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

[LarlaB]

 

8 minutes ago, PeachyDoodle said:

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. 

I agree with this.  Carrying a baby in a sling in the grocery store, pulling weeds in the garden or picking out books in the library is NOT the same as baby wearing during technical, intellectual, focused discussions and meetings. Both are “work” but not remotely the same context or intellectual focus and continued attention. Plus as an paid employer I thought it’s implied that my time and attention during my work hours, goes to my employer.  

I can be distracted when pulling weeds and still get the work done and it’s ok to start and stop.

I cannot accomplish my administrative work with distractions.  The project orientation requires that I remained focused during various stages - details, problems and all.

It’s the preoccupation, focus and distraction aspect that I’m referencing most.  Its not just generalized “work with baby in tow”.

 I personally would not want a surgeon, driver, police officer, therapist, accountant etc to have their baby in tow when they are supposed to dealing with me. You could NEVER convince me they had my 100% attention. YMMV.

[LarlaB]

1 minute ago, EmseB said:

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.

Agreed.

[KarenC]

12 minutes ago, EmseB said:

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.  

Nursing a baby isn't intellectually demanding.  A woman can nurse a baby and think at the same time.  The woman flew a helicopter during a war.  You're telling me she can't nurse a baby while performing her Senate duties?

Again, realistically speaking, the baby probably will not be on the Senate floor for significant amounts of time.  But during those times, I'm sure she can nurse and think.

[Sneezyone]

I think if it’s not possible for me or you or any other individual woman to balance the demands of her work and her parenthood, then me or you or that other woman should make concessions in accordance with those personal limitations. 

That doesn’t mean, however, that there’s nothing wrong with the ways we do organize work or that there don’t need to be changes to make that balance easier for those who wish to have it.

I think arguments about our individual choices/feelings shouldn’t get in the way of evaluating the justness/adequacy of systems.

[KarenC]

Just to be clear, I do draw the line at nursing the baby while flying a helicopter.  Even during peace time.

[Carrie12345]

TL;DR all posts.

Like most things, it's been working fine in other countries.  But, if, what, and, then, whatever... we're really not any more special or fragile than other countries.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

The whole “other countries do it, why can’t we?” argument always makes me want to say “if other countries jumped off a bridge, does that mean you should to?”  Lol

 

Maybe. If someone else has a better idea, wouldn't you be a fool not to seriously consider it? I get that is one of those generic parenting maxims but my son and DH are the type to ask...well...is there an ax murderer on my tail? Or, how high is the bridge?

[mamaraby]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

The whole “other countries do it, why can’t we?” argument always makes me want to say “if other countries jumped off a bridge, does that mean you should to?”  Lol

 

How is that even the same thing? 

Neglecting to take into account the experiences of other countries implies to me that we’re just so darned special over here in the US that we just can’t possibly be the same as all those *other* people. Not to mention the dash of paternalism loaded into the comparison. On the one hand you have a parent who obstensibly knows better than their immature child and on the other hand we’re comparing countries across the world. What...America is the wise, older parent who knows better and the other countries are...immature children?

[fralala]

Is anyone arguing that babies should be present for long periods of time in most workplaces?

I think it's reasonable for people who can't take maternity leave and work long or odd hours not to be prohibited from feeding their babies at work. This measure, like the one prohibiting laptops on the floor, seems specific to the unique conditions of this particular position.

Childcare is very different in the countries I've lived/traveled in that are generally held up as examples of great attachment parenting-- yes, older siblings sometimes are expected to care for children, but also grandparents, aunts and uncles, fictive kin...one of the hard things about raising kids here in the U.S. is that so much of a burden is put on parents' shoulders, and especially mothers. I think it's a good point that some of the "mothers can do it all" messages have been more stressful than empowering, but I'm not sure I see that actually happening in this case (or think I can judge whether any other mother experiences the choices she is juggling as stressful). We all have different thresholds. But yes, helping parents out is about more than just giving them rights. It is about actually creating a culture that supports parents. And part of creating that culture might include having legislators who are going through the hard stages of parenthood themselves-- even that discovery of just how little one can accomplish while the baby is nursing night and day.

[catz]

The thing is when you're nursing and parenting littles at all, it is distracting whether baby is there or not.  Having a newborn away from you for significant amounts of time is also stressful.  Especially if you're needing to pump.  Parenting is always distracting.  It doesn't make you incapable.  

When my first was born, I was working as a software engineer and I did a bunch of stuff and attended many meetings with him on me.  Was it ideal?  Meh - no.  But having a baby at all isn't ideal to be the best most productive employee ever, right?  Employers should be flexible when they can and support working families.  I really do think some people get very good at this type of multi tasking.  

