We need a MAPs by country section

[HumanBeing]

We should add a "MAPs by country" section on Mu (just like they have in MAP Rights Forum) so people willing to meet each other or do local activism could communicate easyly.

I already did a post on such section on MRF but there's less activity there than here and we should get advantage of that and promote local community

[OnionPetal]

This could be an OpSec issue for people who don't want to reveal location data. Even more so given that there is no private messaging feature on this site, and any plans for 'local' activism would be viewable to anyone who makes an account here.

I personally think that, in most cases, IRL activism is very dangerous for MAPs, given the risks and consequences of being 'outed.' Outed MAPs may lose their jobs, their ability to support themselves, and could lose access to the children in their lives. That is a high price when (I believe) more effective activism can be planned and implemented online, without compromising anonymity to such an extent.

A lot of people seem to still have this vision that the best form of activism involves people marching in circles holding signs whilst chanting slogans, and hoping to get favourable press coverage printed in the evening newspaper. But that cliche scene is from another time. It is not the 1970s anymore. We live in a digital world. We have access to all of our friends and information online. Some of the biggest social movements of the last two decades were popularised entirely in online spaces. I'm not saying that local activism has no place anymore. But local activism for MAPs these days comes with unique, high-level personal risks, even with the most innocuous of meet-ups. Thus, local activism should probably not be proiritised over achieving successful messaging and strategies in online spaces first, and of course, ensuring the safety of all involved.

[Not Forever]

It is not the 1970s anymore. We live in a digital world. We have access to all of our friends and information online.

I partly agree with your argument, but in my view the importance that traditional media still have is underestimated—not only in reaching the general public but also the institutions themselves. There have been cases of online scandals that only prompted a response from companies once they made it onto the TV news. Traditional media still carry a certain prestige, even though they are followed less and less by the population.

However, street activism isn’t the only way to reach these media outlets; it’s just that the alternatives are far more demanding. It’s about trying to take on professional roles that are useful in that regard: entering traditional journalism, or at least working in sectors that are important or relevant to the issue. For example, I don’t remember who (I apologize, I’m terrible with names), but a user on this site works in a school. In my opinion, that’s extremely valuable, because it can bring about internal changes by introducing certain perspectives or applying subtle pressure that favors particular narratives in the most critical places.

To give an example, something similar was done within the feminist movement. During a certain historical period (at least where I live), there was politically and ideologically motivated encouragement from women urging other women to pursue careers such as medicine and other professions that were traditionally considered masculine.

[OnionPetal]

[...] Traditional media still carry a certain prestige, even though they are followed less and less by the population. [...]

Yeah, you're right that a lot of people still watch legacy media, like TV news. Many even still view it as more 'authoritative' and 'trustworthy' . But I will say that the TV industry is extremely 'controlled,' either by increasingly concentrated groups of conglomerated media companies, or by the governments who subsidise this very expensive medium. I.e., TV is not a very 'independent' industry these days, and there is a lot of gatekeeping around what gets broadcast, and the narrative around each issue. It has its place in activism, but as you indicated, these days it usually follows a while after the internet media has picked up so much traction that the given topic is no longer avoidable.

[...] [The education system] can bring about internal changes by introducing certain perspectives or applying subtle pressure that favors particular narratives in the most critical places.

To give an example, something similar was done within the feminist movement. During a certain historical period (at least where I live), there was politically and ideologically motivated encouragement from women urging other women to pursue careers such as medicine and other professions that were traditionally considered masculine.

Yeah, in my country they still do this. One of the local primary schools even has an after-school STEM club for girls, to encourage them into good upper-middle class career fields. I can only imagine the outrage if there were a STEM club for boys only. I guess the feminists assume that all boys are doctors, coders, and engineers by default, even if they grow up in deprived families. The girl-power propaganda that totally ignores boys' needs for aspirational growth really does my head in. Why do so many people willingly go along with this? Largely the educational system that conditioned people to think in a certain way, starting with early childhood.

So yeah, I agree education has been (and is) a powerful tool for activism and effecting social change. It can obviously be used for good or evil. Ideally, children would not be 'indoctrinated.' They should be taught how to think, and not what to think. But it's totally fair for instructors to ask them to think critically and independently about certain topics where people have been treated unfairly or with double standards, including the realms of orientation, prejudice, and law