Maybe it is because I am of the generation whose parents decided the emotional nurturing of their children was the most important aspect of child rearing. Maybe it's because I'm an atheist and want some element of myself to live on.
I've looked at radical feminism, social justice, and atheism for the last couple of years. Back in university, while studying forensic psychology, I wrote a paper on sexual assault rates in Canada and the United States. I looked at dozens of sources and attempted to wade through the large number of disparate claims regarding the rates of victimization, the likelihood of victimization through one's life, reporting rates, and so forth. It was not an easy task. Now, at the time, I was also openly debating individuals who were willing on the topic of theism. It is vital to note that theism is a mix of cultural practices mixed with dogmatism towards the reason behind those practices, all tied to a deity or deities. I was uncouth at that age and was rather rude on occasion in my attempts to dispel belief in a god and the dogmatism that goes along with such a belief.
The reason I tie these two together is to emphasize the role of dogmatism. Dogmatism is a central theme in the failure of reason. It is believing what you could reason out to be not true. It stands blindly in the face of facts, logic, and truths in order to preserve an idea or belief. This is not limited to theistic beliefs: any idea or belief can be challenged and the obstinate refusal to listen or allow yourself to reason on the objections made is dogmatic belief. Social justice is included in this: the wage gap, the rape hysteria, the subjugation of women in western culture, and the patriarchy are all examples of ideas which have been challenged but ignored by those whose who hold dearly to the belief in those ideas and systems.
No one is a perfect reasoning machine. We all have some failure of understanding either because of ignorance or stubbornness. Some of us hold onto a dogmatic belief. For me, it's that the Canucks will eventually win the Stanley Cup. Both unfortunately and fortunately we do not hold our beliefs to ourselves. Sharing ideas improves us by the assessments, additions, confirmations, and rejections by others. This works well for those who have developed the reasoning skills to discuss the matters around complex topics, such as social norms. Children do not possess these skills, but it is still important to expose them to ideas. It has been said, in regards to religion, that exposure to one is indoctrination but exposure to many is inoculation. The same can be said about any other meta-set of ideas. Feminism, for example, can be spoken about along with conservatism, Islamic expectations of women in society, and humanist tenants.
This brings me to the whole purpose of this post. Children are especially exposed to new ideas. Most young (i.e., ages 4 through 7) children can understand simple ideas but lack the reasoning skills to understand complex ideas or how to evaluate ideas for their merits. This is known to our society and is the impetus behind why we see many religious organizations with daycare programs, baptisms, and education programs. Social justice also wants to get their ideas in early, too.
So I introduce:
Wilkinson's Law: as an ideology reaches dogmatic adherence, the likelihood of the ideology to target children approaches 1.
This applies not only to fundamental religious beliefs but to internet social justice, political parties, and even capitalistic marketing. As far as I have seen, there was no law coined in this manner. If there is, I will scrap this and give credit to the individual who created the articulated law. Go forth and use this, calling attention to those who look not to spread knowledge and understanding, but to those who want to spread poisonous ideologies to children.
@nrokchi
No comments:
Post a Comment