I love the term care feminism—I’m holding on to that! This whole conversation has been a struggle for me for most of my adult life. I was a very ambitious elementary school teacher—really invested in progressive education and change—and then decided to homeschool with my kids, way back in 1996. It was intellectually satisfying work that I did alongside teaching myself to write. So I’ve spent decades *feeling* ambitious in ways that most people in the larger culture do not recognize. I’m working to get a book published as if that will finally make me feel that my ambition was not for nothing—when I know down deep that it was not for nothing. It’s complicated! Thank you for exploring in words what I’ve long felt.
this sounds like a very rich life to me FWIW <3. I like to imagine an alternative universe in which people who care for others are treated with real curiosity and respect-- a mom going into a supermarket with a tired toddler or a son going to a restaurant with his parent with dementia is not just treated with kindness and giving some basic human decency and support, but actually seen as interesting and worthy humans! And, I am wishing best of luck with the writing and it sounds like you have rich life experiences to pull from. <3
Such a great article. Thank you, Elissa. I'm in the process of preparing to launch a book of essays by queer moms of sons talking about feminist parenting (Boyhood Reimagined: Stories of Queer Moms Raising Sons). The power of *how* we parent is also something feminism can miss when looking at the choice of care as a focus of our work in the world. The kinds of parenting our kids receive shape them; it shapes the next generation. It doesn't get more powerful than that, at least collectively.
yes to the HOW -- and congrats on the book! sounds fantastic, and queer moms add so much to our conversations about how to care well, and what good care is, outside of patriarchal scripts. I included one such profile in my book and also pointed out that Adrienne Rich's liberating writing about separating motherhood from the institution of motherhood seemed to have taken shape around the same time she began identifying as queer. I don't think this is a coincidence.
Love this piece (when is your book coming out in the UK??), thank you Elissa. Also just wanted to add the reminder, for those reading this that may not know of her work, that Arlie Russell Hochschild published 'The Second Shift' in 1989 (I came across her work when I had my first child, in 1999). I'm quite sure you didn't mean the 'in the past five years' to mean 'people weren't talking about this stuff before'! But I personally find it salutory to look past the Eve Rodskys of the current moment, at how thinking has evolved (or not) over the time we have been grappling with these questions.
thanks! and thanks for bringing this up. Absolutely re: the historical perspective and I am soooo with you. In my book I write about Black and working class feminisms from the middle of the 20th century, Great Depression-era ("Home economists") advocates who fought for seeing domestic labor as real work, and early 20th century economists who fought for care to be included in the GDP from the very beginning. Excerpts are always tricky in this way, but overall was referring to "care feminism" becoming buzzy and mainstream in the past decade.
I don't think we will really figure this out without a long perspective...the history is so important.
Yes, I absolutely did not mean to imply that *you* had missed anything out!! Obviously aware that the nature and context of the piece means it will necessarily be more limited in scope, but I just felt that 'The Second Shift' in particular was a context I wanted to post alongside it. Seems to be a phrase that gets used a lot but without any sense of where (or how long ago) it 'entered the discourse'.
And I'lll follow up with my local indie re the book too - thank you - I know they're often able to order in US stock.
I really appreciated this read, Elissa. It also took me back to when my own kids were small and negotiating the balance between my ambitions for my career and my desire to be a present caregiver felt like they were constantly in conflict. I still feel the professional cost of the choices I made to not be "all in" in my during those years (and my kids are almost grown now!) I know I'm supposed to say that I'd do it all over again, but sometimes I'm not sure that's true.
One thing I'd love to hear more about -- and maybe you write about this in your book, which I need to read! -- is about how the expectations of care work for mothers have grown and expanded in the past few decades. It's not just spending time at home and taking kids to the park, the library, and the doctor's office, but also planning elaborate themed birthday parties and making organic almond-milk popsicles, etc. etc. Does this hyper-escalation of what care should look like mean that we value it more? Or is it a way of elevating care with these ridiculous, unattainable standards because we don't value it enough in the first place?
yes, building on what Amber said -- I think we put A LOT of focus on the instrumental parts of parenting in this country...seeing it as a means to an end to produce a certain kind of kid and project a certain kind of image. We don't, however, put a lot of focus (collectively speaking) on the value of relational care, or the ongoing dance of one unique human tending to another unique human. There is just soooo no one-size-fits-all approach that would work.
Overall, I don't think much of the hyper-escalation stuff really qualifies as authentic care and is instead a product of our image-obsessed (hello Instagram) and competitive culture. (And all the sympathy in the world for all of us trying to do our best in this world. I am not immune to worrying about what college my kid will get into, etc.)
