Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: chat

Blog post by KJK on Motherhood

55 replies

throwawaynametoday · 23/06/2025 11:17

Just read this. I find myself instinctively agreeing with it, especially the part in bold below (my emphasis). But equally I see tension between this and women's equality in the workplace and within relationships. Interested in hearing other women's thoughts.

The Real Childcare Crisis: When Mothers Can't Afford to Be Mothers

I have always believed — as most mothers do — that the first three years of a child’s life are absolutely crucial. And now or rather, and again, neuroscience and child psychology confirm what our instincts already told us: young children need consistent, loving care from their mothers in those early years to develop emotionally and neurologically. This isn’t sentiment — it’s science.

So why do we have a system that forces mothers to walk away from their babies before they’re ready?

Everywhere you turn, politicians and pundits talk about the “childcare crisis.” But what they really mean is a labour crisis — not enough adults in the workforce. Their solution? Push more mothers into full-time employment and expand state-funded daycare. It doesn’t matter whether the mother wants to return to work, or whether the child is ready. It doesn’t matter whether the job is fulfilling or soul-destroying. What matters, to them, is productivity.

At the Party of Women, we say: enough. Mothers are not spare parts in the economy. Babies are not burdens to be outsourced. Families are not the problem — they are the foundation of a stable society.

“The Party of Women believes that women should have a genuine choice to raise their young children at home without being economically penalised or socially pressured.”

This crisis didn’t emerge overnight. It began when we were all expected to start pretending that men and women are interchangeable in parenthood — that fathers could be just as natural, nurturing, and attuned to infants as mothers. But this ideological shift did not serve women or children well. It demanded that women deny their instincts, suppress their unique role, and behave as if babies need only a “caregiver,” not a mother. It’s a lie — and it has led to policies that devalue the maternal bond, treat childcare as a commodity, and shame women for wanting to stay at home with their babies.

One of the most damaging consequences of this thinking was the removal of joint taxation for married couples. Once, the tax system recognised that raising children was a shared family responsibility — now it punishes couples where one parent stays home. It assumes everyone should be in paid work, and that the care of children is secondary or easily replaceable. It isn’t.

Many women today are returning to work when their babies are just months old — not because they want to, but because they cannot afford not to. And for what? Often, it’s not a dream job or a fulfilling career. It’s a stressful, low-paid role that barely covers the cost of childcare. Mothers are exhausted. Children are missing out. Families are strained. No one is winning in this model.

We must stop pretending this is progress.

Psychotherapist Erica Komisar, in her book Being There, lays out the evidence: a mother’s presence in the first three years of life is essential for a child’s mental health. When that bond is disrupted too soon, children are more likely to experience anxiety, behavioural issues, and difficulties forming relationships later in life. That’s not guilt-tripping — that’s facing the truth.

Our policy response must reflect that truth. That’s why the Party of Women is committed to:

  • Resolving the economic pressures that force mothers into premature separation from their children;
  • Exploring tax reforms and family allowances that support parents’ right to choose how they care for their children;
  • Recognising motherhood as a vital contribution to the social and economic wellbeing of the country;
  • And ensuring no woman has to choose between bonding with her baby and paying the bills.
Let me say clearly: I believe motherhood is a superpower. It is one of the most meaningful and remarkable things most women will ever do in their entire lifetime. It should be celebrated, supported, and protected — not undermined by policy and dismissed by culture. This is not about left or right. It’s about truth. It’s about recognising that the wellbeing of children should not be sacrificed on the altar of GDP. A society that truly values families would not penalise a mother for staying home in the years her child needs her most. A society that truly puts children first would not view maternal care as a private indulgence, but as a public good. It’s time to stop treating motherhood as a problem to fix — and start treating it as the foundation to build on.
OP posts:
plantsdieinmyhouse · 23/06/2025 11:36

I agree with a mother’s universal income. Also mothers should get relief on student loan repayments.

TimeForTeaAndToast · 23/06/2025 11:39

I agree with her.

TheAutumnCrow · 23/06/2025 11:40

Do you have the link, OP? Thanks.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 23/06/2025 11:52

Cool. So the tax payer are paying bills, rent and council tax for three years so mother and baby can bond?

OP posts:
parietal · 23/06/2025 12:03

I’m a mother. I also have a career that I enjoy and work hard for. I didn’t much enjoy the baby phase and wasn’t great at it. My babies both went to nursery from 6 months so I could work and also feel like an adult human with my own life that is not constrained to being “mother”. I now have 2 delightful teenagers and my career hasn’t stopped.

a big part of feminism is letting mothers make choices and that includes going back to work and having a career. Babies need care and they need parents but the mother isn’t the only person who can give that care.

