Senate Poised to Allow Sen. Duckworth's Newborn on the Floor (Update: Passed. Babies allowed up to 1 yr old)

[umsami]

I don't consider this partisan, I just think it's a good thing.  I hope we have more female senators of both parties, and more babies born to senators and house members.

 

Also...no lap tops?? Wow.  

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/tammy-duckworth-senate-newborn-526360

 

Quote

 

The hidebound U.S. Senate is expected to soon change its rules for a member who just made history as a new mom.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who this month became the first sitting senator to have a baby while in office, has submitted a resolution that would allow senators to bring a child under one year old onto the Senate floor during votes. Senate leaders appear poised to approve the request, according to Senate sources.

 

 

 

Quote

Rules changes are rare in the Senate. In 1997, Sen. Mike Enzi asked the Senate to allow lawmakers to use laptops on the floor. The request was met with four months of study and a rejection. Electronics are still not technically allowed on the Senate floor.

 

[HomeAgain]

I'm glad.  Rules are always slow to change in the Senate.  What was it, 1993 before women were allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor? 

[TechWife]

Infants, good. Laptops bad. Sounds about right! I don't think it's necessary for them to have laptops at all - it's a parliamentary proceeding, not a research session. Research is done at other times.

[KungFuPanda]

That’s just ridiculous. Wouldn’t a baby keep everyone awake?

[chicagoshannon]

Does that mean a new father can bring his baby onto the floor?  I'm sure she has a nanny so why would the baby need to be there?  I just think it's way too distracting.   I mean an 11 month old on the floor would absolutely be ridiculous. 

[Ausmumof3]

As long as baby isn't the most mature person in the room ?

[Garga]

19 minutes ago, chicagoshannon said:

Does that mean a new father can bring his baby onto the floor?  I'm sure she has a nanny so why would the baby need to be there?  I just think it's way too distracting.   I mean an 11 month old on the floor would absolutely be ridiculous. 

In an interview I heard with her, she’s breastfeeding, so that would be why she’d need the baby near her.  I suppose she could pump, but that’s not ideal for any mother, honestly, IMO.  It’s a hassle and you don’t always get enough milk from a pump.

[LarlaB]

Hmmmm..... I do wonder about the distraction aspect. For a period of time to nurse, and then nanny takes away- sure.  

 

Full time?  Not so much. 

 

 

[TechWife]

We are basically talking about creating a flexible work place so that people can both work and parent, recognizing that the role of parent is not always neatly delegated to specific times of the day. I think a bunch of adults should be able to ignore an infant in order to conduct business. Yes, a new father should be allowed to bring his infant on the floor if needed. We are talking about caring for children, it shouldn't matter if it is the mother or the father doing it. Whether or not Senator Duckworth has a nanny isn't relevant.  Many people would love to be able to take their children to work when needed. Why is this such a big deal? It's the 21st century. I think we have been waiting for this type of leadership for a long time.

 

[HomeAgain]

Most work places have set hours.  The Senate does not.  Some nights they are there until midnight.  Many places allow the ability to stay home with your child for the first 6 weeks (and daycares don't accept them before that anyway).  The Senate does not, at least not without ramifications.  Senators are expected to represent their constituents all the time. 
Babies and new parents need time to bond.  A nanny (or team, given the hours of government, more than one would be needed) is not a substitute.  I cannot think of an easier way to meet everyone's needs in the first few months than to allow flexibility.

[Ravin]

If we want to get tech into it, maybe we should just disband the Capitol building and have senate sessions meet via teleconference from offices in their home states.

I remember taking DD to class in a pinch when she was 9 months old. She stayed in the baby carrier, nursed, and napped (she was sick). On the senate floor, obviously if the baby is in the mood to play and be noisy, taking it elsewhere is a good idea; a baby that is nursing, though, is unlikely to be a disruption.

[sassenach]

1 hour ago, LarlaB said:

Hmmmm..... I do wonder about the distraction aspect. For a period of time to nurse, and then nanny takes away- sure.  

 

Full time?  Not so much. 

