Blog post by KJK on Motherhood

[throwawaynametoday]

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.

Is it a feminist party though? I don’t know much about the party tbh but KJK has been very clear she is not a feminist.

For just once I feel it appropriate to type, what about the men?!

Yes this is true - she is not a feminist and has been clear on this point.

People saying that she's advocating for choice I would respectfully suggest you read the article again. She is quite clear and says that women who do not give up work for three years are damaging their children and that it must be mothers not fathers. I mean she isn't saying it would be compulsory I suppose but it's not an argument for families to chose their set-ups it is saying that for the best outcome for children it must be working fathers and SAHM.

I don't agree with her but I do find her clarity refreshing, genuinely.

Yes. Mothers have often been paying taxes for years and will do for many more and they are sacrificing years of their career to raise future tax payers.

If you want society to exist when you’re old that requires children being born and it makes sense that more of the cost should be born by society as a whole not just women.

Yep.

It's a very interesting and worthwhile argument, and I'm glad she's making it.

I don't agree with her but I do find her clarity refreshing, genuinely.

The value here is in making the argument at all, when many women/feminists won't even countenance it, I think. I don't necessarily agree with all of what is said here, but it certainly is something that should be discussed.

Yes agree with you here.

i was nearly suicidal after 2 years at home with a baby.

What we need is the choice. But I don't want to fully fund people who don't pay into the system either.

I absolutely agree and can relate to this, as I am sure many women do. Enabling women to make the right choice for them feels fundamental to feminism, at least for me. I returned to work (albeit part time) after all of my DC and I am glad of it, for my sense of identity and financial independence.

But...

I think this right to equal work has come at the cost of commodifying mothering, and reducing it to the act of 'caregiving', which can be provided interchangeably by fathers, grandparents, nannies, nurseries, childminders etc. Whereas the older I get the more deeply I feel that there is simply something fundamental , primitive and almost spiritual about the nurturing of an infant by its mother that simply cannot be replicated (although I think a loving and deeply bonded close female relative can come close).

Yes, many, many fathers are fantastic and play a hugely important role in the lives of their young children. But they are fathers. They can never be mothers. And the existence of truly shit mothers, of which there are sadly many, does not persuade me that the mother-infant bond can be replicated by any caregiver-infant bond.

Yeah. If you're saying "only the mum can take this paid leave for three years" then she's going to feel like she has to take it if her job isn't particularly well-paid -- even if she loves that job and hates being alone with a baby. It basically says: parenting is your job by default because you're a woman. No thanks!

If I understand what KJK is saying, her view is that, to state the obvious, female and male humans have different reproductive roles and that a society based on what works for the male reproductive role is not great for all the women who choose to have children or for said children. I agree with this.

For some women who have well-paid jobs and/or particularly satisfying careers, it is, as several have posted here, a relief to get back to work after maternity leave, and that's a pretty strong argument in itself that it's better for the baby too, as being looked after by someone who's unhappy and bored is not going to be great. Many women are not in that position, though. And yes, she is saying that it's specifically mothers who should be the child's primary caregivers. I'd like to see the research behind that. I'm sure it's right for the first few weeks of a baby's life, but by six months or a year?

We ought to be able to have a calm, evidence-based debate about balancing the needs of everyone involved - babies and children, mothers, fathers, employers, the rest of society. There is very little more important in life than getting children off to a good start in life. We all pay the price in more ways than one when things go wrong.

In the context of a working life that might now routinely last till aged 70 or over, taking two or three years out to be a full-time stay at home parent is nothing. There are plenty of people who have gap years, career breaks for other caring responsibilities, re-training, periods of unemployment or extended sick leave, and still manage to get back into work later on. Maybe this would be more palatable if we looked at making it possible to take paid time out of work for everyone every so often.

I think the problem is the modern nuclear family, rather than the availability of an extended web of grandparents, aunts, inlaws all living nearby and providing informal childcare and emotional support as used to be fairly common before, say, WW2. It's not as if poorer women didn't always work - in factories, or on the land or, as my grandmother did, as a charlady.
And the responsibility for children ceased earlier too - my mother and aunts left school at 14 and were working from then. But kids now are stuck in school even if they don't want to be because there aren't enough jobs - mechanisation has eliminated most less skilled jobs.

I don’t think going back to work before your child is three necessarily damages the child or the relationship. My children were three years apart so that meant I would have been out of the workplace for 6 years.

I worked on and off when my kids were little and they went to nursery from the age of 2 part time and full time from 3 but it was mainly swapping shifts with my husband so one of us was home. As we couldn’t afford it. My kids are now in their 20s.

I think young kids do best with a combination of parents (both), grandparents or other regular carers and nursery.

Thinking about the kids and families I have seen grow from babies to adults. The more damaged children had SAHMs or parents/families with mental health or substance abuse use issues who couldn’t work anyway. Not that I can generalise from my smallish sample.

I'd like to see the research behind that. I'm sure it's right for the first few weeks of a baby's life, but by six months or a year?

This is the Winnicottian model of child development I was referring to earlier, which explores the primary bond between mother and child as the key thing which shapes how the child grows up emotionally. He sees baby and mother as a single unit, where the mother’s ability to respond consistently and sensitively to the baby’s needs helps the baby feel safe and real. He has a concept of the 'good-enough mother', not a perfect ideal, but able to create emotional holding space where the baby can start to develop a sense of self. Over time, as the baby grows and is less dependent, the mother becomes a bit less perfectly responsive, and the baby learns to cope with frustrations within a broader experience of feeling safe and protected. Winnicott sees this process as key for forming secure attachments and a stable personality later on.

Imagine if women could do all of this AND be at home for their babies if they chose to?

she is saying that it's specifically mothers who should be the child's primary caregivers. I'd like to see the research behind that. I'm sure it's right for the first few weeks of a baby's life, but by six months or a year?

Given that we already have statutory maternity leave of up to a year, I think that's not really an exceptional stance to take.

Plus, breastfeeding is recommended as sole food for (around) 6 months.

Turkeys voting for Christmas.

As the world is currently, yes, I suppose so. That's the problem. Caring responsibilities of all kinds are not valued.

So I guess I don't feel that. The mother-baby bond is great and important in the first few months (I'd hate the USA system of v short maternity leaves). But other people can and should also play a major role in a babies life, and can do the care tasks and love the baby too.

one of the big problems for the covid generation of babies (infants in spring 2020) is that they spent too much time with mum and not enough time with a variety of other people. And that seems to have held back their language and social development.

So I'd reject any claims that only a mother can care for a baby (past 6 months) or that making mothers feel guilty for working (which these proposals would do) is helpful for either baby or mother.

I don't think that this is remotely suggesting that only a mother can care for a baby. It's saying that the role of the mother as primary carer should be acknowledged, understood and valued better, not that nobody else should be allowed to help.

As far as socialising goes, that should be in addition to being with a primary caregiver (which realistically is almost always the mother), not an either/or!

As for feeling guilty - one could just argue that the current situation makes women feel guilty for not working. That's also not helpful.

These discussions almost always provoke strong feelings because most people want to do the best for their children and its easy to feel anxious or judged. So it's probably worth acknowledging that we're all doing the best we can at the time, and nobody gets it right or has all the answers, either. (the 'good enough' mother is a very useful concept).

I agree with universal basic income for parents/carers (not necessarily mothers). I think it’s a disgrace that solo mothers on benefits are expected to work 30 hours a week once their child is 3.

I 100% agree with KJK on this issue. Very well said.