Days before the launch of his new memoir (An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist), the writer Richard Dawkins, made statements that the least are surprising (and then I will continue with my assessment of this) since in his opinion some of the recent child abuse scandals have been exaggerated. Apparently Mr. Dawkins refers to the sexual abuse news that points to the Catholic Church in Ireland (and uncovered for a few years), and I am very shocked because such claims come from an atheist.
Because this English born in Africa in 1941, is one of the references of world atheism, as well as a biologist. And now you can say that Many child protection agencies have been put against, by stating that sexual abuse (consisting of touching - for example - what he calls soft pedophilia) to children cannot be compared with the rape of minors. He is also convinced that it is not possible to condemn those who have perpetrated abuses at other times, since social norms could have been others. And to argue all this, he tells his own experience at age 11 with a Salisbury boarding school teacher, who touched his genitals (him and other classmates).
Mr. Dawkins is convinced that he was not traumatized, but of course, this is a lot to say because in most cases a subsequent personal work (in addition to the acceptance of the environment) is needed to overcome the child abuse of which many children of that time, and today, have been victims . Also taking into account that the problems sometimes come from a trauma that is difficult to identify because the child has blocked the experience by preventing the memory (this is a protection mechanism).
Believe this scientist (influenced by Darwin) and theorist, who probably at the time in which he was a student, the kids who may have been victims of these practices, would be traumatized by other practices of Catholic institutions, such as making the Children in hell, for example. And in my opinion this man doesn't find out much, because No child is left indifferent to an adult abusing their position and authority, put your hand forcibly anywhere; In addition to that today we must all position ourselves to sensitize, prevent and denounce, a practice that still occurs (according to the data) in one in five children.
So if what this man proposes is that we give him the reason defining what degrees of sexual abuse are more serious, he is very wrong, since I believe that all fathers and mothers today are clear that we must show zero tolerance for any sexual act by imposition (and I understand that they always are because it is something decided only by one of the actors) from an adult to a child. And much less accept that these 'minor' sexual abuse (as he calls them) are part of the growth of the person, as if it were something natural.
And yes, in my opinion, violence presented in any form against children must be condemned, although 100 years have passed, because otherwise we are not learning anything, and as a society we must evolve. Otherwise we send a message of 'nothing happens', and this only manages to perpetuate
And finally to clarify, that when Richard Dawkins speaks of soft pedophilia, he must refer to pedophilia, that is, he does not use language well either. Since, as soon as sexual abuse is perpetrated against a child, we no longer talk about a sexual attraction towards children, but about take action through acts (violent in any case) that constitute in themselves a crime.