 

 

 

She's a professional with a reputation to uphold. I doubt she'll allow the baby to be a distraction. This allows her to better represent her constituents by not being pulled away from important things happening on the floor by a hungry baby. I trust her.

[umsami]

6 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well I am not so sure that some sort of telecommute option is a terrible thing. I mean it’s not like millions of businesses don’t do it already.  My DH spent a half hour this evening communicating with the engineer in Mexico on What’s App when he got home from work.  There is value in BOTH being in the office, and being able to work from where you are if necessary.  I don’t know that it has to be all or nothing. 

 

I also brought my oldest to class once in a pinch.  Halfway through class the professor quietly leaned down and whispered that we could leave, and she would still give me credit for the research paper (that was her attendance policy, had to be in class the paper was due or you got a zero). Anyway, my point is, just cause one baby is quiet, that doesn’t mean the next one is.  

1) The senate doesn't even allow laptops on the floor--so I don't see them going to virtual voting via Skype or what not... although I actually think that would be great, especially for the House of Reps, as it might allow them to spend more time in their district.

2) She is the first woman senator to give birth to a child in the US's history.  We rank #102 in the world of countries based on our percentage of women in parliament.  We have a horrific record of having women in office. I don't think the risk of a future noisy baby really means much.  I would think that somebody who is skilled enough to be elected to the Senate (as well as a decorated war hero in this case) is well equipped with assessing  the situation and deciding whether or not, it's time to take the baby out and give it to the nanny or what not.   (The date is the last election.  Next number is seats in the lower house, women in the lower house (our Congress), and percentage held by women.  Then date, seats in the upper house (Senate), women in the upper house and percent women.)

90	Seychelles	08.09.2016	33	7	21.20%	---	---	---	---
91	Honduras	26.11.2017	128	27	21.10%	---	---	---	---
92	Romania	11.12.2016	329	68	20.70%	11.12.2016	136	19	14.00%
93	Pakistan	11.05.2013	340	70	20.60%	05.03.2015	104	19	18.30%
94	Morocco	07.10.2016	395	81	20.50%	02.10.2015	120	14	11.70%
95	Bangladesh	05.01.2014	350	71	20.30%	---	---	---	---
"	Cambodia	28.07.2013	123	25	20.30%	25.02.2018	60	10	16.70%
97	Uruguay	26.10.2014	99	20	20.20%	26.10.2014	31	9	29.00%
98	Equatorial Guinea	12.11.2017	100	20	20.00%	12.11.2017	72	11	15.30%
"	Slovakia	05.03.2016	150	30	20.00%	---	---	---	---
100	Saudi Arabia	02.12.2016	151	30	19.90%	---	---	---	---
101	Indonesia	09.04.2014	560	111	19.80%	---	---	---	---
102	United States of America	08.11.2016	431	84	19.50%	08.11.2016	100	22	22.00%

[HomeAgain]

This is not a new thing.  New Zealand allows it, Italy allows it.  Australia allows it.  Canada allows it.  I'm quite certain many others do as well.

It has not seemed to make a huge ruckus anywhere else in the world.  In fact, I'm not sure that we can adequately improve parental leave and working situations for parents without our representatives accepting the fact that parents, ALL parents, have needs.  Too often that idea is shut away from the floor, like it's more important to focus on work at all costs than it is to balance work and personal needs.

[HomeAgain]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

What other people, or countries, do in their own homes, really doesn’t matter much to me.  They can do them. 

In that case, it shouldn't bother you what others do in their workspaces, especially since you're unwilling to look at it in practice to determine if it's a good choice.  And particularly if it's in a country that is down at the bottom of the list for being parent-friendly. (Gotta love being only one of 8, and the only non-third world country that tells parents to suck it after they've had a kid)

[catz]

I'd personally be fine with a father bringing an infant on the floor as well.  

I'm not opposed to the idea of a cry room that senators could use for whatever reason.  But I also don't see any reason not to allow a nursing mother to have easy access to her newborn while doing a very important job that serves us all.  

We should be treating parents better in the work place.  This is one small piece of that.  

