> Birthrate-boosting programmes conflict with those for educating girls: the more educated women are, the fewer children they have. This is phrased as an inher

> Birthrate-boosting programmes conflict with those for educating girls: the more educated women are, the fewer children they have. This is phrased as an inherent property of education, but how true is it? I argue that if educational systems were more accommodating to young mothers, women wouldn't need to postpone motherhood for the sake of education. What about existing programmes that give tax incentives and financial aid to young families? Does that also conflict with educating girls? The author has performed a clever rhetorical sleight of hand, using the fact that education correlates with lower birthrate, to claim that any effort to increase the birthrate reduces education. This is nonsense - would she claim that a punitive tax on families would help women's education, by way of lowering the birthrate? She has causation backwards, the equivalent of "wet streets cause rain". And the fight for equality shouldn't end at enabling women to choose between education or motherhood. It should keep going until they don't have to choose. Same goes for professional careers. The Guardian article, despite their usual sensitivity to feminist causes, is completely lacking in this perspective. Speaking of perspective: > Musk’s striking indifference to the implications of a scheme that will depend, as with all reproductive fantasies, on women’s biological compliance, may actually have helped. Fellow pronatalists who acknowledge, with various hero-mother inducements, the required female sacrifice in independence, earnings and influence Lets ignore the repeated casting of motherhood as inherently limiting (despite things like alimony and child support that greatly reduce the sacrifice in independence). "women's biological compliance"? Really? Women would never want more children, or be equal participants in this drive with men, they merely "comply"? Meanwhile, men don't have to comply - since Musk is male, he speaks from the common will of all men? It's strange seeing the Guardian use such dehumanizing, sexist language.