And yes, in my book I address a lot of this. Particularly in my chapter on care and philosophy, I think about what is at the heart of good care. It definitely isn't, fundamentally, the flashy birthday parties and almond-milk popsicles! (Though of course, those may work for some, and right on. Not my thing.)
I have so much more to say about this, but will stop here! If you get a chance to read my book, let me know what you think. And I'm thinking this will be fodder for a Substack essay coming soon!
The latter! I think we substitute things like elaborate birthday parties because we don’t understand real care and its value. I also think we have a problem (in the U.S. at least) with performative parenting… people are (I would argue subconsciously) making choices in parenting based on how things look to others, when the reality is that most moments of true care are mostly invisible to everyone except the person being cared for.
So true, Amber! And that means that the elaborate work involved in performative parenting isn't really directed at the recipient of that care (kids aren't the ones who really need all of this performative work) but rather at elevating the adults' view of themselves as filtered through the lens of other onlookers.
I love this piece. I was a radical leftist for decades until I started interviewing neuroscientists on the link between infant neglect and addiction. (In short, maternal affection helps build an adaptive response to external stressors as well as the human oxytocin system: two things we need to stave off addiction—an affliction that piggybacks off the “love and attachment reward centres” of the brain.)
Today, more and more women are viewing libertarian Sandberg/Steinem feminism as a Trojan Horse of the patriarchy. It seems to them that, despite feminism, all the wishes of (toxic) men have come true: they no longer have to provide, protect, or even commit. And I don’t blame them: personally, I’d love to watch the boomer-feminist types who deride and ridicule the gravely important work of mothering sit face-to-face with hunter gatherer societies and tell the women they’re being lazy or anti-feminist for not hunting and acting like men.
We all know the plot line of nearly every coming-of-age teen movie: the comely nerdy girl, after getting belittled by the populars, starts dressing and acting like them to try to gain their approval. We, the witty viewers, scream, “Don’t conform girl! You are awesome as you are!!”
But somehow, Steinem/Sandberg feminists and the generations of women following in lockstep don’t see that this is exactly what they’ve advised us to do. “Act like a man to get his respect!”
Certainly second-wave is right in one regard: back then and still today some men started to belittle the feminine nature of women. Others, the value of women entirely.
Possibly due to a lack of physiological understanding after seeing the behavior that resulted from the significant brain changes in mothers, some men insisted “Welp, they’re crazy” (or hysterical, or “fussy”, etc.) Neuroscientist Lisa Mosconi has written how when women become pregnant: “the brain’s very architectural design and internal connectivity are all recalibrated; a neural overhaul to equip a new mother with some nearly superhuman abilities: the precision to distinguish her own child among a sea of faces; an enhanced auditory sense to detect the softest of whimpers; the unparalleled capacity to empathize with her newborn, comprehending their needs and emotions based solely on non-verbal cues.”
These are superpowers. Not something to disparage.
But rather than stand up for our damn selves, feminists told us that male traits, values, behaviors, etc MUST be more valuable and therefore we should start acting like them and shun the women who don’t.
Imagine instead, feminists stood up for the feminine. Imagine we actually GREW THE MATRIARCHY. Imagine we insisted on explaining the value of the softness and empathy of new mothers; the strength of a woman bearing, birthing, and feeding children; the important brain and limbic system-building work their focused affection does for children? Why not stand up for the extreme value that all these superhuman qualities bring to society.
I truly believe that if the Emily Oster types—rather than being celebrated and rewarded solely for their credentials and academic work, were instead cheered by society (and paid handsomely) for their mothering—they would not grandstand how much they love their work more than being with their kids. (Effectively denigrating mothers’ work to all.)
We have over 50 years of quality, cutting-edge neuroscience research and rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, alongside hefty meta analysis and neuroimaging data showing that maternal affection builds resilient brains—into adulthood. And still, the feminists tell us not to be there for our infants, not to confess our love for our children, and not to celebrate motherhood in any way.
Why don’t we all *finally* agree on the extreme value that sensitive and present mothers (and parents!) bring to humanity, so that policy can follow to finally support mothers.
I like the idea of the feminism of care. And believe that this is where we could actually have an impact to do so.
Elissa, I'm so glad you're writing about care - it's such a huge topic, ignored in the mainstream for so long. I'm not sure I fully understand your concept of "glass doors" and I want to comment on this: "Glass doors are the reason I failed to see the political and economic value of my efforts raising my kids, and therefore hesitated before calling motherhood ambitious."
Individual mothers (and fathers who spend time caregiving) don't "see the political and economic value" because our politics and economics don't actually value and support raising kids. There are millions of parents who would prefer to spend more time with their children, they know the value of parent/child time together, but they are trapped in powerful systems that are designed to maintain parents' ties to the waged workforce.
