These women are only interested in interacting with their grandchildren on their terms.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

And yes, I think it's sad that grandfathers don't drop everything for their grandchildren sometimes, too. The solution to this is not for grandmothers to become more like grandfathers, but vice versa.

If the 'Granny' has a job, I think it is wrong to insist that she interrupt her life because her offspring decided to breed.

"Decided to breed"? These are children. Human children. Not puppies. And, regardless of what anyone thinks of Hillary Clinton, it really does take a village to raise a child, preferably a village with some older people in it.

Children need more than housebreaking. Neither are they accessories to fill up the picture frames on the credenza to provide an attractive conversation starter with new clients.

However, who am I to insist? I do not insist. I merely point out that the women in the article will receive a return on what they have invested to the degree that they invest. In the cases put before us, the investment in their grandchildren suggests itself to be small. Yet this will not prevent their employers, who receive the bulk of their investment, from pushing them into retirement with nary a backward look once they are too old to keep up, because sentiment does not signify in the work world.

"Sorry, I cant help with the kids, hon- nanna has to go to a design review for a particle accelerator..." - Not something I find sad. What better role model could you ask for your daughter?

One willing to spend time with her. One who thinks she is at least as important as a machine. One whom she knows.