Gastropod · 23/06/2025 12:10

I'm a mother who returned to work when both children were 6mo. I wasn't "denying" any natural instinct to stay home with my babies. I was almost crying with relief to be able to return to work. I also co-slept and breastfed both children till they were 2 1/2. Also working full time.

My choices back then enabled me to gain full financial independence so that when I later divorced, I was able to afford a stable family home, and a comfortable life for my children which their father alone cannot provide.

Cabbageheads · 23/06/2025 12:24

MiloMinderbinder925 · 23/06/2025 11:52

Cool. So the tax payer are paying bills, rent and council tax for three years so mother and baby can bond?

If research shows that ensuring children are looked after by their mothers in the first three years rather than being sent to nursery leads to better long term health outcomes and more stable mental health, it might actually be the cheaper option

OhBuggerandArse · 23/06/2025 12:31

Everyone is busy talking about the chaos caused by the crisis in mental health, especially in children and young people - yet we are unwilling to explore social shifts which might provide long-term support for healthy development when they challenge our economic assumptions. I think there is a really important proposition here which deserves to be explored fully and thoughtfully.

TheAutumnCrow · 23/06/2025 12:33

throwawaynametoday · 23/06/2025 12:02

PoW don't seem to publish a blog which is odd, but this link should work

https://partyofwomen.org/so/99PUSEDPE?languageTag=en&cid=efb5b7b8-ae25-46fc-82d4-edb31c549447

Thanks, OP. Seems only fair to give them the click now that I’m reading it!

MiloMinderbinder925 · 23/06/2025 13:17

Cabbageheads · 23/06/2025 12:24

If research shows that ensuring children are looked after by their mothers in the first three years rather than being sent to nursery leads to better long term health outcomes and more stable mental health, it might actually be the cheaper option

It would be good for my mental health to have three years fully funded off work as well. I don't have children but already pay for schools, childcare, playgrounds and CAHMS because children are stuck inside on their phones all day. I'm also paying for obese kids to be treated in the future by the NHS.

Lottapianos · 23/06/2025 13:23

'I think there is a really important proposition here which deserves to be explored fully and thoughtfully'

I feel the same, although I don't agree with her that it needs to be / should be mothers. Fathers are just as capable of caring for and nurturing a child, with the obvious exception of breastfeeding!

Confuuzed · 23/06/2025 13:27

Seems pretty anti women to insist that the mother should be the primary caregiver for 3 years.

RedNine · 23/06/2025 13:31

Confuuzed · 23/06/2025 13:27

Seems pretty anti women to insist that the mother should be the primary caregiver for 3 years.

I see no insisting. Here she's talking about choices being available. If you're a high flyer with a satisfying and stimulating job you're maybe not going to be angsting over low pay/high childcare fees/high stress.

CandleARBRA · 23/06/2025 13:34

I agree with the fact that for most women, there is no choice. Going back to work is what has to happen to keep a roof over your family's head. We've just swapped one obligation (staying at home) for another (going to work).

Confuuzed · 23/06/2025 13:35

RedNine · 23/06/2025 13:31

I see no insisting. Here she's talking about choices being available. If you're a high flyer with a satisfying and stimulating job you're maybe not going to be angsting over low pay/high childcare fees/high stress.

I'm not a high flyer with a satisfying career. I just don't agree that it must be the mother who takes care of the child for 3 years. Could be the mother or father.

RedNine · 23/06/2025 13:42

Oh yes sorry, you make a good point.

marshmallowpuff · 23/06/2025 13:48

MiloMinderbinder925 · 23/06/2025 13:17

It would be good for my mental health to have three years fully funded off work as well. I don't have children but already pay for schools, childcare, playgrounds and CAHMS because children are stuck inside on their phones all day. I'm also paying for obese kids to be treated in the future by the NHS.

And those people’s children will be paying for you. There’s no magic pot of your own taxes saved up just for your pension, healthcare etc. in future life: it will come directly out of future taxpayers’ pockets.

Womblingmerrily · 23/06/2025 13:49

I don't think it's going to be compulsory.

I think the idea is that it creates an opportunity for women who would like to do this but can't afford to.

I like the idea but am still of the opinion that parenthood needs to be a conscious planned decision, taken when people are ready to take on the financial and emotional responsibility to maximise decent outcomes for their children.