[ktgrok]

41 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

It isn’t? I’ve nursed six of them and I cannot do ANYTHING else when I do it.  It is too much stimuli, not to mention that the distraction affects letdown for me, anyway.  I can’t talk or more lists or much of anything particularly well when I’m nursing, especially a smaller baby.  They always took more brain cells to keep latched on and actively eating.

 

And now I’m wondering if we were just defective nursers? It was never natural or easy, I just kind of got used to it when I figured out each baby.  But it’s wasn’t something I could do and do much more than listen with half an ear to anything technical.  I could maybe kind of tune in to an audiobook or show if they were fluffy.

 

Duckworth isn’t me, but I wouldn’t underestimate the challenges either.  Even a very experienced mom can’t do all the things.  Experience just means you figure out what you can let slide and still function.

Huh, I can do almost anything while nursing. It's so second nature I've actually forgotten I'm nursing and panicked, asking "Where's the baby? Who's got the baby?" Only to be gently reminded that I do, lol. She's latched on. Oops. 

I can read, write a novel, do my taxes, and certainly converse just as well as when not nursing. Only issue is typing is harder. (I write the novel with a headset and dictation software). 

[ktgrok]

For the record, the articles I read on this seemed to indicate it would infrequent and for a short time. That she normally goes to her office to feed the baby, but votes can come up suddenly and if that happens being able to bring the baby in for a quick minute to record her vote and leave would be helpful. 

[ktgrok]

Oh, and actually my firstborn was a LOUSY bottle feeder, so my husband would bring him to my office once a shift (I worked 7:30am-2pm) to nurse, so that he at least got some sustenance, other than the dribs and drabs he took from the bottle. I'd sit in the back office area and nurse him while answering the phones or making phone calls if it was busy, or if it was slow I'd clock out and chat with my husband while nursing him. No big deal. Same employer let him come in the afternoons and sit at that desk with homework, games, etc for a few afternoons a week when we were in between aftercare programs, many years later. By being flexible like that she kept me as a long term employee in a field with notoriously high turnover. It was a sound investment to retain a well trained highly experienced employee, even if I was somewhat distracted when he was there, versus losing me and having to hire a new person who would need training. 

[ktgrok]

I've also taken a newborn to a business lunch with my editor from Harlequin books. I was actually specifically told by her that I should bring the baby, because she knows how hard it is to balance motherhood and career and wants to make it easier. She came up in the publishing industry when you weren't even supposed to let your bosses know you HAD a baby let alone ever talk about the child or bring them to the office. She once walked right by her husband and child on the city street and pretended not to know them because she was with a bigwig in publishing and that was how things were done. She's worked hard to change that culture now that she is a bigwig herself and it meant the world to me. We also looked at another author's daughter's wedding dress photos at lunch :)

Being in the workplace shouldn't mean pretending we aren't mothers/women/etc. 

(and fyi, all of Harlequin is FREAKING AWESOME as for how supportive they are, in so many many ways. I do want to say that. They were great about extending my deadline indefinitely when I had prenatal/postnatal depression, and never pushed me but did ask how they could support me, etc. It was amazing.)

[PeachyDoodle]

20 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I think if it’s not possible for me or you or any other individual woman to balance the demands of her work and her parenthood, then me or you or that other woman should make concessions in accordance with those personal limitations. 

That doesn’t mean, however, that there’s nothing wrong with the ways we do organize work or that there don’t need to be changes to make that balance easier for those who wish to have it.

I think arguments about our individual choices/feelings shouldn’t get in the way of evaluating the justness/adequacy of systems.

"I can do it well, so it should be an option" is essentially the same argument as "I can't do it well, so it shouldn't be an option."

The Senator doesn't work in a vacuum. Nobody does. Her personal choices in regards to her work affect those working around her. She may be perfectly capable of wearing her infant while writing public policy and raising money and slaying dragons, for all I know. That's really not the point. If we go to an honor system whereby everyone decides for him/herself what s/he is capable of, how then do we deal with differences of opinion over what constitutes "capable"? How do we handle those who abuse the system or simply bite off more than they can chew? 

In groups we make decisions for what's acceptable based on what is reasonable for the group. It's a rare job that allows me to say, "I can do 40 hours' worth of work in 30 hours, so I'll be working 10am-4pm from now on." The job pays based on certain parameters, and I have to work within those parameters, whether I personally COULD do it a different way or not. This is certainly flexible depending on the type of job. Some jobs might allow workers to have an iPod or radio on, for example. In other jobs, that wouldn't be conducive to the work environment. Those policies aren't usually set based on an individual's abilities, but on what works best in general.

 

[ktgrok]

If we can't trust a senator to be able to determine if they can vote while an infant is nearby, we have bigger issues. 

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, PeachyDoodle said:

"I can do it well, so it should be an option" is essentially the same argument as "I can't do it well, so it shouldn't be an option."

