I suspect you are projecting based upon the lack of condemnation for "child brides." It is an absolute fact that drawing out female education is having the demographic consequences I cited. My wife worked in an infertility clinic and saw it first hand. Hence, I educated my girls at home. One was valedictorian of her college at the age of 20. The other is in a PhD program at 21 and could have been there several years sooner. Both girls are virgins and committed Christians. IOW, screw you for "creepy," without requesting clarification. In no way was I advocating child brides, and I do have reason to question the motives of the promoters of this program.
I don't doubt that the effect you cite is true. But the idea that opposition to "child brides" is primarily driven by a population control agenda just doesn't ring true.
I know that there are plenty of leftie kooks out there who want to save the planet by eliminating, or at least drastically reducing, the human population.
But for sane, civilized people, I think the objection to "child brides" is just driven by visceral revulsion.
I didn't imply that you were advocating for child brides. I was expressing my own revulsion at your failure to demonstrate any degree of disgust or disapproval of the practice.
I well know that the age of fertility has been getting higher in our own society over the years as women have pursued education and careers. But that certainly is not the first thought that pops into my head when I think of those poor "child brides."
Unless it's home economics, it's automatically drawing out female education.
Women belong at home cooking, cleaning, bearing and raising children, and bringing their husbands their slippers when they arrive home.
That is how it should be.
And because it's not that way anymore, real men don't want to get married and have kids.