For readers, here are links to The Malala Fund and the Global Health and Development Fund (part of EA Funds).

The consideration of whether to help people in poverty without solving the problem of poverty itself is a good one! In a slightly different formulation, it had been addressed in this amazing work - Growth and the case against randomista development. 

However, the question of how exactly we can alleviate poverty is still very tough. For example, GiveWell's analysis of educational programs in developing countries concludes that there's very limited evidence on the impact of education on improved future earnings, and their cost-effectiveness model suggests that they are about (0.5x-3x) as cost-effective as direct cash transfers. This contrasts with the large potential effects of direct health interventions, like deworming, which could be much higher (but there's still a lot of uncertainty and debate).

As a general point, do you believe that if  women did realize the full benefits of receiving education in terms of learning outcomes, that then they would be served by their literacy, knowledge of mathematics, physics, politics, government, and software even if they could not find employment in a career field such as engineering?

Your answer might help me understand your question a little better.

I am also curious about what expert or organization discusses the relationship between poverty and population that you allude to when you write:

To be clear, I'm aware that most experts no longer believe global overpopulation will be an issue, and I think more population growth could be good for the progress of technology.