But - I don't think many of us do have to work as hard as we do for those critical three or four years. We're told we do, and that if we don't we won't have a 'decent' standard of living, but it's just consumerism. Capitalism will always tell us to buy more. In order to survive it must expand into new areas of our lives once it's saturated the previous one.
Quoting myself from a previous thread to save time:
"I (genuinely, and not just to enrage or upset people) worry about the results we'll see in 20 years time of a whole generation in an industrialised (and if we could be honest with ourselves, poor quality, underpaid and under-educated in terms of child development) childcare setting, up to ten hours a day from the age of six months.
It's a massive social experiment and - with what we know about attachment - seems very likely to have a negative impact on all our wellbeings. The only reason we accept it is because capitalism has reached the stage where it's not possible to survive in many cities on less than two incomes - or at least, not at the standard of living that capitalism has told us we should expect*.
It's a massive con - what should have happened is that men should have been forced/enabled to take half the load - so both couples go part-time and care is split between them. That's child-centred, but also equality-focused.
I know lots will disagree, but what we have is horrible.
Twenty years ago it was very much not the norm, and I don't think anyone - women, men, and most of all babies and toddlers - has benefitted."
*Even though I know housing costs have exploded, I still stand by this. The fundamental idea - that for the first few years of children's lives you live incredibly frugally in order for one parent to be at home most of the time - could still work, even if families are in smaller homes, and rented ones rather than owned. It's shit, but it's the best thing for babies and toddlers and has huge emotional/psychological benefits.