It takes time, energy, and money to bring forth and bring up a child. The vast majority of people find it so important to have children that they'll willingly undergo any burdens in order to achieve that goal. Futhermore, society views children as being of a "net benefit" to society-as-a-whole, so it will often take some of the financial burdens off of parents' shoulders and spread the costs around to everyonoe (through taxes for schools, income tax relief for parents, mandating employer-funded parental leave benefits, etc.)

One could make valid arguments that children are NOT necessarily of a net benefit to society and/or that children are not necessary for an adult's happiness and sense of satisfaction in life...but I'd guess that the vast majority of people would disagree (perhaps even violently disagree) with such assessments.

I'm constantly seeing news articles about the panic that seems to overtake countries when their populations are in decline, because their economic systems depend on an ever-expanding economy--and an ever-expanding population is one of the assumptions that feeds the expansion equation. I see even more news articles about what happens to societies in which there are not enough resources to go around for the current population...and yet children are constantly being born, and birth control is either not available or is discouraged. Children who cannot see a future for themselves grow up (assuming they DO get a chance to grow up) to be nihilistic warriors, terrorists, etc. Still, when you have nothing, having children is viewed as having "something."

Add all of that to the inescapable fact of biology: It is the female who gestates, and then nurses, the babies. We can hire others to help us feed and raise our kids. But not all of us can afford to do so. And many more of us don't WANT to do so. And what of the men? Most of them WANT babies. But most of them feel that it's "women's work" to take care of those babies. And even when men don't treat child-rearing as being "women's work," their fellow males generally don't respect a choice to put less energy into "work-work" and put that energy into "kiddie-work."

There are a lot of assumptions at work here, as well...both about "children" and about "work." Although most males (and some females) derive their greatest personal satisfaction--as well as their entire sense of identity--from their professions, the fact of the matter is that, for many, "work" is just "work." It is drudgery, it is soulless, and it's just a means to an end. And I should add that if you have children just because it's what's expected of you, then you can wind up feeling the same way about your life as a parent as many do about their lives as employees.

The Women's Movement has always promoted the notion that we can--and, indeed, SHOULD--"have it all." But the truth is that there are only so many hours in a day, we have only so much "quality energy" to which we can devote "quality time," and few of us manage to excel in every area of our lives. What this often boils down to is that we can expend the majority of our energy on our children, on our jobs, or on some other pursuit...and, when we make those choices, one area of our lives or another is going to be short-changed. If we decide to be "good parents," then our employers may be short-changed. If we get more satisfaction out of our careers than we get from being parents, then we're going to be MORE VALUABLE MPLOYEES to our employers than the "kids first!" employees, even though the "kids first!" employees may be standing on higher moral ground or may, ultimately, be of greater benefit to society-as-a-whole. Women-in-general tend to be in more of a "kids first!" frame of mind than men-in-general. When employers are looking to hire someone, they're going to make assumptions about the applicants that are based on their experinces with other employees. If their prior female employees have tended to "flake out" on them and have cost them money, then every potential female hiree is going to face an upward battle to be taken seriously. It is for this reason that "affirmative action" laws have been--and, unfortunately, remain--necessary. It is for this reason that employers would LOVE to be able to (if it were still legal to do so) ask every female applicant what her future plans are for child-rearing, while they'd feel no need whatsoever to ask similar questions of a male applicant. (And even if a woman were able to be legally asked about future children, the truth is that a woman who wants no children is perceived to be a "weirdo"--or worse--and wouldn't be viewed as a good potential employee, anyway...)

If I were "queen of the world," I'd declare that childbearing and childrearing are PERSONAL decisions, and that parents should bear all costs and consquences of deciding to have kids. Time off for pregnancy-related time off would be on a par with any other temporary physical disability, and it'd be covered solely by accrued sick leave on the employer's end. (People could buy supplemental insurance to cover wages lost due to disabilities not covered by accrued sick leave.) Any other time off would be unpaid. Because we have a goal of treating women as the equals of men, and because women are the only gender that actually bears children, I'd allow one rule that's favorable to women, and that's that her job would be held open for her for, say, 3-6 months time post-delivery. The time that is not covered by her accrued sick leave, however, would be unpaid. Because the decision to bear children is a private choice, the cost of bearing children would be privately-funded. The only inconvenience to a woman's employer would be that they'd have to hire a "temp" to fill her job.