[catz]

Oh - I'd be HUGELY in favor of allowing senators to participate via Skype, etc.  Spend more time knowing and serving their constituents and less time absorbed in their lobbyists and their old boys clubs in Washington.  

[Paige]

53 minutes ago, sassenach said:

She's a professional with a reputation to uphold. I doubt she'll allow the baby to be a distraction. This allows her to better represent her constituents by not being pulled away from important things happening on the floor by a hungry baby. I trust her.

I agree. This is about trusting adults, and women especially, to know how to behave themselves and make good choices. If baby is nursing happily or being quiet, the senator can have the flexibility to bring her in and do what needs to be done. If baby is being high maintenance, I think we can trust the senator to not allow her to be a distraction. If people trusted the senator to vote about whether we go to war or not, they should be able to trust her about bringing the baby on the floor! We all know that babies cry and can be noisy, but that's not the point. The point is that without the change in rules, the senator would not be allowed to breastfeed her baby as needed. She would not be allowed the opportunity to decide if the baby was distracting or not. It would require her to plan in advance to get the baby used to taking bottles, require her to pump, or require her to formula feed. Even if there was never a vote that required her presence when she was feeding her baby, she'd have to plan for that occasion in advance, just in case, which could harm the breastfeeding relationship. Some babies don't take bottles easily. Some moms can't pump. It's not always easy.

And while she's the only one it affects now, it's not out of the question that having family friendlier policies could encourage more young women to enter politics. 

 

 

[SamanthaCarter]

21 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Oh - I'd be HUGELY in favor of allowing senators to participate via Skype, etc.  Spend more time knowing and serving their constituents and less time absorbed in their lobbyists and their old boys clubs in Washington.  

I’ve heard this mentioned several times and I like it. I think one of the few reasons we don’t have it already is that the powers that be like thier DC club too much. 

[livetoread]

How much time of each work day do they actually spend on the floor? Not a rhetorical question - I really don’t know.

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, umsami said:

 I would think that somebody who is skilled enough to be elected to the Senate (as well as a decorated war hero in this case) is well equipped with assessing  the situation and deciding whether or not, it's time to take the baby out and give it to the nanny or what not.  

Yes, this exactly. People do not disengage their brains when they have children.

 

[umsami]

37 minutes ago, livetoread said:

How much time of each work day do they actually spend on the floor? Not a rhetorical question - I really don’t know.

That's a good question.  It's not a daily thing for sure.  

Best I can find is 160 or so legislative days per year in the Senate, and roughly 99 voting days.

https://www.thoughtco.com/average-number-of-legislative-days-3368250

 

 

[happypamama]

Good for her!  I think allowing her to have her infant on the floor could help bring some issues to attention.  I think she’s probably quite capable of handing her baby off to the nanny when need be, but a sleeping, nursing slingbaby really shouldn’t be disruptive to a bunch of adults. (I have no problem with a father bring his baby either. Or with a mother bringing her baby even if she’s not breastfeeding.)  And a breastfeeding baby eliminates the need for her to leave the room in order to pump.  (I mean, unless she wanted to pump right on the floor.)

 

I do like the idea of a separate “cry room,” which might have other uses as well. That seems like it could be a reasonable compromise. 

[Amira]

I am opposed to the idea of cry rooms, at least the way they are often used.  I think it’s great to have them available *for people who want to use them.* But too often they’re used as a place where caretakers (usually women) are expected to go if a child isn’t being perfectly quiet.  Having spent my share of time in cry rooms, there is no way I have the same experience in one as I do when I am with the rest of the group or congregation, or that I am really a participant.  Sen. Duckworth or any other parent needs the flexibility to do her job in a way that works for the parent and the baby.  Especially when senators usually aren’t on the floor for votes for a long time, it makes a lot of sense to allow babies during votes. We need more women of childbearing age representing us.

[kiwik]

I think it is fine as an occasional thing if the child is asleep or nursing but not a regular thing.  Regular breaks so she can visit the baby an feed it seems fair but really all of us who went back to work with babies knew that there was a price to pay and that the baby cannot come with you to work unless you are self employed.

