from the world's big
Not having children is another choice we should be discussing
In her new documentary, Maxine Trump tackles the topic of choosing not to procreate.
- Maxine Trump's forthcoming documentary, To Kid Or Not To Kid, investigates why women choose not to have children.
- Twenty percent of women are making this choice, Trump says, which is not a small minority.
- Climate change and an inability to find a suitable partner are top reasons for this decision.
In 2015, Pope Francis stated that a society that does not surround itself with children is "depressed," calling couples choosing not to procreate "selfish." He followed that up by claiming that societies that multiply are "enriched, not impoverished." Perhaps he hasn't checked out the American public education system lately.
Ol' Frank isn't alone in this assessment. Numerous countries are concerned about dwindling populations, making economic arguments about why their nations' women better get to work (in bed). Never mind that global overpopulation — we've doubled our number in the last half-century alone — is draining the planet of resources and destroying ecosystems and species. Capitalism demands exponential growth.
Maxine Trump cringes when I mention the economic argument for procreation. The director of the forthcoming documentary, To Kid Or Not To Kid, has spent the last few years researching and filming women who choose not to procreate. While a variety of reasons for such a decision exist, Trump finds the financial philosophy disturbing:
"The economic arguments don't make sense. We interviewed an economist in the film that agrees with that. He's right at the end of the film, so I don't want to give away too much, but he doesn't sign up to the economic driver argument. Right now, you probably don't know how many things you are using that are made by robots. How are we going to actually have a meritocracy where people can actually afford to live? Let's think about that for a second."
Trump — "no relationship" declares her email signature — is already witnessing people feeling the economic pinch in a world with too many citizens struggling to capture a tiny slice of the pie. Money, she assures me, is not the only reason couples are choosing to live without children.
To Kid or Not To Kid - Kickstarter
Having cut her teeth as a development executive for scripted comedy at the BBC, Trump takes a humorous approach to this contentious topic. Now calling Brooklyn home, she discovered that a child-free existence is a cross-cultural topic. When I ask if she's ever been called "selfish," she tells me the story of a nun she interviewed who chose her vocation for that very reason. While a convent isn't in Trump's future, she shared common ground with this devotee.
Trump has, in fact, been called selfish, an interesting charge made by an animal that will soon be responsible for the extinction of a million species of other animals. Earlier this year, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez caused a conservative ruckus when asking if childbearing is still acceptable in the age of climate change. Trump says AOC's argument for not having kids is one reason of many.
"You have to ask, 'Why is this deemed an unpopular choice?" she says. "Twenty percent of women choose not to have children now. I find it strange that people like to present this as being an outsider view."
According to Trump's research, a whopping 45 percent of pregnancies are unplanned. The word "choice" comes up a lot during our talk, which isn't surprising given the recent spate of states attempting to dismantle abortion rights. As the film makes its way around the festival circuit, Trump is specifically traveling to states that recently passed anti-abortion legislation. Surprisingly, just realizing that a child-free lifestyle is possible stuns a lot of women.
"It's very difficult when the choice has been taken away from you. What we really talk about in the film is believing you have a choice," Trump says. "Some women I've interviewed didn't know that they could decide not to have children. They honestly responded to me saying, 'I didn't even know it was a choice I could make.'"
"Musicwood" director Maxine Trump and producer/editor Josh Granger attend the 28th Santa Barbara International Film Festival on January 27, 2013 in Santa Barbara, California. Photo credit: Ray Mickshaw / WireImage
Which brings me to religion, as well as even touchier topics, such as parents that are not economically prepared to have children doing so anyway. At every turn, Trump states that she tried really hard to not judge any decisions made by other women. Isn't unwarranted judgment at the heart of this film to begin with?
It's not necessarily the religious, she follows, but parents of large families that seem most likely to criticize others for not bearing children. As recent research suggests, however, selfishness is not at the heart of the no-children decision. A study of healthy, egg-freezing women in the U.S. and Israel discovered the number one reason is "lack of a partner." There are many intelligent and committed men out there — but not enough, it seems.
Procreation is how we perpetuate the species. Yet humans are unique on this planet. Given the opportunity, every animal will multiply like crazy. Take Australian rabbits and feral cats, jellyfish in warming oceans. Biology dictates survival at all costs.
Our unique attribute is metacognition: I am aware that I am aware. The perplexing problem at the heart of the human condition: an innate impulse to procreate even while recognizing the danger it presents. Our lifestyles are threatening all existence on this planet, yet if we take precautions we could be the species that saves itself from itself. "Let this cup pass from me," followed by the realization that we're also pouring the wine. Biology and philosophy have rarely battled so tirelessly.
Regardless of the choices we make, Trump hopes women maintain the right to choose in the first place. If that decision turns out to be "nay" on procreation, then it shouldn't be judged as weird or selfish, but just as another means for experiencing life. Mostly, she made this film to let others know they're not alone in their decision.
"People like to feel safe. Safety is deemed by not making the unpopular choice. I just wish it wasn't hard like that. That's really what the film is trying to get across: 'Hey, we're out here.'"
