freyasnow, we are emphasising slightly different angles I think because I have already dismissed as obvious that of course, in this case, camaleon should allow her student to bring the newborn if she wants to. As an exception, as a way to avoid excluding the student and scuppering her chances to be marked on that presentation and pass. But i can't take that as far as thinking that it is a good thing in principle that parents take babies everywhere they go.
I take issue with the idea that women who bear children must have babies attached to them all the time and the only way they can be facilitated to do anything, is with the babies. I think that is defeatist. I love working without my children. I have taken babies to necessary meetings - as exceptions - and was glad that I got away with it, but it was hard, and I only did it because I was determined to get that meeting done. But if it were then more frequently suggested, on a creeping scale of meetings less important to me and less critical to my job, and I kept hearing that I should be at this, that and the other meeting, and "you can just take the baby with you" I would have felt very pressured and stressed. And probably stopped working.
People keep saying that this is not the way they want it to go, but this is the way it always bloody does go. Everything that purports to be about women being able to choose to do more stuff always turns into women being expected to do all the work, all the time, at the same time.
I haven't had all that many answers to my question about whether people really want to work without childcare and whether they are as good at it without childcare? A few examples, but are they exceptional?
I feel that women have so much to prove at work / university, and while many of you seem to think that excluding babies = excluding women, I think that including babies will soon lead to - well, we already have women being expected to perform better than men, for less money and less opportunity, while doing all the housework, booking the childminder, doing the school admin, wearing high heels and doing all the necessary corporate "grooming" bollocks - all this already - but NOW, if she actually takes the baby with her, this is supposed to be some "natural" extension of her that will not damage her energy, concentration or performance!
Many of the posts in this thread have conflated the baby with the mother. Someone even accused me of calling mothers needy or something when I meant that babies are - because there are so many posts that don't recognise the baby as a whole other person. I don't want to exclude the mother, I just think she might do better without the baby actually attached to her the whole time and if we accept that they necessarily come as a package it feels retrograde to me. there are various posts that are quite sniffy about "just not wanting to have babies around". I do find babies tiring. I love my children and my friends' and families' children, but after a day with 6 kids (I don't have 6, I mean when we all get together) I love it when they are in bed and I can eat without someone putting a chewed chip in my dinner or wiping snot on my cardigan. I am astonished at the people who insist that they can work with their kids around and that kids should go everywhere. Yes, you get windows of opportunity with a newborn asleep in a sling - you can't necessarily pick or plan around them though. Yes a 6 year old might colour under the desk - they take 6 years to get to that though (actually maybe 4 if you are lucky). From 2 months to 4 years - seriously?