The Senator doesn't work in a vacuum. Nobody does. Her personal choices in regards to her work affect those working around her. She may be perfectly capable of wearing her infant while writing public policy and raising money and slaying dragons, for all I know. That's really not the point. If we go to an honor system whereby everyone decides for him/herself what s/he is capable of, how then do we deal with differences of opinion over what constitutes "capable"? How do we handle those who abuse the system or simply bite off more than they can chew? 

In groups we make decisions for what's acceptable based on what is reasonable for the group. It's a rare job that allows me to say, "I can do 40 hours' worth of work in 30 hours, so I'll be working 10am-4pm from now on." The job pays based on certain parameters, and I have to work within those parameters, whether I personally COULD do it a different way or not. This is certainly flexible depending on the type of job. Some jobs might allow workers to have an iPod or radio on, for example. In other jobs, that wouldn't be conducive to the work environment. Those policies aren't usually set based on an individual's abilities, but on what works best in general.

 

Not exactly. One restricts someone else's choices, the other is an exercise of choice for yourself. As I said, I think it's worth asking ourselves whether organizing work for the benefit of men untethered to infants or, let's face it, primary parental responsibility at all, is the way we should go. It's the system as a whole that needs reconsideration. Right now, decisions for the group are primarily made by men and for the benefit of men with many women acceding to the status quo.

[PeachyDoodle]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Not exactly. One restricts someone else's choices, the other is an exercise of choice for yourself. As I said, it's worth asking ourselves whether oranizing work for the benefit of men untethered to infants or, let's face it, primary parental responsibility at all, is the way we should go. It's the system as a whole that needs reconsideration. Right now, decisions for the group are primarily made by men and for the benefit of men with many women acceding to the status quo.

So? They are still both arguments based in personal experience, which is what you were arguing against. 

One's personal choice has ramifications for others. That's my whole point. Yes, certain policies restrict personal choice. But they restrict it equally. Senator Duckworth at the moment (I guess, assuming this new rule hasn't passed yet, which maybe it has) has exactly the same options regarding her child and the Senate floor as all the other Senators she works with. The fact that they may or may not have children/want to bring their children/need to bring their children is irrelevant.

I don't see this as a male vs. female thing. I know lots of others do. But to me it's simply about the job, and what it takes to do the job well. The policies in place are there to help draw some parameters about what it takes to do the job. That doesn't mean that some people wouldn't need fewer parameters in which to do it. It's a baseline to help ensure that everyone is pulling their weight. 

Again, I'm not convinced that nursing her baby for a few minutes would mean Senator Duckworth wasn't pulling her weight. I'm not opposed to the new policy. I do think, as I said, that leaving something like this entirely up to whatever a given person thinks they're capable of is not conducive to a good working environment.

[PeachyDoodle]

11 minutes ago, Danae said:

 

The bolded is becoming less rare. My sister's company has gone to that model for all people over a certain pay grade.  There's no comp time, vacation time, sick time, or required working hours. As long as you get your job done you can flex your hours however you want.

My sister can't decide if she's a fan.  The flexibility is nice, but she feels like she's never completely off work.

You kind of missed the forest for the tree, there.

[Lady Florida.]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

TL;DR all posts.

Like most things, it's been working fine in other countries.  But, if, what, and, then, whatever... we're really not any more special or fragile than other countries.

We're apparently more fragile because we're constantly being told things that work in other countries, including other western countries, just won't work here. 

I think this is a wonderful thing and I wish it wasn't limited to Congress. It would be great to see more employers making something like this possible. No, it isn't going to work in every single type of job, but it can work it many different kinds of employee settings.

When I was teaching my classroom was one of the few that had an in-classroom office and the office had blinds allowing privacy. There was a young teacher who was also a new mom. She brought her baby to the child care nursery (this wasn't the one for teen mothers but a course for teens who wanted to go into some kind of child care field. If approved, you paid a very small fee and your child/baby could attend). She would go and nurse (in the child care classroom) during her planning periods and lunch break. Later, she put the baby in private care and then used my office to pump during her breaks. We should be encouraging situations like that and like Sen. Duckworth's, not finding reasons why it can't work or shouldn't be allowed.

[Sneezyone]

24 minutes ago, PeachyDoodle said:

So? They are still both arguments based in personal experience, which is what you were arguing against. 

One's personal choice has ramifications for others. That's my whole point. Yes, certain policies restrict personal choice. But they restrict it equally. Senator Duckworth at the moment (I guess, assuming this new rule hasn't passed yet, which maybe it has) has exactly the same options regarding her child and the Senate floor as all the other Senators she works with. The fact that they may or may not have children/want to bring their children/need to bring their children is irrelevant.

I don't see this as a male vs. female thing. I know lots of others do. But to me it's simply about the job, and what it takes to do the job well. The policies in place are there to help draw some parameters about what it takes to do the job. That doesn't mean that some people wouldn't need fewer parameters in which to do it. It's a baseline to help ensure that everyone is pulling their weight. 