[Tsuga]

6 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Really it’s just that even though I think there are probably other options that are better, it’s really not something I care about enough to care what other countries do in regards to it.  

What options are you thinking about?

[HomeAgain]

I disagree with cry rooms because they are for non-participants.  Cry rooms are used in places where you receive information, not where information is exchanged.

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, kiwik said:

I think it is fine as an occasional thing if the child is asleep or nursing but not a regular thing.  Regular breaks so she can visit the baby an feed it seems fair but really all of us who went back to work with babies knew that there was a price to pay and that the baby cannot come with you to work unless you are self employed.

Don't we need to question these assumptions though or just accept that it's a male dominated world and new mothers need to be sidelined? Was it fair to you or your child when you went back under these circumstances (as I did) or is it time to push for better/more?

[fralala]

3 hours ago, kiwik said:

I think it is fine as an occasional thing if the child is asleep or nursing but not a regular thing.  Regular breaks so she can visit the baby an feed it seems fair but really all of us who went back to work with babies knew that there was a price to pay and that the baby cannot come with you to work unless you are self employed.

 

I'm curious about this attitude, which seems not uncommon.

If you were going to do it again, can you imagine conditions that would have made being a working mother better for you, your family, and your child?

There is and was a huge price to pay for prioritizing family, for mothers AND fathers. But there is also a huge price to pay for NOT prioritizing family, and relationships, and I think we have all been paying it for too long. Children. Mothers. Fathers. (Under)paid caregivers.

Life is often unfair as we perceive it, but we can imagine circumstances in which people are happier, healthier, and more balanced, or if we can't, we can try to create the conditions for people who might.

[HomeAgain]

And how would you propose to use Skype and maintain the classification of various topics discussed?  A person's home doesn't become a SCIF just because they want it to be.

At this point, it seems the problem is not that she would have her infant with her, but that they don't belong in *that* place.  It's fine to have an infant in the background if you're on video is what you seem to be saying, but that the practice that is working around the world, allowing parents to exist in the workplace, is not something we can ever possibly do in the U.S.

[Sneezyone]

15 minutes ago, fralala said:

 

I'm curious about this attitude, which seems not uncommon.

If you were going to do it again, can you imagine conditions that would have made being a working mother better for you, your family, and your child?

There is and was a huge price to pay for prioritizing family, for mothers AND fathers. But there is also a huge price to pay for NOT prioritizing family, and relationships, and I think we have all been paying it for too long. Children. Mothers. Fathers. (Under)paid caregivers.

Life is often unfair as we perceive it, but we can imagine circumstances in which people are happier, healthier, and more balanced, or if we can't, we can try to create the conditions for people who might.

Me too. Just because something has always been doesn't mean that's how it has to be or should be. I know that some people have issues with women in positions of authority in general but, as much as I love my husband and think he's an awesome guy, there is much DH doesn't know, understand, or have the desire to learn about women. I think it's past to time consider what we would actually like/prefer, and advocate for it, not just accept what is.

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Actually, I never said “not something we can ever possibly do in the US.”

here’s a question...why do senators HAVE to be physically present on the senate floor to cast a vote?  I mean, I know that’s been the rule, but why can’t that change?  

 

I don't see any reason not to make this discussion about something that would benefit more than just moms, especially since this is obviously something that is an uncommon issue anyway.  If we are going to discuss changes, which we already know are difficult to make happen, why not make changes that have a bigger impact?  I mean it’s not like anything we discuss here is going to actually matter anyway.  Why not discuss something that might allow a senator who has a sick kid to care for, or has sustained an injury or something, also participate.  

IMO, it's partially because there are some issues that are directly related to women. We (as women) do ourselves a disservice by insisting that the only way to gain support for those issues/solutions is to have male support/buy-in. It needn't be tit for tat all the time. There are female-specific issues that do not require or have a male equivalent.

[HomeAgain]

9 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Actually, I never said “not something we can ever possibly do in the US.”

here’s a question...why do senators HAVE to be physically present on the senate floor to cast a vote?  I mean, I know that’s been the rule, but why can’t that change?  

