Oh dear. A split.

@namitynamechange I totally understand why the advice is not to become financially dependent on your partner.
Although with my partner at times I have not been working or he has not been working, so we have both had times of being the breadwinner.
I also know financial abuse is very common.

@aliceca I agree with that. The problem with the "everything changing" on becoming a mother is that for some women. that may mean feeling more connected to their partner and baby, seeing their partner step up for them at the time they are most vulnerable etc etc. For other reason, that sudden loss of independence can be disastrous - worst case scenario that's when controlling or abusive behaviour can start from partners. Even when partners aren't actually abusive. the sudden (maybe inevitable) shift in the balance of power can really mess up the dynamics of the relationship. It also puts a lot of pressure on the other partner (as the sole income) since losing their job then becomes disastrous. It is a time when women lose their independence - that's why there is advice on making sure that you are protected through having independent income (keeping your job). The problem is that doesn't solve the problem anyway (women are still vulnerable to unfair dismissal, problems getting back to work etc). But in the wake of an alternative it is the only protection some women have.

I suspect that a lot of this will depend on women's individual experience (if your partner is a good egg and you found it very difficult to be separated from your toddler you will feel differently to someone whose partner turned out to be feckless, dismissive or full on abusive. Or whose partner lost their job unexpectedly but thank goodness going back after mat leave was still an option. etc)

The state could provide more help to women to get out of bad situations.

No neither do I. She was my one friend with a well-paid job.

Maybe, although I don't move in high powered circles.

@Floisme maybe it depends on the circles you move in?
I kept hearing, wait until the baby is born before making plans because you don't know how you will feel then.
I was a bit shocked when a well off friend went back when her baby was only 4 months old, but of course it was up to her, so I said nothing.

aliceca it was a totally What-the-fuck moment but it chimed very much with the narrative all around me at the time. And to be fair to her, it was a narrative I'd bought into myself until they handed my new born baby. My child is grown up now so I don't know if things have changed.

@Floisme that is a bizarre thing for her to have said.
Lots of women and men don't want high powered jobs. I work for the money. Thats it.

Yes, I will never forget the midwife visiting after I had come home with my new born baby and asking me when I was going back to work.

I will share a guilty secret with you all: When my child was small, I could not give a fuck about the glass ceiling.

Yes, Daisies and Flo, completely agree. Again, it's the neo-liberal idea of extreme individualism, fulfilment via consumerism and economic liberation (an impossible idea for almost everyone) that we are all chasing. An impossible dream, a mirage that keeps us all on the treadmill.

I guess some of it is over-correcting the way that patriarchal systems keep women dependent and thus oppressed, the knee jerk response is to isolate women from all networks to achieve ultra independence. The issue isn't the economics themselves though, it's the dynamic, the coercions and the pressure.

If feminism does recognise that then I'm pleased to hear it. However I have to say that wasn't my experience as a new mother.

@Floisme feminism recognises that everyone is dependent at various points in life. It is a fact of life. Children, mothers with young babies, disabled people, very elderly people. No one can be truly independent.

I’ve learnt a lot from this thread, thank you to the contributors. I imagine it’s developed in a far different way than the plopper of an OP thought it would. The twitter situation (and the fall out) mystified me a bit, but I feel I understand much better now.

I agree 100% Floisme.

We are interdependent.

We forget too easily in the modern world that we evolved as tribal animals. Men and women of all ages once knew the truth of interdependence. Individualism and independence are illusions. That is why many of us find ourselves so at odds with the modern world and modern values when we do that most primal of things and bring new life into the world. For some of us things that used to make sense to us just don’t anymore once we have our babies in our arms.

Soz, I meant 'I'm not just talking about being financially dependent....' etc

I've noticed several posts mentioning the importance of independence, and yet I honestly don't know how we square that with motherhood. When I had a baby it was pretty much the first thing that went out the window. If you're not dependent on your partner, it's on your mum / friends / childcare provider / manager and colleagues / the state, etc etc. I'm not just talking about financial independence, I mean for practical, emotional and everything in between support.