Again, I'm not convinced that nursing her baby for a few minutes would mean Senator Duckworth wasn't pulling her weight. I'm not opposed to the new policy. I do think, as I said, that leaving something like this entirely up to whatever a given person thinks they're capable of is not conducive to a good working environment.

I don't have a problem with personal experience informing personal behavior. I was arguing against using personal experience to restrict others' personal behavior. I appreciate that you don't see it as a male/vs. female thing. I don't either. I see it as male-centered workplace rules vs. female-friendly workplace rules. There are functional differences (and different needs) for those who are primary caregivers, usually women, and those who are not, usually men. You don't have to agree that a reevaluation of the established workplace norms is worthwhile.

Saying the rules, as they currently exist, are fair to all is an equality vs equity argument. Everyone's not starting with the same set of expectations or responsibilities. I think we should work toward a more equitable set of workplace rules but that doesn't preclude minimum standards. I simply disagree that we have to use existing workplace rules and constructs as the baseline because I believe they are fundamentally grounded in inequitable treatment of women.

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, KarenC said:

Nursing a baby isn't intellectually demanding.  A woman can nurse a baby and think at the same time.  The woman flew a helicopter during a war.  You're telling me she can't nurse a baby...

That's pretty much not what I said, at all. I think you're either deliberately misreading what I'm saying or we're talking past each other.  I made several points in my posts and this wasnt one of them, nor does it reflect my thoughts on the matter.

[jewellsmommy]

I would think/hope that by the time the call for the vote comes, she has already done all of her research, debate, and "thinking time" and knows whether she is saying yay or nay. A baby won't affect her ability to say either. It doesn't sound, from what I read, that she is trying to have the baby with her in the midst of extensive presentation or debate. 

I don't see why we can't at least try this. If it doesn't work well, she will make other arrangements. Irreparable harm will not be done if the baby starts crying, and she has to take 90 seconds to exit the room. It's not brain surgery for goodness sake.

[KarenC]

16 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

We're apparently more fragile because we're constantly being told things that work in other countries, including other western countries, just won't work here. 

I think this is a wonderful thing and I wish it wasn't limited to Congress. It would be great to see more employers making something like this possible. No, it isn't going to work in every single type of job, but it can work it many different kinds of employee settings.

When I was teaching my classroom was one of the few that had an in-classroom office and the office had blinds allowing privacy. There was a young teacher who was also a new mom. She brought her baby to the child care nursery (this wasn't the one for teen mothers but a course for teens who wanted to go into some kind of child care field. If approved, you paid a very small fee and your child/baby could attend). She would go and nurse (in the child care classroom) during her planning periods and lunch break. Later, she put the baby in private care and then used my office to pump during her breaks. We should be encouraging situations like that and like Sen. Duckworth's, not finding reasons why it can't work or shouldn't be allowed.

Exactly.  Why can't we improve working conditions for women?  Flexibility doesn't have to mean a less productive workplace.

[KarenC]

6 minutes ago, EmseB said:

That's pretty much not what I said, at all. I think you're either deliberately misreading what I'm saying or we're talking past each other.  I made several points in my posts and this wasnt one of them, nor does it reflect my thoughts on the matter.

I must not be understanding you then.  If you don't want to do anything else while nursing, fine.  Don't.  But that  doesn't mean other women can't or shouldn't be able to do so. 

[EmseB]

20 minutes ago, KarenC said:

I must not be understanding you then.  If you don't want to do anything else while nursing, fine.  Don't.  But that  doesn't mean other women can't or shouldn't be able to do so. 

I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I never said anything like this, more the opposite actually.

I disagreed with your assertion that nursing has zero effect on one's job (that is, that doing two things at one time always divides one's attention in someway, even if one of the tasks isn't particularly intellectually demanding). That was one small part of everything else I've said in my posts, including these two things:

Quote

I'm sure women can nurse or tend a baby and do other things at the same time because I've done it.

Quote

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.

 

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

I think if it’s not possible for me or you or any other individual woman to balance the demands of her work and her parenthood, then me or you or that other woman should make concessions in accordance with those personal limitations. 

That doesn’t mean, however, that there’s nothing wrong with the ways we do organize work or that there don’t need to be changes to make that balance easier for those who wish to have it.

I think arguments about our individual choices/feelings shouldn’t get in the way of evaluating the justness/adequacy of systems.

Here's the rub:  there's those who wish to have it, and those who would rather not who are now expected to do it.  "It's okay, feel free to bring your baby to work," becomes, "I don't care if you've got an infant, just bring your baby to work and get X done." The system then expects women to suck it up and do it all regardless because if a US Senator can manage, why can't SuzieQ receptionist? And you bet your bottom, when push comes to shove, it's not JoeSchmoe in marketing being told and expected to just bring the baby with him. No, he can take a personal day if he gets "stuck" with the baby.

