Do you want to have kids?

[hugs]

... my biggest worry is how much authority the government would exert over their lives, much like what Justincredible brought up. This is especially true of how they handle schooling. I am personally have trepidation about putting my hypothetical kids though public school as it is now, (Dare I rather say public indoctrination) but if I refuse to cooperate with that system the government would just throw me in prison, steal away my kids, and force them to do it anyway. Private schools are not any better. I'd lean much more towards homeschooling, but I'm not sure how much control the government exerts over that.

Western governments have way too much power over people's personal lives, and especially the children. It's probably why they're so invested in maintaining the "innocent child" narrative.

You may not know it, but you've hit the nail on the head. I'm currently reading through The Underground History of American Public Education by John Taylor Gatto, and it's an elucidating read. Among its many insights is the revelation that, as you've pointed out, the public education system was developed almost exclusively for the purpose of controlling working-class people. It's an ingenious and insidious way of indoctrinating young people into a lifetime of service to the owner-class. To briefly illustrate this, I offer a not-so-fun fact from the book: literacy rates, at least in America, have decreased since the implementation of the public education system. This is neither a mistake nor evidence of a broken system that needs fixing; this is by design. The point is to strip young people of their power and to extend childhood well into early adulthood. The "innocent child" narrative is just one piece of this puzzle, a mere facet of youthism, ageism directed at young people, an institutionalized form of prejudice that grants the government increasing control over our lives from birth. Although I'm only about halfway through the book at the moment, I've already come to view it as required reading for maps, youth-rights activists, and anyone else who genuinely cares about young people. I can't recommend it enough.

I also recommend that maps research alternative methods for raising - and especially educating - their own children. Homeschooling is great, but I think you all should also look into unschooling, in particular. What I've learned is that the education system, better described by Gatto as a "forced schooling" system, is primarily designed to miseducate children, rather than to educate them. I think, for our community, unschooling could be a great way to circumvent that system and raise free-thinkers.

For my last point, I want to expand on "community" a bit. I've said this before, but it seems to me that many of the issues faced by maps and minors could be solved - or at least alleviated - by robust local communities. Homeschooling or unschooling your child on your own is a serious challenge, but imagine having a local community of other map parents who could support you. Your child also wouldn't be alone because they'd have a community of other kids just like them. And the benefits don't have to end there. Before compulsory education became commonplace, children would voluntarily enroll at small local schoolhouses, and many kids would get hands-on experience by starting apprenticeships at local businesses from an early age. Theoretically, a local community of maps could revive these practices. They could open their own small private school, owned and operated by the community, and maps who own local small businesses could offer apprenticeships to help the minors in the community learn valuable skills. By networking with the maps around us, we could build a community that respects and nurtures children, circumventing the status quo that instead indoctrinates and abuses them.

I had a perfectly average childhood, and I absolutely hated it. Until very recently, I loathed the idea of bringing new life into the world, just for them to experience the horrors of childhood that seemingly all of us must endure. But when I considered the possibility of a community, a real community where people meet face-to-face, where people get to know one another deeply and personally, where people support each other like family, I realized that I'd love to be a father. I would love to raise a child of my own in a community where they could be loved and respected as a human being equal to all others. So I'm gonna try my best to build a community just like that. I think we all should.

[PorcelainLark]

To briefly illustrate this, I offer a not-so-fun fact from the book: literacy rates, at least in America, have decreased since the implementation of the public education system.

That sounds unlikely. What source did he provide for that claim?

[hugs]

That sounds unlikely. What source did he provide for that claim?

Here's the full excerpt from the book, with the corresponding footnote:

Intellectual Espionage

At the start of WWII millions of men showed up at registration offices to take low-level academic tests before being inducted.1 The years of maximum mobilization were 1942 to 1944; the fighting force had been mostly schooled in the 1930s, both those inducted and those turned away. Of the 18 million men were tested, 17,280,000 of them were judged to have the minimum competence in reading required to be a soldier, a 96 percent literacy rate. Although this was a 2 percent fall-off from the 98 percent rate among voluntary military applicants ten years earlier, the dip was so small it didn't worry anybody.

WWII was over in 1945. Six years later another war began in Korea. Several million men were tested for military service but this time 600,000 were rejected. Literacy in the draft pool had dropped to 81 percent, even though all that was needed to classify a soldier as literate was fourth-grade reading proficiency. In the few short years from the beginning of WWII to Korea, a terrifying problem of adult illiteracy had appeared. The Korean War group received most of its schooling in the 1940s, and it had more years in school with more professionally trained personnel and more scientifically selected textbooks than the WWII men, yet it could not read, write, count, speak, or think as well as the earlier, less-schooled contingent.

A third American war began in the mid-1960s. By its end in 1973 the number of men found noninductible by reason of inability to read safety instructions, interpret road signs, decipher orders, and so on — in other words, the number found illiterate — had reached 27 percent of the total pool. Vietnam-era young men had been schooled in the 1950s and the 1960s — much better schooled than either of the two earlier groups — but the 4 percent illiteracy of 1941 which had transmuted into the 19 percent illiteracy of 1952 had now had grown into the 27 percent illiteracy of 1970. Not only had the fraction of competent readers dropped to 73 percent but a substantial chunk of even those were only barely adequate; they could not keep abreast of developments by reading a newspaper, they could not read for pleasure, they could not sustain a thought or an argument, they could not write well enough to manage their own affairs without assistance.