This might help those who are ready in most ways but need some help financially for a short period of time.

We already provide financial support for other people in society - why not mothers who want to be their child's full time primary carer?

Will the costs be worth the outcome? I think they might.

OhBuggerandArse · 23/06/2025 13:50

I don't think it's true, that in the earliest period of a child's development, that fathers can fulfill the same role as mothers. Their role is hugely important, but different, and insisting that mothers' roles aren't unique is damaging to everyone involved. Winnicott's concept of the mother-baby dyad is crucial, and not superceded by changing social roles and practices around childcare and work.

HarryVanderspeigle · 23/06/2025 14:02

I think it would massively disadvantage a lot of women. With maternity leave, you get your job back. With this and two kids, you could easily be out of work for 6 years, so no way you are going back to comparable work. It also ensures that the mother will be doing much more in the home, as the other partner is off to Important Work. No way that is moving to equal proportions when she goes back to work.

Kuretake · 23/06/2025 14:07

Cabbageheads · 23/06/2025 12:24

If research shows that ensuring children are looked after by their mothers in the first three years rather than being sent to nursery leads to better long term health outcomes and more stable mental health, it might actually be the cheaper option

There must be research on this already I assume. My memory is that there isn't a huge difference once you've accounted for parental income and education levels but it's years since I looked into it as an anxious new mother.

In the end DH went very part time and looked after DS except a day a week with granny and two half days at nursery. DS (at 10) seems undamaged by the person doing the housework and daytime childcare having a penis. I breastfed until DS was over three so wasn't entirely a cold hearted career bitch.

I support extra resources for families and certainly things like sure start, home visits, targeted help for struggling families. I don't really think that paying anyone (as long as they are female) to have three years off work is likely to be the best use of public funds.

If anything I would support a true universal income situation.

Confuuzed · 23/06/2025 14:16

HarryVanderspeigle · 23/06/2025 14:02

I think it would massively disadvantage a lot of women. With maternity leave, you get your job back. With this and two kids, you could easily be out of work for 6 years, so no way you are going back to comparable work. It also ensures that the mother will be doing much more in the home, as the other partner is off to Important Work. No way that is moving to equal proportions when she goes back to work.

Which makes it a very odd suggestion for a supposedly feminist party.

ImNunTheWiser · 23/06/2025 14:17

a big part of feminism is letting mothers make choices and that includes going back to work and having a career

But that is what she is saying. In many cases it is no longer a choice but a necessity, simply to make ends meet in the modern world. Ergo, no choice. Maternal primary care giving and domestic work have been devalued in society in comparison to economic work over successive generations. Probably precisely because women do them. None of which means I think that women who do work/choose to work are in the wrong. And I certainly don’t have an answer to the issue of just how women, in general, may keep their career on track after a period of being away from the workplace. I would take a huge societal reset for that to happen. As it happens I did choose to stay at home and raise my children (lucky to be in the financial position to have the choice) but there is no doubt it meant I would have found it virtually impossible to get back to where I was career wise after that period though. It also happens that, for the majority of my working life, I have been a higher rate tax payer (just mentioning because the Sainted Taxpayer has arrived 🙄) but after children that has been because I set up my own business with my partner not because I could slot back in to the working that had very much moved on without me, and that isn’t going to be an answer for the majority of women in the same position.

Cabbageheads · 23/06/2025 14:29

MiloMinderbinder925 · 23/06/2025 13:17

It would be good for my mental health to have three years fully funded off work as well. I don't have children but already pay for schools, childcare, playgrounds and CAHMS because children are stuck inside on their phones all day. I'm also paying for obese kids to be treated in the future by the NHS.

I don't want to start the argument around whether or not looking after small children is work (it is). It's not a competition. It's about the fact that at the moment, we've normalised mothers spending very little time with their children from a very early age, and this may not be the best thing for children in terms of their development. Human infants need external input in order to develop, for their brain and nervous system to grow, for their immune system to learn how to function optimally, and in the early years, much of this comes from their relationship with their mother, who is the first person the baby ever develops a relationship with long before they are born. Face to face interaction, physical touch, carrying, mirroring of emotions, language. Hours of it a day. Mothering is an active word, not a state of being. Relationships with other people are important too, but they come later, when the baby needs more than the mother can provide. The way our society is structured right now is making mothering more and more difficult and it's right that we should ask if that's a good thing or not.

The problem with phones is a different issue. You're not much better off being with your mum full time if she's constantly glued to her phone.