Funnily enough, I've actually seen this exact dynamic play out in a "flexible" workplace for women.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, KarenC said:

Exactly.  Why can't we improve working conditions for women?  Flexibility doesn't have to mean a less productive workplace.

And even if it DOES mean less productivity, if it means a healthier society, that might be worth the drop in productivity!

[Guest]

4 hours ago, EmseB said:

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.  

Yes. Exactly this. 

I’m conflicted on this because, while I do NOT want The Powers That Be to disallow a woman from having her baby at work (no matter the nature of the work), I think it would be better for women in general if we concede that not all things can be done equally well simultaneously. 

All these years of motherhood I have combined my work with caring for babies, toddlers, preschoolers and then homeschoolers. Part of why I can manage this is because my job is not that demanding and most decisions I make are not significant. Also, the actual work of it takes up a small amount of time; about 10-12 hours per week most weeks. But even so, it is enormously easier to do my work with no children there, and this is even still true with a 13yo homeschooler. There’s just no getting around the distraction of him asking, “Did you say double-space this? How do I do the Bibliography again? Where is my second page!” And the 40:000 pencil drops and forgotten books and other interruptions....sometimes it seems like a nursling was easier because at least once they were asleep, I was golden for a while! 

[happypamama]

2 hours ago, EmseB said:

Here's the rub:  there's those who wish to have it, and those who would rather not who are now expected to do it.  "It's okay, feel free to bring your baby to work," becomes, "I don't care if you've got an infant, just bring your baby to work and get X done." The system then expects women to suck it up and do it all regardless because if a US Senator can manage, why can't SuzieQ receptionist? And you bet your bottom, when push comes to shove, it's not JoeSchmoe in marketing being told and expected to just bring the baby with him. No, he can take a personal day if he gets "stuck" with the baby.

Funnily enough, I've actually seen this exact dynamic play out in a "flexible" workplace for women.

I do think this is a legitimate concern, that we might swing too far in the other direction.  I think we can allow parents to bring their babies to work when necessary, without making it the expectation that everyone should do so.  I'd like to think we can find a happy medium, but we don't seem to like to do that.

[Murphy101]

3 hours ago, EmseB said:

Here's the rub:  there's those who wish to have it, and those who would rather not who are now expected to do it.  "It's okay, feel free to bring your baby to work," becomes, "I don't care if you've got an infant, just bring your baby to work and get X done." The system then expects women to suck it up and do it all regardless because if a US Senator can manage, why can't SuzieQ receptionist? And you bet your bottom, when push comes to shove, it's not JoeSchmoe in marketing being told and expected to just bring the baby with him. No, he can take a personal day if he gets "stuck" with the baby.

Funnily enough, I've actually seen this exact dynamic play out in a "flexible" workplace for women.

And when that happens, it should be pointed out for the inequality and injustice that it is. 

Saying something positive can be twisted to a wrong end doesn’t make it not positive.

[Daria]

On 4/16/2018 at 5:24 PM, 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.

I think that pumping during a filibuster is less realistic than nursing a baby in a sling.  I also don't think it's unrealistic to worry that stepping out to pump during a long night session with an important vote, would lead the Republicans to call for a vote in her absence.  (Note,  this is not a political statement.  I'm sure if this was a Republican woman, the Dems would do the same).  I don't see this so much as being about feeding the baby, but about the fact that a nursing mother in a job where she can't step out to pump is going to be miserable and at risk for mastitis.  Under federal law, women have the right to pumping breaks at work, but there's no way that would work when the Senate is voting, so being allowed to have her infant brought to her seems like a reasonable substitute.

[TechWife]

15 minutes ago, Daria said:

I think that pumping during a filibuster is less realistic than nursing a baby in a sling. 

She doesn't have to be on the floor for every second of a filibuster unless she herself is the one speaking. I imagine that a breastfeeding mother would not volunteer to lead a filibuster. You cannot filibuster if the filibuster isn't widely supported. If it is a widely supported filibuster, then there would be several people willing to lead it, wouldn't there?

[Daria]

4 minutes ago, TechWife said:

She doesn't have to be on the floor for every second of a filibuster unless she herself is the one speaking. I imagine that a breastfeeding mother would not volunteer to lead a filibuster. You cannot filibuster if the filibuster isn't widely supported. If it is a widely supported filibuster, then there would be several people willing to lead it, wouldn't there?

I think as a Senator she needs to be allowed the opportunity to do everything that any other Senator does, including filibustering.  Whether she exercises that privilege rarely or frequently is beside the point, there needs to be a plan in case she chooses to do so. 

In addition, there are absolutely issues in the Senate where she has taken the lead, and where I imagine that she would want her voice to be heard.  The recent fight against proposed changes to the ADA is the most obvious example.  She shouldn't have to hand off leadership on that issue because she is breastfeeding.

