I know that, but I'm not so sure that military leaders were actually the ones to teach social values.
Historically, many combat arts teachers were not military leaders--they were usually people who were very good a skill set and could teach it. Yagyu springs to mind here, as does Liberi (s.p) in the western tradition.
At the same time, in some cultures military learders actually did teach cultural values...Sun Tzu comes to mind, as do Yagyu Moninori, and Minimoto Mushashi.
I think that scholars and priests were relied upon to do that, especially since they could write and warriors could not.
Actually in many cultures being a part of the warrior class included several non-martial arts, such as the writing of caligraphy, poetry, music etc. The warrior class were expected to understand the culture they were meant to defend. This is not only true of Easten cultures, but some Western ones as well, images of Achilles playing his lute are found on many ancient Greek vases, a scene from Homer's Iliad, springs to mind. If you read the Flowers of Battle, it's pretty clear that Liberi had a descent understanding of the theology and symbolism of his time. If he did indeed pen this work, then it is self-evident he could read and distill fairly complex knowledge.
Staying focused on the West and moving closer to our time, remember that in the Vicotorian period many combat disciplines were considered "gentlemanly arts", this would include things like English boxing, la boxe francaise ('savate'), la canne, fencing, wrestling, judo, jujutsu etc.
It seems to be only recently that martial arts and martial artists are considered uneducated thugs looking for a fight.
Maybe it's part of the romanticism, which is why the Klingons in Star Trek have such an appeal.
I would say there is for many people, an aspect of romanticism, and, in some cases it is Orientilism which leads them to study. But this is too simple a view, I feel. Shi describes the need for commaraderie and this indeed may have a lot to do with it, especially in these times where people rarely even look at one another as they pass on the street. To this I would add the need of many to work out aspects of their 'mythic mind', to go through the 'hero's journey' in some way shape or form. In other words to add a narrative to their lives diffirent from the mainstream consumerist narrative that the Western world currently propagates. There are likely many more reasons.
I don't know either, but that's how the schools market themselves, so their customers must be attracted by that.
One thing does not always equal the other. Marketing may say one thing, people may go with that product for another. For example, sometimes people read the back of the book, and that is why they purchase it. Other times a friend suggests it.
(from you previous posts)
Well, I can understand that a dojo would do anything for money - I'm like that too, quite honestly.
Just to clarify, this really wasn't what I said at all. I simply noted that there is an economic incentive having a kids martial arts program. This, to me, doesn't always equate to doing "anything for money". Nor does it preclude other factors that may go into the choice to teach kids.
But, even if that's so, and your point does make sense, the fact is that we are now in a post-industrial society, and a good proportion of us are university educated, or at least literate. This is a far cry from those traditional societies, and so most of us would know that glorified kickboxers are NOT qualified childhood educators.
Perhaps, for the sake of clarifying your argument, it would be helpful if you defined for us what you mean by "childhood educators". From there we can maybe properly understand why a kickboxer can not be one.