“Trade-offs do not make life unfair”
The Federalist, a conservative publication, draws from a stable of contributors that have a divergent view of what is consistent with conservatism, cultural and otherwise. That is as it should be. That virtue understood does not mean that one view is as good as another. This post by Ericka Andersen in today’s edition we found wanting in more ways than one. In order to arrive at the position advocated, (disregarding the implications) the writer could not possibly have been employed other than in a rarefied atmosphere.
More Companies Should Let Moms Take Baby To Work Like Tammy Duckworth
By allowing working moms to mother on the job, we’re showing the next generation they don’t have to put their careers on hold for kids.
It is a ridiculous thesis . We responded as follows but also commend to you some of the other comments. At this writing we have not seen any comments supportive of the Ms Andersen’s admonition.
As an employer I wanted available focus, predictable focus if not undivided attention. As an employee I did not appreciate distractions from my job, my productivity, my concentration imposed on by others.
Baby/toddler presence is not conducive to employer or employees in most industries and job types. Maybe her writing job can allow for it although I question the rigor of her analysis with or without babe in arms.
I have sat in many volunteer meetings where everyone, men and women were stressed by the presence distraction of babes./ toddlers.
And how many hours of paid nurturing is the employer responsible for? Day care centers at every employer and employees to care for others kids and or put up with the distractions? It boggles the mind.
The chauvinistic “multi-tasking” tripe about women is just that. Everyone can, to some extent, but where concentration is required, where safety is required, the practical considerations in factories, indeed most jobs . . . driving, deliveries, warehousing, on the road sales, all manner of real jobs require concentration — not a babe on the hips adding to liabilities and a host of other problems. Most women should (and I believe do) want to concentrate on their work.
Work at home? Fine. It can work for a fairly narrow range of jobs if the job is that flexible in terms of blocks of time on task.
The Duckworth baby accommodation, however supposedly limited, is reflective of the spineless posturing and un-seriousness of the Senate and, as night follows day, prelude to some sort of kibbutz approach to policy making or something.
Missing debate on the Senate floor Ms Duckworth? Get serious. Does she actually listen to all but a small part of it? And crying babies are not distractions during debate, such as it is? A voting accommodation would be allowing new Senator mothers to vote from their office, while in Washington but with no subsidy for any child care for their already over-compensated countenance. Otherwise those represented are dis-accommodated.
“Archibald Chamberpot” wrote: (excerpt)
This article accepts the absurd Progressive premise that life is only “fair” when there are no tradeoffs. Ridiculous. Companies should not start allowing people to bring their babies to work. If I brought my baby, he would destroy everything in sight, which he does at home already. . . . chasing a baby around would be outrageously distracting.
Here’s the correct option: you will, at times in your life, have to make a choice between two good things. One of those is likely to be Family vs. Career (men also have to make this kind of choice, but nobody cares about the men who limit their own salary growth for their families, even though it’s the exact same choice). Establishing priorities for your life without weeping that you should be able to “have it all” is an everyday fact of life.
I personally get paid less (significantly so) because I’m prioritizing my family these days … nobody owes me anything extra simply because it hurts my feelings to see other people make more money. Stop the foolishness – reject bad premises.
A Calvin Harper responded: (excerpt)
. . . No one can have it all at one time.