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

And when that happens, it should be pointed out for the inequality and injustice that it is. 

Saying something positive can be twisted to a wrong end doesn’t make it not positive.

(this is more of a general discussion now, not so much related to the specific case in the OP)

Really? We'll point it out as an injustice that an employer wants an employee willing to actually work and women are fighting for the right to bring their baby in so that they can continue at a demanding career without losing pace? Meanwhile, some other women want to stay home with longer maternity leaves and want their employers to hold their place in line for when they come back to work.

These are competing interests at their core, not twisting a positive to a wrong end.

This is what I mean by the idea that this simply sets up an expectation that women should be doing it all. We all know A Good Mom nurses her baby. A Super Mom is ambitious and holds down a high power career while nursing said baby. She's able to be at the beck and call of her organization who so graciously allows her to nurse on the job. A good society makes sure she can do all that (positive) lifting with no interference from men telling her she can't. She's a helicopter pilot; she can do it all without breaking a sweat because nursing's not that hard. Oh, it was hard for you? Weird. She can nurse a baby without even thinking about it. You want more maternity leave? Sorry, I'm going to find someone more ambitious with a little more ability to handle their work-life balance with a little more work, honey.

It's not like men have ever been (or will be, let's face it) clambering to have infants allowed in the workplace so they could handle the baby while their wives had some important presentation or a vote to get to. But here we are as women wanting their permission to bring our nursing infants in so we can keep up with them because equality! And we say how great and progressive it is when the allow us to work while caring for our infants! It's almost comical.

[Murphy101]

18 minutes ago, Daria said:

I think as a Senator she needs to be allowed the opportunity to do everything that any other Senator does, including filibustering.  Whether she exercises that privilege rarely or frequently is beside the point, there needs to be a plan in case she chooses to do so. 

In addition, there are absolutely issues in the Senate where she has taken the lead, and where I imagine that she would want her voice to be heard.  The recent fight against proposed changes to the ADA is the most obvious example.  She shouldn't have to hand off leadership on that issue because she is breastfeeding.

I agree.

The breastfeeding women in leadership positions in other countries don’t seem to need special laws making something as basic as feeding their baby some big drama event.

While I agree that some jobs just can’t be made baby friendly, this job for all its stress and time requirements is not a physically laborious or hazardous job and I see no reason why it can’t accomodate a mother breastfeeding her infant.

[Murphy101]

1 minute ago, EmseB said:

(this is more of a general discussion now, not so much related to the specific case in the OP)

Really? We'll point it out as an injustice that an employer wants an employee willing to actually work and women are fighting for the right to bring their baby in so that they can continue at a demanding career without losing pace? Meanwhile, some other women want to stay home with longer maternity leaves and want their employers to hold their place in line for when they come back to work.

These are competing interests at their core, not twisting a positive to a wrong end.

This is what I mean by the idea that this simply sets up an expectation that women should be doing it all. We all know A Good Mom nurses her baby. A Super Mom is ambitious and holds down a high power career while nursing said baby. She's able to be at the beck and call of her organization who so graciously allows her to nurse on the job. A good society makes sure she can do all that (positive) lifting with no interference from men telling her she can't. She's a helicopter pilot; she can do it all without breaking a sweat because nursing's not that hard. Oh, it was hard for you? Weird. She can nurse a baby without even thinking about it. You want more maternity leave? Sorry, I'm going to find someone more ambitious with a little more ability to handle their work-life balance with a little more work, honey.

It's not like men have ever been (or will be, let's face it) clambering to have infants allowed in the workplace so they could handle the baby while their wives had some important presentation or a vote to get to. But here we are as women wanting their permission to bring our nursing infants in so we can keep up with them because equality! And we say how great and progressive it is when the allow us to work while caring for our infants! It's almost comical.

That’s not what I said.

If a company is pushing women to bring their baby to work but men get to take their PTO - that’s an inequality.  It just is.

I don’t think anyone should be pushed to bring their baby to work and I don’t think anyone should be pushed to stay home.

I think true equality is about having the choice to work or to stay home. I think we can’t call it work/home balance if we don’t seem to ever have choosing home as a genuine option.

I think the concept that women or men can or even should “do it all” is self destructive BS.

 

[EmseB]

Just now, Murphy101 said:

That’s not what I said.

If a company is pushing women to bring their baby to work but men get to take their PTO - that’s an inequality.  It just is.

I don’t think anyone should be pushed to bring their baby to work and I don’t think anyone should be pushed to stay home.

I think true equality is about having the choice to work or to stay home. I think we can’t call it work/home balance if we don’t seem to ever have choosing home as a genuine option.

I think the concept that women or men can or even should “do it all” is self destructive BS.

