> she had asked the assembly secretariat to allow members to bring their children onto the floor
> her request was denied — she was told that attending a meeting with a child would “obstruct the operation of the assembly”
> she decided to take her baby with her when she returned to work anyway
> she was surprised to have her baby ejected from the chamber
I'm not sure I understand why this was surprising. I think she has a valid complaint that Kyoto and Akita provide child care facilities while her building does not, but it seems reasonable that children would not be an exception to the rules of the assembly.
- Assembly has a rule that only members are allowed in the assembly hall.
- One member requests special permission to bring her child.
- They refuse.
- She brings her child anyways.
- They require she obey the rules, like every other member.
Consider for a minute why these rules are in place. Imagine for a moment that everybody started bringing children to work. Suddenly the assembly is having to speak over crying children. Or members, in the midst of a debate, having to excuse themselves to deal with their children. Oh sorry, I missed that. Could you please repeat it? It would be horrifically counter productive, and chaotic.
This seems simply highly disrespectful of the organization of which she's a part. And the article also reeks of sexism. This has nothing to do with sex. Men and women have the exact same issue in this case. Finding appropriate care for your child is a major issue and the responsibility here is one of the major issues of parenting. Deciding to simply take your child to work in most professions would lead the real possibility of things like a crying child completely hampering everybody's work day. That's not progress by any interpretation of the word.
5 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 21.1 ms ] threadHere's the correct headline:
"Japanese politician required to leave chamber after bringing her baby to work"
The Post has gone downhill very quickly since Bezos took over.
> her request was denied — she was told that attending a meeting with a child would “obstruct the operation of the assembly”
> she decided to take her baby with her when she returned to work anyway
> she was surprised to have her baby ejected from the chamber
I'm not sure I understand why this was surprising. I think she has a valid complaint that Kyoto and Akita provide child care facilities while her building does not, but it seems reasonable that children would not be an exception to the rules of the assembly.
- One member requests special permission to bring her child.
- They refuse.
- She brings her child anyways.
- They require she obey the rules, like every other member.
Consider for a minute why these rules are in place. Imagine for a moment that everybody started bringing children to work. Suddenly the assembly is having to speak over crying children. Or members, in the midst of a debate, having to excuse themselves to deal with their children. Oh sorry, I missed that. Could you please repeat it? It would be horrifically counter productive, and chaotic.
This seems simply highly disrespectful of the organization of which she's a part. And the article also reeks of sexism. This has nothing to do with sex. Men and women have the exact same issue in this case. Finding appropriate care for your child is a major issue and the responsibility here is one of the major issues of parenting. Deciding to simply take your child to work in most professions would lead the real possibility of things like a crying child completely hampering everybody's work day. That's not progress by any interpretation of the word.