 

I don't see any reason not to make this discussion about something that would benefit more than just moms, especially since this is obviously something that is an uncommon issue anyway.  If we are going to discuss changes, which we already know are difficult to make happen, why not make changes that have a bigger impact?  I mean it’s not like anything we discuss here is going to actually matter anyway.  Why not discuss something that might allow a senator who has a sick kid to care for, or has sustained an injury or something, also participate.  

I'm honestly trying to follow your logic here.  So you're saying that it would be okay to vote by proxy, but that because she shouldn't have a newborn with her she shouldn't take part in any of the discussion or be able to review sensitive materials (because classified information belongs there, not at home).  Got it.  She can vote, but not be present leading up to the vote because her child has basic human needs, too.

This is a change that will have a bigger impact.  By doing away with archaic rules that simply don't belong, it is easier to change minds about what does belong in its place. It's easier to see people as whole beings and not robots.  I cannot see the same thing happening if we treat personal needs as shameful and hidden away.  To broaden this, right now we live in a country that just deconstructed the ADA and made it harder for people with disabilities to get accommodations.  I'm not saying parenthood is a disability, but I am saying that when we continue to create steep divides between our representatives and the needs of our country as a whole, everyone gets shafted.  When needs are represented in government, it's easier to see what should be done.

[catz]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

And how would you propose to use Skype and maintain the classification of various topics discussed?  A person's home doesn't become a SCIF just because they want it to be.

 

Oh well, this is a whole other topic.  But security in regards to government is a HUGE issue that should be addressed.  It is possible for senators to have secured locations in their home offices.  If they can receive secure phone calls there, all they would need it a video feed.

That said nothing has changed in the way our federal government is handling data and technology since the e-mail "scandal".  If you don't think insecure data isn't flying every day at the nation's capitol, you're just wrong.  E-mail is being handled in similar ways now.  We need a department with experts just to deal with technology, security, and backing up e-mails and documents to secure servers.  If you watch the video feeds of our senators asking Mark Zuckerberg questions it's pretty obvious there are holes in the average senator's knowledge on technology and security.   We should have experts working on this stuff.   Much like the department of health and human services or defense.

On the topic of a cry room, I definitely wouldn't want a prison.  It should have 2 way video audio/feed and should be used at a parent's discretion.  

[umsami]

So apparently women weren't allowed to use the Senate swimming pool either.  Also, often women senators are assumed to be "wives."  We have a long way to go.  Women senator's restroom? Only two stalls.  (angry emoticon!)

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/senate-women-secret-history-113908_full.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/us/politics/collins-ernst-klobuchar-heitkamp.html?smid=tw-share

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KarenC]

It's ok for adults to have temper tantrums on the Senate floor, but not babies.  

[vonfirmath]

6 hours ago, kiwik said:

I think it is fine as an occasional thing if the child is asleep or nursing but not a regular thing.  Regular breaks so she can visit the baby an feed it seems fair but really all of us who went back to work with babies knew that there was a price to pay and that the baby cannot come with you to work unless you are self employed.

 

My boss did allow my baby to come to work with me -- there is NO WAY it could have lasted an entire year. IT was just a few days a week (when my husband was in class). It was hugely disruptive the days the baby was there and we made different arrangements when she was 5 months old because she was too distracting and I was not getting enough done when she was there.

 

[Elizabeth86]

16 hours ago, Garga said:

In an interview I heard with her, she’s breastfeeding, so that would be why she’d need the baby near her.  I suppose she could pump, but that’s not ideal for any mother, honestly, IMO.  It’s a hassle and you don’t always get enough milk from a pump.

Your right.  I can pump in the early days, but once my milk is established for an older baby I can barely pump any milk.

[EmseB]

29 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

 

My boss did allow my baby to come to work with me -- there is NO WAY it could have lasted an entire year. IT was just a few days a week (when my husband was in class). It was hugely disruptive the days the baby was there and we made different arrangements when she was 5 months old because she was too distracting and I was not getting enough done when she was there.