Join us at 2 pm ET tomorrow!
Construction of the $500 billion dollar tech city-state of the future is moving ahead.
- The futuristic megacity Neom is being built in Saudi Arabia.
- The city will be fully automated, leading in health, education and quality of life.
- It will feature an artificial moon, cloud seeding, robotic gladiators and flying taxis.
The Red Sea area where Neom will be built:
Saudi Arabia Plans Futuristic City, "Neom" (Full Promotional Video)<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c646d528d230c1bf66c75422bc4ccf6f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N53DzL3_BHA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Coronavirus layoffs are a glimpse into our automated future. We need to build better education opportunities now so Americans can find work in the economy of tomorrow.
- Outplacement is an underperforming $5 billion dollar industry. A new non-profit coalition by SkillUp intends to disrupt it.
- More and more Americans will be laid off in years to come due to automation. Those people need to reorient their career paths and reskill in a way that protects their long-term livelihood.
- SkillUp brings together technology and service providers, education and training providers, hiring employers, worker outreach, and philanthropies to help people land in-demand jobs in high-growth industries.
Source: McKinsey Global Institute analysis [PDF]<p>Work in understanding the skills at the heart of the new digital economy is leading to novel assessments that allow individuals to prove mastery to faithfully represent their abilities—but also to give weight and stackability to the emerging ecosystem of micro-credentials that make education more seamless across time and education providers. And we are seeing the beginnings of a renewal in the liberal arts, focused on building human skills in affordable ways that are accessible to many more individuals and far more effective.</p><p>Amidst these dark times, there is much opportunity to refresh the nation's education and training solutions to support the success of individuals and society writ large.</p>
Do we really know what we want in a romantic partner? If so, do our desires actually mean we match up with people who suit them?
- Two separate scientific studies suggest that our "ideals" don't really match what we look for in a romantic partner.
- Results of studies like these can change the way we date, especially in the online world.
- "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there," says Paul Eastwick, co-author of the study and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology.
Do we really know what we want in love or are we just guessing?<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="204859156383d358652fda6f7eadda0f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vQgfx2iYlso?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>More than 700 participants selected their top three qualities in a romantic partner (things like funny, attractive, inquisitive, kind, etc). They then reported their romantic desire for a series of people they knew personally. Some were blind date partners, others were romantic partners and some were simply platonic friends.</p><p>While participants did experience more romantic desire to the extent that these personal connections of theirs (people they knew) had the qualities they listed, there was more to the study. </p><p>Paul Eastwick, co-author and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology <a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-romantic-partner-random-stranger.html" target="_blank">explains</a>: "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there." </p><p>The participants also considered the extent to which their personal acquaintances possessed three attributes nominated by some other random person in the study. For example, if Kris listed "down-to-earth", intelligent and thoughtful as her own top three attributes, Vanessa also experienced more desire for people with those specific traits. </p>
Does what we want really match up with what we find?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0NDA4Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NjM3NzY5OX0.gdUo-UbjYhKUDOL39BDZseRynbwaK2H5dfJtbV0nw8Y/img.jpg?width=980" id="ff376" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7c1e3a1bb9d576872ef5dce39b2e8e80" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="illustration of a man and woman matching on a dating app" />
What we claim to want and what we look for may be two separate things...
Image by GoodStudio on Shutterstock<p>So the question became: are we really listing what we want in an ideal partner or are we just listing vague qualities that people typically consider as positive?</p><p>"So in the end, we want partners who have positive qualities," Sparks explained, "but the qualities you specifically list do not actually have special predictive power for you." </p><p>In other words, the idea that we find certain things attractive in a person does not mean we actively seek out people who have those qualities, despite saying it's what we want in a love interest. The authors of this study suggest these findings could have implications for the way we approach online dating in the digital age. </p><p>This isn't the first study of its kind to suggest that what we find in love isn't really what we were looking for. The evidence suggests that we really are consistent in the abstract of it all: when asked to evaluate what you want on paper, you are more likely to suggest overall attractiveness in accordance with what you've stated are important ideals to you. But real life isn't so similar. </p><p>According to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201506/when-it-comes-love-do-you-really-know-what-you-want" target="_blank">Psychology Today,</a> who covered a 2015 study with similar results, initial face-to-face encounters have very little effect on our romantic desire. "When we initially meet someone, our level of romantic interest in the person is independent of our standards."</p><p>While you might have no immediate interest in John, he may fit your criteria of being kind, loyal, and intelligent. Similarly, someone may be attracted to Elaine even though she doesn't have any of the qualities they originally said were important to them. </p><p><strong>What does this all mean? </strong></p><p>The authors of both the 2015 and 2020 studies say the same thing: give someone a chance before writing them off as a poor match. If your initial attraction is independent of the standards you've set out, the qualities which you've listed as important to you, the first time you meet someone may not give you enough information to make an informed decision.</p><p>"It's really easy to spend time hunting around online for someone who seems to match your ideals," said Sparks, "But our research suggests an alternative approach: Don't be too picky ahead of time about whether a partner matches your ideals on paper. Or, even better, let your friends pick your dates for you." </p>