 

Ah, I was talking about competing interests between what women are fighting for in the workplace. I think choosing to stay home is regarded as less and less of a genuine good for society, precisely because it's seen as not carrying your weight (paying taxes on your income, being "productive", etc). And why would it be regarded as good or important if nursing and caring for your baby is just something anyone can do while working anyway?

I agree with most of what you've said here, but I don't think that's the direction most of society is heading, especially as birth rates as a whole decline.

[TechWife]

40 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

The thing with votes is that it isn’t five minutes. Between role call abdother business rolled into it, you could be looking at 3-4 hours, on a normal day.  And even with breaks and committees that’s long days and short breaks.  With a nanny it’s doable, or should be. But it also wouldn’t be camping out with the baby on the floor.  Just nursing is probably easiest, pumping would be so much more drama and involve leaving than just popping the kid under a cover or whatever she wants to do.  

Actually, votes are usually fairly brief and they are scheduled. A quorum is assumed to be present, however a senator can call for a roll call, in which case the presence or absence of a quorum is determined. If I remember my US Capital tour correctly, when there is a quorum call, they ring a bell in the office building, which causes Senators to leave their offices and go to the floor to register their presence. It can sometimes take a while to get a quorum, they just keep ringing the bell periodically. This is why a parent might need to bring an infant with them, particularly a mother who is breastfeeding. No other business happens during this time because the vote is the issue at hand. A quorum call usually doesn't go on for hours because if that bell rings enough, they will get off their duffs and go to the floor. Once a quorum is present, the Senator can cast his or her vote and leave, they need not stay any longer.

I found this info that does describe the procedure, absent the bell ringing part: https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/577d2a5e-2b47-4045-95fa-a76398e41461.pdf

[Mergath]

Do they really even do that much on the Senate floor? It's pretty much just votes and grandstanding, isn't it? All of the negotiating research, and stuff where you need to concentrate is done elsewhere, from what I've read. Really, as far as being on the Senate floor goes, as long as she can enter a vote and roll her eyes while nursing, she should be good to go.

I don't know if I could breastfeed while doing that. But that's only because my eight month old is over twenty-two pounds now and in 18mo clothing. She's a beast. I have to lay down to feed her because my arms give out if I try to do it while I'm holding her, lol.

[Murphy101]

12 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Ah, I was talking about competing interests between what women are fighting for in the workplace. I think choosing to stay home is regarded as less and less of a genuine good for society, precisely because it's seen as not carrying your weight (paying taxes on your income, being "productive", etc). And why would it be regarded as good or important if nursing and caring for your baby is just something anyone can do while working anyway?

I agree with most of what you've said here, but I don't think that's the direction most of society is heading, especially as birth rates as a whole decline.

I think that’s a sad misfortune for everyone.

I think eventually birth rates are going to have to rebound to keep society going, so I think that’s a short-sighted metric. It always has in the past and don’t think human tendencies have really changed that much. 

[TechWife]

4 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

My understanding from our senators was a much longer schedule day to day, especially with prep time and additional business.  Again, I don’t have an issue with a baby around per se, but I hated doing it with technical, official business.  The boards weren’t Congress, though. And the discussions were so in the weeds, especially on statutory business.  I miss it, but I don’t miss trying to care for infants during it!

 

 

Most Senate work doesn’t take place on the floor. Watch c-span - it’s largely empty. Senators are working in their offices. 

[EmseB]

5 hours ago, TechWife said:

Most Senate work doesn’t take place on the floor. Watch c-span - it’s largely empty. Senators are working in their offices. 

Right, the OP was about wanting the baby allowed on the floor because she'd need to be there at specific times to vote and the baby might need to nurse during that specific time. I guess I would assume when Sen. Duckworth is not on the floor and doing the kind of work Arctic is talking about, she'd have the baby with her in the office for the same reasons. I am also guessing that she will have a nanny of some kind so that she doesn't lose her stuff when she's on the phone or trying to write an email and baby is crying and won't latch, or won't sleep even though she's been changed, fed, and rocked.  (insert smiley here because that would be my life w/a nursing infant in my office)

 

[brehon]

On 4/16/2018 at 7:31 PM, FuzzyCatz said:

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.  

Re the bolded:  I just keep thinking that the as yet hypothetical Senatorial cry room would get more use by the Senators themselves, not the ones with babies. 

[Murphy101]

I think the concept of a cry room is ridiculous. It’s already been judged that we can’t have equality by segregating a demographic to a “separate but equal” room.

If a baby just can’t settle then handing to a nanny for a few minutes might be the only option. But no, I don’t think the answer is to say some parents have to step into a special box if they want to do the same job as everyone else. 

[Paige]

14 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

And even if it DOES mean less productivity, if it means a healthier society, that might be worth the drop in productivity!