 

I know there are better women out there than me, so I'm not saying it's impossible, but even when my babies are asleep and I'm trying to do something important or they need to be quiet, I'm still slightly sidetracked wondering if they've woken up or when they might wake up, etc.  When I need 100% attention on something, someone else has to be in charge of the baby. I don't object to babies be nursed anywhere and everywhere, or having a nanny or whomever bring the baby to mom to nurse (not really that different than pumping breaks, IMO) but having infants in a working environment, me having my infant in a working environment with me as the caregiver, it would just not allow me to give 100% to my job. Then again, I gave up my day job for my babies, so my perspective is likely on one end of a spectrum.

I think this is another kind of thing where women are supposed to do it all, or have it all or whatever, which I've never thought is really feasible.  So we allow newborns on the Senate floor, so if it happens that Senator NewMom of the future doesn't bring her baby to work to nurse, then she's not nurturing enough.

[EmseB]

dp

[Garga]

39 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I know there are better women out there than me, so I'm not saying it's impossible, but even when my babies are asleep and I'm trying to do something important or they need to be quiet, I'm still slightly sidetracked wondering if they've woken up or when they might wake up, etc.  When I need 100% attention on something, someone else has to be in charge of the baby. I don't object to babies be nursed anywhere and everywhere, or having a nanny or whomever bring the baby to mom to nurse (not really that different than pumping breaks, IMO) but having infants in a working environment, me having my infant in a working environment with me as the caregiver, it would just not allow me to give 100% to my job. Then again, I gave up my day job for my babies, so my perspective is likely on one end of a spectrum.

I think this is another kind of thing where women are supposed to do it all, or have it all or whatever, which I've never thought is really feasible.  So we allow newborns on the Senate floor, so if it happens that Senator NewMom of the future doesn't bring her baby to work to nurse, then she's not nurturing enough.

Me, too.  I’m wondering if the idea is that a nanny has the baby during sessions, unless a feeding has to be done.  Then the baby is quickly brought in for a feeding and then taken back when the feeding is done.  Anything else, and I wouldn’t be able to concentrate either.  I’m always on edge when my kids are around, because I never know when they’ll suddenly interrupt me or need something and they’re 13 and 15 now!  It was a lot worse when they were tiny.  I couldn't focus on anything with them in the room.  Kids are pretty demanding.

[Lady Florida.]

1 hour ago, KarenC said:

It's ok for adults to have temper tantrums on the Senate floor, but not babies.  

I love this so much that liking it wasn't enough.

[catz]

Well, I don't think the decision should be made based on what other people think she can and cannot do.  Which is more based on what individuals think THEY cannot do.   In many 3rd world countries, the mothers work all day with babies strapped to them in the fields or in the markets.  You get used to what you do regularly.   She may do just fine with it.  At a minimum I trust a mother to find some sort of balance that works for her and her baby and the job at hand without slapping a lot of rules or regulations on it or trying to micromanage how she interacts with a nursing newborn.   

[KarenC]

32 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Well, I don't think the decision should be made based on what other people think she can and cannot do.  Which is more based on what individuals think THEY cannot do.   In many 3rd world countries, the mothers work all day with babies strapped to them in the fields or in the markets.  You get used to what you do regularly.   She may do just fine with it.  At a minimum I trust a mother to find some sort of balance that works for her and her baby and the job at hand without slapping a lot of rules or regulations on it or trying to micromanage how she interacts with a nursing newborn.   

No kidding.  Women all over the world manage.  I'm sure American women are just as capable.

[vonfirmath]

26 minutes ago, KarenC said:

No kidding.  Women all over the world manage.  I'm sure American women are just as capable.

 

You do realize that some of the ways they manage are not tolerated in America, right?

Children leaving school to stay home and care for younger siblings.

Leaving little kids in the hands of older siblings, cousins (and not necessarily teenagers. Kids that we consider too young to stay home alone)

There may be some "Babies strapped to the mom" work going on. But there's a lot more toddlers left in the hands of slightly older siblings to care for.  I write to a 6 year old in rural Uganda.  In a recent letter, she let me know her 7 year old (Maybe just turned 8. She was age 7 on April 12 of last year and this was written Feb 10 this year.) sister does most of the cooking for the family. 

