Indeed, we know this, "educate girls to fix society", already for many years. The other "societal fix we know for year to work" is reducing economic inequality.
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson_how_economic_ine...
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson_how_economic_ine...
But yeah, if you are afraid of a war you want your group to be big, uneducated, easy to manipulate and expendable.
Later marriage/first pregnancy is clearly a good thing.
https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health/pregnanc...
Another big one was HIV/AIDS. I guess it depends on cultural factors whether early marriage might reduce the number of partners that could introduce HIV/aids. If non-married people are less monogamous it's conceivable the increased risk of HIV/AIDS could overpower the risks of whatever additional childbirth is associated with marriage.
Also note pollution was one of the bigger risks present in Nigeria. So as people get educated to go slave away in a dirty factory (or a city full of them where educated people work) it might actually be worse for their health than staying at home and marrying into some pastoral herding tribe or something.
The value judgement is saying the changes you want are worth doing because they might reduce it. Social and personal choices are weighed all the time that include risks to lives, suggesting something that might reduce risk does not end the debate.
We would generally want to prevent people dying in horrible aviation disasters too, we could do that by ceasing non essential air travel.
Equating educating girls to an aviation disaster has to be a new low.
This inflammatory comparison does nothing to improve the level of civil dialog on HN.
It makes you at least agree that there is a line somewhere, and then you can go on to decide where to draw it.
To be clear, that is an unfounded accusation that you just now fabricated.
> This inflammatory comparison does nothing to improve the level of civil dialog on HN.
Your disgusting lies and fake pearl clutching are the problem here.
Some things are just absolutely bad.
For example, the best way to stop pregnancy-related deaths is to forcely termination any high-risk pregnancy regardless of the pregnant woman's own wishes. But seems no one would agree.
I bet pregnancy is not the "leading cause of death" among 80yo women. That must be the best age to start having children.
Anyways, I couldn't find the reference to your statement by following the link but I found that risk of pre–eclampsia(only clearly stated risk to the mother) and lower birth weight is higher than in 20–24 —no mention of other age ranges.
The report mentions that adolescent childbirth is correlated with low socio–economic status and education. Did they control for that when doing the risk assessment? It is not clear.
No mention of genetic risk to the offspring. No mention of the lives of the offspring that were "terminated" in the making of the non–pregnancy statistics.
Just some vague "abuse" statements that do not include figures for abuse of non–female young people.
WHO, indeed.
It looks like age 20 to 34 has the lowest mortality rate. Older or younger than that has higher mortality.
And since 14 to 18 as a cohort are all minors, it’s completely reasonable that parents and society in general discourages this activity.
Taking risks at 35 and 14 are treated differently.
But what about 18 and 33?
Beyond rare risk of death to the mother, I think the health of the child to be born and the potential for younger siblings is an important consideration since we are talking about reproduction.
In Europe, marriage and pregnancies below 18 were rare and people did use to average 21 before "female education" as well but other cultures differed and differ and I don't know to what extent it is appropriate to have "global" organizations mess with their reproductive lives from a Western perspective whether it has 1820s views or 2020s views.
Also 14 is relevant for the child marriage article, which is the current context.
18 year olds are not relevant to child marriage.
Females are valuable just for their ... personal assets ... so bootstrapping is a little harder because they have intrinsic value they can fall back on (someone is going to get angry at me for saying that, but it's just the way it is). If I can just marry a rich man I might be okay with that, or whoever makes the decisions for me might be okay with that. You have to get someone to come in and force enough of them to feel like they're a failure for not getting an education and then eventually they'll socially reinforce it themselves without further outside influence.
I believe this is why it's much higher yield for the enlightened outsider to come in and declare their moral and intellectual superiority and tell the females they are losers (or less happy, or less independent, whatever the politically correct terminology is used nowadays) for not getting an education, and get (read: bribe) their families to put them into it.
> If I can just marry a rich man I might be okay with that, or whoever makes the decisions for me might be okay with that
Fyi, “just marry” incorporates a lot of things would disqualify the use of the term “just”. The least of which is pregnancy and the risks thereof, especially in these poorer societies without healthcare.
Women can pretty much do anything men can do. How is a wealthy, financially successful woman less valuable than a man?
"Females are valuable just for their ... personal assets ..."
I do not interpret it, as you seem to, to mean, "the only valuable thing about women are their bodies." I do not see how you could come to such an interpretation, unless you are pattern matching the redpill memes you see in the other user's comment and extending that to, "(s)he must believe this, if there is anything remotely related to redpill in the comment".
Every human is equally valuable in the moral sense.
But value is subjective when we are talking about relationships and we can only generalize about this value.
High income women are more valuable to low income men.
High income men already have money. They value other attributes.
And this is the paradox successful women can face. Their success doesn’t attract the mates they desire, quite the opposite. And worse, they were never told that. They were told the opposite.
The whole framing of "women are only valuable for their personal assets" only makes sense from the perspective of a certain kind of man. My whole point is that this is entirely subjective. People talk about it like it's the natural state of things but it's a cultural belief.
The intimidation comes into play when men are put at an income disadvantage. Women also don't find men who make less than them desirable (in general). So it's a double wammy.
A single mutli-millionaire guy is not going to be impressed by a woman who works 50 hrs a week and makes $400k.
He would rather someone available to take care of his needs while he can take care of the financial needs.
This is the opposite of what successful females want.
Sure he's impressed.
People date/marry people from their caste/social circle. You want your partner to fit smoothly into your existing life which means having a similar upbringing and career trajectory.
The work vs take care of needs is a false dichotomy. The person that'll 'take care of your needs' is the person you are on the same page with - assuming you're looking for a long term partnership, rather than the equivalent of a prostitute.
The data in general shows women exhibit relative hypergamy. This makes sense as they have a higher reproductive cost and investment at the time of birth, and probably even thereafter.
No.
This 'entirely subjective' perspective only makes sense from a certain kind of human. I call them below 130 IQ human personally.
> Females are valuable just for their ... personal assets.
2018 called and they want their red pill back.
——
When’s your book coming out? I’m dying to learn more about “the way it is”.
——
P.S. I say this with full sincerity: If you are open to advice, try reading “Models: Attract Women Through Honest”. It will expand your mind.
It was recommended to me by a friend who managed to un-redpill himself.