"Well, jeffrey, as the recent incarnation of the work world was designed purely with men-with-wives-to-take-care-of-their-children in mind, then it is absolutely necessary to the feminist movement that the world change to accommodate us. It is neither hubris nor quixotic to think that a revolution within the structure of the family, the basic unit of society, will force massive changes on that society. It has nothing to do with choice either. If we "choose" to stop having children because we can not, and do not wish to, depend on men for help or livelihood, the world then grinds to a halt as the birthrate plummets (see: Italy, Russia). It's not like men can up and choose to have children on their own, and neither can we (unless forced to). Motherhood is not an individual choice; it is one half of parenthood. To think that motherhood is an individual choice that can be safely ignored by society is hubris, quixotic, and many other adjectives as well. The tension between reality and fantasy here is what gives us court-ordered child support. It's now illegal to father and run, expect more changes to follow."

Not jeffrey but the sense of entitlement that runs through this screed is amamzing. I still love the notion that some here usually express when a variation on this subject comes up - like the idea that you all are having kids primarily for the "good of society" is a hoot. I'm sure that was the first thing on your mind when you were in the sack making junior. As is the strange implication that Italy and Russia are somehow "grinding to a halt" because of "plummeting" birthrates.

Also, how is debating whether companies should set up policies about bringing infants to work "ignoring mothers"? Btw, in the traditional sense of babymaking becoming a mother is not an individual action, but yes, in the end, it is an individual choice. Also, it is not illegal to "father and run". It is not even illegal to not pay child support. It's illegal not to pay court ordered child support.

If anybody thinks this will work in environments other than unique or alternative enviornments they are greatly fooling themselves. If you're talking about a standard office situation with hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, and in some cases, hundred of thousands employees located all over the world, the idea of a company sponsoring parents regularly bringing infants to work is ridiculous.

There's not a competent Legal, HR or Risk department that would allow it. The logistics alone would be daunting. All these individual cutesy stories and scenarios of angelic 6 month old infants sitting quietly is fine but let's multiply that by hundreds or thousands or tens of thousnds and look at it from the company's angle. Getting into the daycare business, HR issues all over the place, potentially huge financial liabilties (btw, do you want to sign a wavier idemnifying the company just in case your kid gets hurt on the premises - what's that? didn't think so)

Also, people need to stop hiding behind their kids and simply come out and say that they want an exclusive benefit that will make THEIR lives easier and you want other people to not only deal with it but to help pay for it. All this "good of society" posturing is self-centered nonsense. YOUR kids are for the greater good, eh? It's funny though that you always hear the "you need my kids because they will take care of you when you get old" line. Perhaps, but they could also be the kid that muggs me or robs my pension/401k blind and leave me penniless. Not YOUR kids right? That must be those "other" kids.

Btw, I'm well aware that a good number of companies have a backup daycare program. But, they are usually very limited use (x number of times per year), offsite and explicit in stating that they are not a substitute for regular daycare.

"A crying, pooping baby gets in the way of THEM, and THEIR NEEDS. They are the babies who need attention, and they resent the hell out of the fact that one day they will be old and useless, one day dead and forgotten, and a new generation will take their place."

Remarkable. People who object to "crying, pooping babies" being brought into the workplace by parents are guilty of narcissism? Let's see: To make your life easier, you bring your "crying, poopy baby" into the workplace and I object and I'm the one with the problem? Twisted but remarkable. Btw, parent or not, we will all be old and useless and so on one day.

"About the conflation of parenthood vs. taking a vacation (boy, conflation is the name of the game here on the Letters pages)... it's like this

parenting is a sacrifice. caring for an elder is a sacrifice, volunteer work is a rewarding sacrifice of your time.

taking a vacation is not a sacrifice, that is a luxury. yoga and photography classes are not sacrifices either."

Conflation is not the problem. It's defining "your" choices as "sacrifices" and others choices as "luxuries".

not surprised,

You're pushing the enevelope to try and make your point. As was pointed out by another LW, having a balanced, healthy personal life is good for eveybody, not just parents, and society should encourage eveybody, not just parents, to have one.

What's interesting is how some couch their arguments under a layer of "societal interest" (e.g. that as parents, they are, by definition I suppose, fullfilling not only a personal choice, but performing a societal good!!! as opposed to non-parents and therefore they should get certain exclusive benefits) Apparently, they are unwilling to come out and plainly state what they obviously feel - "As a parent, my life is more important and valuable than yours so therefore......" Not surprising why it's not stated as such.

Also, when did becoming the routine act of becoming a parent imply some sort of heroic self-sacrifice? Strange.