Consider how much more compelling this steady progression of intellectual blindness is when we track it through army admissions tests rather than college admissions scores and standardized reading tests, which inflate apparent proficiency by frequently changing the way the tests are scored.

Looking back, abundant data exist from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent wherever such a thing mattered. According to the Connecticut census of 1840, only one citizen out of every 579 was illiterate and you probably don't want to know, not really, what people in those days considered literate; it's too embarrassing. Popular novels of the period give a clue: Last of the Mohicans, published in 1826, sold so well that a contemporary equivalent would have to move 10 million copies to match it. If you pick up an uncut version you find yourself in a dense thicket of philosophy, history, culture, manners, politics, geography, analysis of human motives and actions, all conveyed in data-rich periodic sentences so formidable only a determined and well-educated reader can handle it nowadays. Yet in 1818 we were a small-farm nation without colleges or universities to speak of. Could those simple folk have had more complex minds than our own?

By 1940, the literacy figure for all states stood at 96 percent for whites, 80 percent for blacks. Notice that for all the disadvantages blacks labored under, four of five were nevertheless literate. Six decades later, at the end of the twentieth century, the National Adult Literacy Survey and the National Assessment of Educational Progress say 40 percent of blacks and 17 percent of whites can't read at all. Put another way, black illiteracy doubled, white illiteracy quadrupled. Before you think of anything else in regard to these numbers, think of this: we spend three to four times as much real money on schooling as we did sixty years ago, but sixty years ago virtually everyone, black or white, could read.

...

1 The discussion here is based on Regna Lee Wood's work as printed in Chester Finn and Diane Ravitch's Network News and Views (and reprinted many other places). Together with other statistical indictments, from the National Adult Literacy Survey, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and a host of other credible sources, it provides chilling evidence of the disastrous turn in reading methodology. But in a larger sense the author urges every reader to trust personal judgment over "numerical" evidence, whatever the source. During the writer's 30-year classroom experience, the decline in student ability to comprehend difficult text was marked, while the ability to extract and parrot "information" in the form of "facts" was much less affected. This is a product of deliberate pedagogy, to what end is the burden of my essay.

[PorcelainLark]

My three objections would be:

1. It isn't always clear when the author is talking about basic versus functional illiteracy. I'll admit people are reading less books, but given how much of the world is mediated through writing, I don't think basic literacy is in decline.

2. I'm skeptical that public education is the primary cause of the decline in functional literacy, considering other potential factors like first television and later the internet creating more distractions .

3. This isn't good citation on the part of the author:

The discussion here is based on Regna Lee Wood's work as printed in Chester Finn and Diane Ravitch's Network News and Views (and reprinted many other places). Together with other statistical indictments, from the National Adult Literacy Survey, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and a host of other credible sources, it provides chilling evidence of the disastrous turn in reading methodology.

[Outis]

I already have kids.

When my wife was first pregnant and I learned that we were having a daughter I was genuinely excited and afraid. I'm a map, how would I be around my daughter? Well I didn't need to worry because when she was born I cried for joy and promised to protect her as a dad and throughout her life I've only had fatherly feelings towards her, and the same for my other kids. The only difference being a pedophile had on me as a parent is that I was much more inclined to listen to my kids and empathise with them. I know this because my kids have said they find it easier to talk to me than their mother and my wife knows this and will often ask me to talk to them because she can't understand why they do what I ask but not what she demands.

Well, there's no secret really, I just talk to them respectfully and listen to them, that's it. I don't order them to do things, I explain to them why it's a good idea to do them and I listen to why they might disagree and we talk through it and usually they end up doing it as their own decision, or we'll find a better solution between us. I tell my wife to look at them as people, talk to them as you would your work colleagues. In the office you need to get things done, need to run a lean operation, but you do that as a team, respectfully, going in the same direction. The instant you become the tirant you lose them.

And it isn't just my wife, I've had other parents ask me to talk to their kids to find out what's bothering them or what they think about something. I don't think you have to be a map to respect kids and empathise with kids, but I think it helps. The ironic thing is that people see my ability to respect and talk to kids as a very positive thing, but if they knew I was a map then suddenly it would be a bad thing. Same positive result, different label.

I just think maps often make the best parents. People with short tempers, no empathy for others, abusive personalities, of any sexuality, make the crappier parents.

[RoosterDance]

I had a perfectly average childhood, and I absolutely hated it. Until very recently, I loathed the idea of bringing new life into the world, just for them to experience the horrors of childhood that seemingly all of us must endure. But when I considered the possibility of a community, a real community where people meet face-to-face, where people get to know one another deeply and personally, where people support each other like family, I realized that I'd love to be a father. I would love to raise a child of my own in a community where they could be loved and respected as a human being equal to all others. So I'm gonna try my best to build a community just like that. I think we all should.