I guess it's no wonder feminism shies away from talking about it. It's too uncomfortable.

some kinds of social programs that are meant to help can ultimately be disempowering at a psychological level. And not just for individuals, but communities

Agree, SantaClaws. But it would be interesting to consider possibilities.

Another problem is the fact that care work makes other methods of participation in society difficult - women in politics being a good example. It's not even just the relentless 24-hoursness of early years care, it's the vulnerability that children gives a woman - how many mothers were targeted recently by police visits, and how many of them were more worried by their children's responses than their own experience?

The mother-child dyad/bond is described by Elaine Morgan in The Descent of Woman as the primary bond in human life. Far stronger and in evolutionary terms more important than any kind of pair bonding or mating bond etc. While this coudl be undoubtedly be argued, I do think it's interesting to consider how this, looked at as the fundamental building block of social interactions, cornerstones of society rather than marriage/partnership, or worker/boss, might change our views of women and mothers.

Sorry for typos, am supposed to be wfh while also caring for children (with snuffles so attention is divided. Personal is political etc)

Looking at late neo-liberal capitalism and the looming climate change crisis I wonder how much choice and agency we are going to actually have over all of these issues? House prices? National security? Air quality? Health service? Migration? International tensions?

I think we need pragmatic solutions, quickly. But not that optimistic we will get them. Maybe we need to start refusing to participate in reckless consumerism so much, rethink the whole social contract. Degrowth, reduce, downsize, dismantle the stories about what 'success' means and our ideas of life as a big competition. Is it too late? What else might work? What can we live without?

Solas, thanks! Yes, interesting points about the tensions between obligations and freedoms.

2.1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2.2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Historically I think we could go back further, to ... well, possibly to enclosure, but certainly the Industrial Revolution. It's the tension between the family and the state, really, isn't it?

We have the latter situation produced here, in Scotland, now. Recently introduced universal childcare widely criticised by experts in childcare. High cost of living forces women back into the workplace, free childcare gives them no good economic reason NOT to go back. Yet this can, we know, be detrimental to children and is not what all women want. We also don't have enough properly trained staff to care for the children, so what problems are going to be unfolding?

Women are obliged to maximise their earning potential just to stay afloat, you will be paid to have someone else care for your child but your own care, although of higher quality in most cases, will not be recognised or recompensed.

Not even looking at the unpaid labour of women caring for other family members, which is another enormous elephant in teh room.

Currently there is little respect for mothers and for the work of raising children which has to change. Caring roles need to be recognised as an important part of society. We need to stop thinking only of economic contributions and start considering the value of social contributions.

Also we need to focus on the shift between states from full time home to full time work and everything in between. None should have to make one choice that lasts them for the rest of their life but at present it is difficult to shift without facing loss of skills, loss of respect, judgement and so on.

Structural and governmental change is important but the attitudes of individuals are just as important. For example When additional childcare was brought in for disadvantaged 2 year olds in Scotland there were women complaining about how those 'lazy mothers were getting freebies when hardworking mothers weren't'. Sometimes we have to look at the bigger picture if we want to change society and we have to change social attitudes to make it work.

There is also the fact that women's participation (or non-participation) in paid work has a wider impact. For example,
There was the recent study that showed the risks of being operated on were higher for women operated on by men.
There are numerous examples (from drug trials to flak-jackets) of the default human being a man when products are researched/developed sometimes with deadly consequences for women/girls. Having more knowledgeable women involved at the testing/design/research stage could help.
I would not want to be in a country where politics was dominated by men. (None of the discussions here on what is best for mothers matter at all if all the political power is in someone else's hands)
If silicon valley/the various social media giants were dominated by women rather than men then the internet would probably look very different. Not necessarily better, but a different kind of bad.
Having female police officers, doctors, midwives, security guards etc etc really matters if you want to be able to request a woman for medical procedures/searches etc
As a young women I found it was older woman in supermarket/restaurant/bar jobs who were the most protective in terms of preventing sexual harassment of younger women etc

If women stop participating in the workforce entirely when they have children/if they all step back in their careers then we stand to lose a lot.

Such an interesting discussion. This is such a complex area and so important.