should you ever decide to go trainspotter-spotting, look out for anoraks and parka jackets, National Health Spectacles, thermos flasks, packed lunches and someone whose mother dresses him funny.

    The creator of a Facebook group entitled ‘sad trainspotters , Who need to get-a-life’ writes:

    sad losers who sit on station platforms for hours on end day after day.you know the ones with a woolly hat on, a flask,happy shopper bag, twix bars, fold up seats, packed lunch by mommy, wax jacket, massive jumbo note pad, numerous cameras and binoculars, dictating machines. sandles?, spotting books

    And an Urban Dictionary entryon trainspotters states:

    Things such as trainspotting and stamp collecting have that age old ‘shit hobby’ cliche tagged onto them, with the stereotypical fanbase of anorak and NHS spec wearing, flask and clipboard wielding spod.

    The ’90s attacks on trainspotters by ‘comedians’ arguably constituted the mainstream stigmatisation of a minority ‘outgroup’by a majority ‘ingroup’, and their effects continue to be felt today. The website of the Youth Rail Enthusiasts Association includes a page on bullying which states:

    Most bullies pick on something different about their victim, and for most people at the YREA this will be because they like trains. You have got to remember there is nothing wrong with liking trains and doing what you do and nobody has the right to make you think otherwise, but its something which some bullies might pick up on.

    Of course, in order for this bullying to be successful, there has to already be a social stigma surrounding an interest in trains and railways. An attempt to bully someone for being a football fan, for example, would get nowhere.

    We supposedly live in a liberal society which rejects bigotry and embraces a ‘live and let live’ philosophy. However, one cannot help but question what kind of a society this actually is when young people have to be warned of the likelihood of facing bullying simply for having a hobby. Perhaps, seemingly ironically, it may well actually be the growth of an institutionally mandated culture of tolerance and opposition to bigotry that has led to this phenomenon, or allowed it to emerge.

    Human history contains numerous examples of minority groups and individuals being used as scapegoats, hate targets, and objects of ridicule. However, today, many of these outlets have been taken away. People can no longer freely bully, harass, and demean others based on things such as ethnicity and religious belief. Yet, it seems that this desire to bully and ostracise may well have roots in our evolutionary past and that the capacity to hate may be an essential component of what it is to be human.

    Human beings enjoy being members of ingroups (of which mainstream society is the ultimate ingroup), they generally enjoy ‘fitting in’and a degree of conformity, and the flipside of this can be the rejection of non-ingroup members and even hatred of them. It is amazing how encouraging hatred of groups or individuals can act as a social glue that binds an ingroup together (Hitler, for example, didn’t simply promote a Germanic identity but did this througha hate campaign against the Jewish people). Indeed, ingroup hatred of outgroups can arguably lead to ingroup members feeling at home, comfortable, included, and ‘right’. Stigmatisation, as Robert Kurzban and Mark R. Leary note, is consensual, and therefore communal, and ‘[n]ot only do the members of a particular group mostly agree regarding who is and is not stigmatized, but they can typically articulate this shared belief’.

    In an age in which the traditional forms of ingroup hatred of outgroups (based on tribalism, race, nationality, religion, and so on) are no longer socially acceptable on a wide scale, are people seeking new outlets (albeit on a lower level) for the same old hatreds? In the case of the vilification of rail enthusiasts this is arguably the case, and other groups also find themselves in a similar position of being victims of socially tolerated kinds of bigotry, as witness the insults, bullying, and contempt experienced by ginger-haired peoplei n the UK.

    The contempt expressed towards rail enthusiasts cannot be solely explained via an ingroup/outgroup model, as there are a number of minority interest groups who do not experience the same kind of bigotry, but there does seem, overall, to be a growing tendency to view traditional hobbies and pastimes in a negative light, and arguably this can be closely linked to the growth of a consumer culture.

    In 2010, research commissioned by the UK Army Cadets organisation made some revealing discoveries:

    Hobbies such as stamp collecting, train spotting and model making are dying out, a study has revealed.

    Researchers found the quintessential British pastimes are now considered ‘boring’or ‘for anoraks’.

    Other hobbies which modern kids turn their noses up at include collecting marbles, completing jigsaws and constructing train sets.

    Instead youngsters now count ‘watching television’,‘playing computer games’ or ‘Facebooking’, as their ‘hobby’.

    […]

    Half of kids said they found old hobbies are ‘boring’or just ‘weird’.

    Instead eight in ten youngsters count watching television as their main interest, while two thirds play computer games and 58 per cent log onto Facebook.

    The notion that traditional hobbies are ‘boring’, whereas simply sitting in front of a television set apparently is not, is a telling one. We live in an era in which when it comes to how we use our free time there has been a shift from the notion of ‘making your own fun’ to that of ‘entertainment’ as a commodity that comes ready-made. Arguably, society in general is moving more and more towards a culture of superficiality and instant gratification. Increasingly, anything that takes time, effort, and patience is seen as ‘boring’ and outdated. Interests that involve or lead to reading and research are seen as ‘geeky’, and it is in this context that people who do have hobbies and interests are marginalised as ‘weird’.

    ‘Dumbing down’ is not merely a right-wing buzz term, as Western society in general does seem to be moving steadily in an anti-intellectual direction (not least in politics). Respect for knowledge, learning, and intellectual pursuits has been rejected in favour of ‘entertainment’. The cultural icons of our age are ‘celebrities’ who appear on‘reality TV’ shows. Watching television is classed as a ‘hobby’.Children sit inside playing online computer games rather than playing traditional games in the fresh air. Bookshops try to keep afloat by filling their window displays with cut-price celebrity autobiographies. The most popular articles on the websites even of serious newspapers are often trivial, bizarre, or related to celebrities. Obsessively updating one’s Facebook status or‘Tweeting’ the day away is seen as normal, while having real interests makes you an ‘anorak‘(a term of abuse derived from the raincoats worn by rail enthusiasts when practising their hobby in inclement weather).

    Many people seem confused by, perhaps even suspicious of, those who have hobbies and interests that revolve around something that cannot be bought or doesn’t come with a corporate stamp. Rail enthusiasm isn’t a straight-off-the-shelf hobby – you can’t simply throw money at someone or some company and find yourself instantly ‘entertained’. When people move from defining themselves by their values and their interests to instead defining themselves by the products they own and the ‘entertainment’ they fill their free time with, there is little space for an understanding of hobbies and interests, or of those who engage in them.

    The conclusion I have reached regarding the vilification of rail enthusiasts is that it represents the meeting of two of the worst aspects of our society: the still-present desire to hate and persecute those who do not ‘fit in’ to mainstream culture, and the descent of that mainstream culture itself into a state of mindless consumerism and anti-intellectualism. What this says about our society is that there is still a lot of work to be done. If people now define themselves as consumers who pay to be‘entertained’, rather than thinking for themselves and making use of their potential for creativity, and if those same people harbour a barely sublimated hatred for anyone who dares to think differently, quite how free and liberal a society we really live in is surely called into question.

  • Secular groups on religious campuses

    Jesse Galef has heard from Baylor students who said they felt threatened with expulsion because of their lack of faith.