I am not questioning the economical aspect of this. But I do wonder, the power to say no to what?, no to a mans demands or no to having children they can not support?. More women do expand the work force, it's a good thing ofc.
Women in almost every country are disrespected or undermined in almost every aspect, socially, sexually, physically, mentally and economically. This is the true root of equality problems, ''educating women'' or ''giving them contraceptive measures'' is just fixes for the results of a man rigged society. Don't get me wrong, men and women are not ''equal'' in a mirror image sense, on many levels. We have obvious differences that should factually be acknowledged, but not to be manipulated and used to leverage inequality. The pay gap between men and women is an easy example.
I strongly disagree that economic playing field is the grounds for consensual or responsible sex. I may have misinterpreted your use of the word economic there but money has nothing to do with a women's ability to say no, exceptions aside. A women who has no education or income is perfectly smart and able enough to say no, if a man/partner continues via pressurizing/black mailing her to get his way... that is HIS fault, not hers. Educating women will not stop a man asserting dominance over a women (or vice verse). That would suggest only poor uneducated women are subject to being pressurized, raped or domestically abused.. because they are too ''dumb'' to stop it.
I agree both going to school is beneficial. But what you need to understand is that just because a boy is going to school and being educated, it is highly likely across the world he is not being properly educated on matters of equality and the things I discussed earlier.
The dominant reason why educated women bare less children is because they are too busy working or are trying to climb up a career ladder. It is essentially economical castration. Hopefully below will add more to this on why populations don't fall.
You have the complete wrong end of the stick here. Statistics of a country's population mostly look at what is considered ''native'' people of said country (the immigration figures are usually lied about for political reasons). As I went on to say.. the notion of ''native'' is laughable as people over centuries have been dipping it in every pot they could, a ''American'' for example may be racist toward immigrants yet his own bloodline is guaranteed a cluster fuck of mixed heritage. Back on point. If the stats say Germany's population is falling I can almost guarantee you it is of two main things. Work has ended and people are leaving (if a short term spike), or.. the economy is at the tail end of the coal>oil boom and economy thus population is lowering and leveling out to the new sustainable level. If enough ''natives'' leave or stop having children, yet the country still requires more work force than is currently being met, migrants will come in and pick up tools. Over a few generations those migrants children or children's children will inevitably (you'd hope) mix and settle with the local population having mixed race children. Those children are now considered natives by birth right.. the population of Germany rises a little. This was all in response to the ludicrous postings that civilized country's will essentially one day have no children in them.