I have also been dreaming of such a community. It helps that I've also partially read that same book.

However, I fear if we tried nowadays it could end up like these guys.

There's also the fact that communities in general have been greatly eroded over the years. I blame things like the media sowing constant fear and division. This has overall decreased our reliance on each other, and replaced it with reliance on the government. Another obstacle to overcome.

[hugs]

My three objections would be:

1. It isn't always clear when the author is talking about basic versus functional illiteracy. I'll admit people are reading less books, but given how much of the world is mediated through writing, I don't think basic literacy is in decline.

2. I'm skeptical that public education is the primary cause of the decline in functional literacy, considering other potential factors like first television and later the internet creating more distractions .

3. This isn't good citation on the part of the author:

The discussion here is based on Regna Lee Wood's work as printed in Chester Finn and Diane Ravitch's Network News and Views (and reprinted many other places). Together with other statistical indictments, from the National Adult Literacy Survey, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and a host of other credible sources, it provides chilling evidence of the disastrous turn in reading methodology.

These are valid objections, and I appreciate your response. After digging into it myself, I've found that it's very unlikely that either basic or functional literacy have decreased. It seems that Gatto is comparing multiple different sources that simply aren't compatible since they aren't standardized. Measuring literacy rates is a lot messier than I had imagined, and it's even harder to compare them over time. It also looks like Gatto is oversimplifying the issue by disregarding any potential confounding variables and ascribing everything to the education system - which, I admit, is a mistake he makes more than once in the book. With that said, there are still numerous pieces of evidence throughout the book that support the conclusion that the education system was designed with the intention of miseducating young people. Most damning are the letters between the builders of that system where they admit such intentions in their own writing.

My apologies for getting this wrong, and again I thank you for pressing me on this. I got to learn something new today.

[hugs]

I have also been dreaming of such a community. It helps that I've also partially read that same book.

However, I fear if we tried nowadays it could end up like these guys.

There's also the fact that communities in general have been greatly eroded over the years. I blame things like the media sowing constant fear and division. This has overall decreased our reliance on each other, and replaced it with reliance on the government. Another obstacle to overcome.

I understand your concerns, but I think we ought to put such fears behind us. I maintain that if a child reports you for physical and psychological abuse, then you've probably done something wrong, even if you think the relationship was consensual. I think a community that genuinely treats minors with love and respect and that gives them the freedom to make their own decisions will be extremely unlikely to end up on the wrong side of law enforcement, even if many maps and minors within that community are romantically involved. No one involved would report anything because they wouldn't see any wrongdoing to report. Even if a decent community member were unfairly charged with something, who would testify against them? The maps and minors within that community would instead protect them. Police have gotten good at intimidating minors to get them to testify against their own map lovers, but that would be a lot more challenging for them if that minor had a community that would support them. Of course, we will face many obstacles when building these communities, but that's all the more reason to start building them now rather than later. Let us take risks and make mistakes so the next generation of maps can learn from them. It all stars with just getting to know the maps around you. You'll have to get creative when figuring out just how to do that, though.

[PorcelainLark]

These are valid objections, and I appreciate your response. After digging into it myself, I've found that it's very unlikely that either basic or functional literacy have decreased. It seems that Gatto is comparing multiple different sources that simply aren't compatible since they aren't standardized. Measuring literacy rates is a lot messier than I had imagined, and it's even harder to compare them over time. It also looks like Gatto is oversimplifying the issue by disregarding any potential confounding variables and ascribing everything to the education system - which, I admit, is a mistake he makes more than once in the book. With that said, there are still numerous pieces of evidence throughout the book that support the conclusion that the education system was designed with the intention of miseducating young people. Most damning are the letters between the builders of that system where they admit such intentions in their own writing.

My apologies for getting this wrong, and again I thank you for pressing me on this. I got to learn something new today.

Fair enough. For the record, I don't think public education is perfect by any means. It's just that personal experience makes me cautious about these things.

While we're on the subject, what do you think about Montessori education? It sounds like a great idea to me, but I don't have any direct experience with it.

[CynicalOptimist]

I want to have children, and I believe that MAPs who are financially able to provide for kids should consider becoming parents. Many BLs I’ve spoken with want children but don’t have any, which is unfortunate. Nowadays, surrogacy is an option—even if you don’t want to get married, you can still reproduce through surrogacy, just like many gay men do.

If MAPs were to have more children on average than the general population, this could, over time, lead to MAPs gaining acceptance by society. We know that children adopt their parents’ socio-political views about 70% of the time. Therefore, if parents hold pro-MAP political views, most of their children are likely to adopt those views as well, even if they're not MAPs themselves. With each generation, the number of people sympathetic to MAP would gradually increase, eventually reaching a critical mass.

Research shows that 10% is the critical tipping point for a minority opinion to trigger widespread social change. This means it wouldn't even be necessary to wait until MAPs and allies make up the majority of the population for acceptance to be achieved.

Scientists have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion.

Given that birth rates among the general population are currently so low, it may not be difficult for MAPs to "outbreed" regular people through higher birth rates. Perhaps this is already happening.