Hi Charissa.
If you don't see "education" as a brainwashing, then perhaps you can write an essay explaining how useful it is (to someone) that everyone in a massive population be instructed to think the same and be filled with the same selective facts and perspective - and how that differs from what is typically regarded "brainwashing". But if you know how Copernicus was excommunicated for his disobedient teaching, or if you can imagine children being taught something false or something you perceive as dangerous, then perhaps the danger of regimented instruction need not be further explained.
A business (or government) will provide healthcare, and/or education, and/or U.B.I. because it benefits them, not because they are generous and caring and want to be nice to employees or citizens. Getting people "educated" (for one thing) allows them to work in furtherance of Technology's progress (toward its autonomy) and in growing The Economy. Public education is important if you care to grow The Economy and progress Technology to the point where it rules your world, but it is not at all important for humans living in Nature.
The Cree and the Delaware people (for examples) were deeply knowledgeable, but they lacked education as you mean it; did they need schooling or instruction on maths or Science or anything else? Hardly. They lived just fine being ignorant of all the things that schooling would deliver (or impose). And as human animals free and capable of living in the natural world, they were entirely useless to the technological system and the people benefiting from it. Simply by living in the world, and knowing Nature, they were fully formed to live well, forever. But the promise of the civilization process which was forced upon them was that they would be taught how to farm and how to read and how to work - that's the freedom you speak of enhancing for women everywhere, the "freedom" to go get a job and have a boss, to not survive as an independent person but to earn a paycheck by sacrificing freedom and time in service to some employer or market forces. It's degrading what has become of us, how we must offer ourselves in service to the market or the state, because Nature has been pushed aside. Humans now live separated from Nature, full of PhDs and plenty of facts and Science, but truly ignorant and incapable of actually living, needing to be "educated" so that they can become employed and labor for someone who will pay them, so that they can then use those funds earned to pay others who provide food, and to pay others in order to have shelter. What is there to defend in this arrangement? This is a bizarre use rewriting the meaning of the word and concept that is "freedom".
Moreover, women getting educated doesn't actually turn most women away from desiring motherhood, it seems only to delay this innate desire, so that rather than have children sometime relatively soon after beginning menses, as most animals do, the civilized woman waits until about 30, or 35, or 40, and then needs more technological aid to conceive, has more risks with pregnancy, and is then a hypervigilant and overprotective parent. I can't see why anyone would regard this as a great victory for our species, but I can see how it benefits the advancement of Technology against Nature.
What needs to happen is not merely to make some soft interventions (against human nature) which deter parenthood for a few decades, but instead to hasten the termination of techno-industrial society. The Delaware and the Cree and the Apache and the Algonquin never wanted it, they never embraced the salvation offered by the civilized invaders, with their promises to provide houses and farms and schools and education to the tribes. (If what offered by civilization was so good and useful, why did every tribe reject this offer, why did they all fight to stay as they had long been living, without toilets or dentists, surviving in ancient, low-tech ways?)
When technological civilization ends, Nature can thrive, and humans can live as well as we always had done for most of our species existence, until being yoked and put to serve some master. Technology and Nature are incompatible, and the only way for one to prosper is for the other to be killed. If humanity is to survive, we need wild Nature; if Nature is to survive, Technology must be killed.