 

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Well, I don't think the decision should be made based on what other people think she can and cannot do.  Which is more based on what individuals think THEY cannot do.   In many 3rd world countries, the mothers work all day with babies strapped to them in the fields or in the markets.  You get used to what you do regularly.   She may do just fine with it.  At a minimum I trust a mother to find some sort of balance that works for her and her baby and the job at hand without slapping a lot of rules or regulations on it or trying to micromanage how she interacts with a nursing newborn.   

I don't think anyone said that's solely what the decision should be made on. However, I sincerely doubt any woman can give full attention to a mentally challenging job and a newborn/infant at the same time.

Also, all these ideas in your post would be great if babies never distracted anyone except their mothers. A mom shouldn't get to make these choices based only on what she thinks she could tolerate or get done with her baby in tow, IMO.

But since I wasn't clear in my last post, I'll say that none of these factors on their own should be the only consideration for allowing babies in a workplace or not. There are a lot of things to consider.

[KarenC]

1 hour ago, vonfirmath said:

 

You do realize that some of the ways they manage are not tolerated in America, right?

Children leaving school to stay home and care for younger siblings.

Leaving little kids in the hands of older siblings, cousins (and not necessarily teenagers. Kids that we consider too young to stay home alone)

There may be some "Babies strapped to the mom" work going on. But there's a lot more toddlers left in the hands of slightly older siblings to care for.  I write to a 6 year old in rural Uganda.  In a recent letter, she let me know her 7 year old (Maybe just turned 8. She was age 7 on April 12 of last year and this was written Feb 10 this year.) sister does most of the cooking for the family. 

 

I don't think having a newborn in the Senate is in any way equivalent to a toddler cared for by a 6 year old. 

I really doubt her baby will spend significant amounts of time on the Senate floor.. When the baby is present, I'm sure the Senator is just as competent as she was before.

[PeachyDoodle]

3 hours ago, vonfirmath said:

 

My boss did allow my baby to come to work with me -- there is NO WAY it could have lasted an entire year. IT was just a few days a week (when my husband was in class). It was hugely disruptive the days the baby was there and we made different arrangements when she was 5 months old because she was too distracting and I was not getting enough done when she was there.

 

This was my experience as well. There's a reason why this hasn't caught on in the corporate world in a major way.

I also think that wearing/tending to a baby while doing physical labor is very different than doing so while undertaking a mentally challenging task like debating legislation for one of the most powerful countries on the planet. I was only a marketing director, but I still could get way more housework, gardening, etc. done while simultaneously mommying than I could ever get done in my job, where my undivided attention and creativity were needed on the task at hand.

I do think that some kind of compromise is possible, and I'm not strictly opposed to a nursing newborn on the Senate floor. But I also think it's ok to admit that some decisions in life are at odds with each other, and trade-offs are necessary. 

[EmseB]

5 minutes ago, KarenC said:

I don't think having a newborn in the Senate is in any way equivalent to a toddler cared for by a 6 year old. 

I really doubt her baby will spend significant amounts of time on the Senate floor.. When the baby is present, I'm sure the Senator is just as competent as she was before.

Taking the baby out of the equation, why is the assumption that someone trying to do two things at one time is just as competent as if they were devoting their full attention to one thing?

I'm sure women can nurse or tend a baby and do other things at the same time because I've done it. It's pretty much a logical and physical reality, though, that one can't be just as competent doing both as if they were devoting their full attention to one thing.

I'm actually sort of tired of this idea that women are supposed to be able to be superhuman and care for a baby while doing almost anything and everything else, both at 100%. I find it demanding and exhausting, not empowering or liberating.  

[EmseB]

And, look, if she needs to nurse her baby on the floor, it seems like a fine place to do it. I'm not opposed. I just wish we could stop with the idea that women bringing babies into the workplace is necessarily a good idea because it levels some sort of playing field or even that it alleviates pressure on women.