[pedantry alert] The headline made me think the article was going to describe the sexual/romantic tastes of some apparently important subset of heterosexual men

[pedantry alert] The headline made me think the article was going to describe the sexual/romantic tastes of some apparently important subset of heterosexual men. Or maybe the behavior of some set of boys probably in high school who are intimidated by smart girls in their classes. I wonder to what extent this is intentional... Meanwhile, the article talks only about educated girls, not mentioning the word "smart" outside the title, and there is a case to be made that "smart" and "educated" are, though correlated, distinct attributes. One could thus make a case that the headline is wrong, most likely for attention-grabbing purposes. Sigh. [end of pedantry alert] That aside, let's see. "Why are fanatics so terrified of girls’ education? Because there’s no force more powerful to transform a society." Indeed. "What saddens me is that we in the West aren’t acting as rationally. To fight militancy, we invest overwhelmingly in the military toolbox but not so much in the education toolbox that has a far better record at defeating militancy." I wonder if this has anything to do with what a powerful tool control of the educational system is. For example, look at what the North Korean government is able to achieve through that means. Are the Western governments exhibiting some kind of restraint here? Is it just that they haven't really bothered? Is giving "aid" more difficult politically than beefing up the military? Or is it that serious funding of education would lead to fights about who gets to control it? I am ignorant of such matters, so I'll shut up now.