That goes to deep rooted unexamined assumptions in our society, but it's a good point. Why should employers expect or have a right to 100% of our focus while we are working for them. We are not robots. Why is productivity the most important thing in all the world? Don't we always say that there's more to life than work? And don't we have plenty of unemployed people and people complaining that their jobs expect them to do the work of 3 people? And if we put more focus on family friendly work environments for mothers and fathers, would the initial loss in productivity be outweighed by long term benefits of improved mental health, less people lost to prison and substance abuse, and more productivity as more people can contribute? Everyone contributing 70% of their energy could be better than 50% contributing 100% of their energy.   

The way our society is structured for most folks these days, with a sharp divide between work and family, is relatively recent, and if we look back to when the change was happening (Industrial Revolution) there was a lot of talk about how it was bad for families and people. It used to be common for people to work as families together with their kids present. We don't want to go back to a pre-Industrial society, but it is worth considering that what we have now is not the only or best way, and that maybe changes that reduce productivity could actually be better for society as a whole. Maybe some senators would be annoyed or distracted by having an infant in the room- who cares? These are adults that should be able to deal with their emotions and being annoyed, kwim? I think what we'd gain by having the perspective of more women of childbearing age in Congress is worth more than what we'd lose in productivity by some congressmen and women being annoyed by an infant's presence. 

 

[historically accurate]

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I think the concept of a cry room is ridiculous. It’s already been judged that we can’t have equality by segregating a demographic to a “separate but equal” room.

If a baby just can’t settle then handing to a nanny for a few minutes might be the only option. But no, I don’t think the answer is to say some parents have to step into a special box if they want to do the same job as everyone else. 

I've only ever seen cry rooms in churches, and in those churches where there is a cry room, ushers/deacons/whoever point Mom to them at the first squeak out of an infant. I've had ushers walk down the aisle and tell me that they have childcare/cry rooms when my dd has whimpered in her sleep before even when she's already back to sleep and disturbing no one. It annoyed me then in church, and I can just imagine the comments of how Duckworth (and future senators) didn't immediately step out to the cry room if the baby made a noise or the comments of how she was a disruption when leaving to go to the cry room. In churches without a cry room, people seem to be able to focus on the sermon even with small infant noises. People in the Senate are supposed to be adults so I would hope that they could focus on their work while one woman out of 100 people was nursing an infant.

[Murphy101]

Yikes. Our parish has a cry room but I’ve never used one. And there’s no way it’s big enough for policing the pews like that to work. Good grief.

[Daria]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

Right, the OP was about wanting the baby allowed on the floor because she'd need to be there at specific times to vote and the baby might need to nurse during that specific time. I guess I would assume when Sen. Duckworth is not on the floor and doing the kind of work Arctic is talking about, she'd have the baby with her in the office for the same reasons. I am also guessing that she will have a nanny of some kind so that she doesn't lose her stuff when she's on the phone or trying to write an email and baby is crying and won't latch, or won't sleep even though she's been changed, fed, and rocked.  (insert smiley here because that would be my life w/a nursing infant in my office)

 

My understanding is that, at least during infancy, Duckworth's older daughter was cared for by Duckworth's mother at times when both her parents were working, and of course by her father when he wasn't at work.  

The articles I have read make it sound like she's specifically asking for permission to bring the newborn during votes while she is on maternity leave, and other unusual situations, not that she's planning to have her daughter cared for full time in her office when she's back at work.  Have other people read things differently? 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Paige said:

That goes to deep rooted unexamined assumptions in our society, but it's a good point. Why should employers expect or have a right to 100% of our focus while we are working for them. We are not robots. Why is productivity the most important thing in all the world? Don't we always say that there's more to life than work? And don't we have plenty of unemployed people and people complaining that their jobs expect them to do the work of 3 people? And if we put more focus on family friendly work environments for mothers and fathers, would the initial loss in productivity be outweighed by long term benefits of improved mental health, less people lost to prison and substance abuse, and more productivity as more people can contribute? Everyone contributing 70% of their energy could be better than 50% contributing 100% of their energy.   

The way our society is structured for most folks these days, with a sharp divide between work and family, is relatively recent, and if we look back to when the change was happening (Industrial Revolution) there was a lot of talk about how it was bad for families and people. It used to be common for people to work as families together with their kids present. We don't want to go back to a pre-Industrial society, but it is worth considering that what we have now is not the only or best way, and that maybe changes that reduce productivity could actually be better for society as a whole. Maybe some senators would be annoyed or distracted by having an infant in the room- who cares? These are adults that should be able to deal with their emotions and being annoyed, kwim? I think what we'd gain by having the perspective of more women of childbearing age in Congress is worth more than what we'd lose in productivity by some congressmen and women being annoyed by an infant's presence. 

 

Liking wasn't enough. We really don't have to settle for tinkering around the edges. We can and probably should question the basic assumptions/beliefs that surround how work is organized. I don't have any hard/fast answers to that but believe strongly that it's a conversation worth having.