Problem-posing education does not and cannot serve the interests of the oppressor. No oppressive order could permit the oppressed to begin to question: Why?
Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in “changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them”; for the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated.
Implicit in the banking concept [of education] is the assumption of a dichotomy between human beings and the world: a person is merely in the world, not with the world or with others…In this view, the person is not a conscious being (corpo consciente); he or she is rather the possessor of a consciousness: an empty “mind” passively open to the reception of deposits of reality from the world outside.
https://envs.ucsc.edu/internships/internship-readings/freire-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed.pdf
What do you mean when you say it is ‘reactionary’? Most traditional ideologies are very pro-natalist
hyper-natalist, even. Like the quiverfull freaks or whatever elon musk is doing.
They don’t believe children are people, they believe they are property. Consider the implications of this relationship. Children exist to provide value to the parent, their owner, and any expression of independent personhood, agency, threatens that relationship and it’s intrinsic power imbalance.
Consider that the issue here is not whether you are pro-having-children or anti-having-children, but whether or not we view actually existing children as human beings.