Our grassroots nonprofit, Family and Home Network, was founded by three mothers in 1984. Originally named Mothers at Home, the organization was “devoted to the support of mothers who choose (or would like to choose) to stay home to nurture their families.” Its goals were: “to help mothers at home realize they have made a great choice; to help mothers excel at a job for which no one feels fully prepared; and to correct society’s many misconceptions about mothering.”
In reading your book, I'm often reminded of essays we published in our monthly journal, Welcome Home. Mothers explored their thoughts and feelings, and yes, their ambition. The journal was published on paper and mailed to subscribers (before the internet) and we don't have permission to share most of the content online. We do have permission for some essays, including this one by Nelia Odom: What About You? I think it will resonate with you: https://familyandhome.org/articles/what-about-you
As for glass doors and the realities of economics and policies, we believe it's time to demand that elected representatives adopt principles of equity and justice when it comes to policymaking. You refer in this essay to the lack of paid leave - but paid leave based on employment leaves millions of families out. Instead, we call for an inclusive leave, as Matt Bruenig proposes for families with a newborn or newly adopted child (People’s Policy Project). He explains: “parental leave would be understood as a benefit for children, with the benefit consisting of the care provided by their parents during leave. This also differs from conventional paid leave framing, which construes the program primarily as a benefit for working adults.” Bruenig’s plan, with benefits paid through the Social Security Administration, would be straightforward to administer, would acknowledge the critical importance of parent/child time together, and would free unpaid caregivers from the “family taxpayer” framework (an especially important factor for those parents fleeing a partners’ financial control or domestic violence). A federal “benefit for children” would not interfere with efforts by States or businesses to provide further support with their own paid leave policies.
This is so resonant. The tension between care as constraint and care as calling lives in so many of us, especially those of us who were taught that feminism meant professional achievement above all else. I used to believe that if I prioritized caregiving—especially as a single mom—I was betraying the movement. But I’ve come to see how radical it is to say: this work matters. Not just emotionally or spiritually, but politically, economically, systemically.
You name something crucial here: we’ve broken through some ceilings, yes—but we’re still pounding on glass doors. The ones that make care invisible. That call ambition “professional” but never personal. That celebrate a man making lunch for his kids as exceptional, while a woman doing it daily goes unseen.
I believe the future of feminism includes care—not as a sacrifice we make quietly, but as a force that shapes economies, relationships, and political priorities. Thank you for writing this. I’m off to get the book.
"I believe the future of feminism includes care—not as a sacrifice we make quietly, but as a force that shapes economies, relationships, and political priorities." Yes yes yes yes, so well put! Thanks for sharing all this, and if and when you get a chance to read "When You Care" let me know what you think!
On this subject I read the excellent "The Rights of women" of Erika Bachiochi, an overview of the emergence and history of the two conflicting currents in Feminism, that continues to this day : care feminism and girlboss feminism. One says : Women need freedom in order to mother and need to be exempt from the market rules and coercion. The other says : Women need freedom from motherhood in order to enter the market on the same terms as men. I think the conflict is at the root of what it is to be a mother: ambivalence as always, need for flexibility throughout the seasons of life etc... but I think it has occured to every new mother of a young infan that being forced to retun to work within 1, 2 or 3 months is not the win we were sold...
I'm gonna check this book out, thanks for suggesting. And yes, totally, we need support and respect for both paid work and care -- and this goes for men and women -- and yet we are still stuck in this myth that the paid work is the ultimate achievement.
I love the term care feminism—I’m holding on to that! This whole conversation has been a struggle for me for most of my adult life. I was a very ambitious elementary school teacher—really invested in progressive education and change—and then decided to homeschool with my kids, way back in 1996. It was intellectually satisfying work that I did alongside teaching myself to write. So I’ve spent decades *feeling* ambitious in ways that most people in the larger culture do not recognize. I’m working to get a book published as if that will finally make me feel that my ambition was not for nothing—when I know down deep that it was not for nothing. It’s complicated! Thank you for exploring in words what I’ve long felt.
this sounds like a very rich life to me FWIW <3. I like to imagine an alternative universe in which people who care for others are treated with real curiosity and respect-- a mom going into a supermarket with a tired toddler or a son going to a restaurant with his parent with dementia is not just treated with kindness and giving some basic human decency and support, but actually seen as interesting and worthy humans! And, I am wishing best of luck with the writing and it sounds like you have rich life experiences to pull from. <3
Elissa, I cried when I read your response! Which tells me how much I want to experience your alternative universe. May we help make it so!
Such a great article. Thank you, Elissa. I'm in the process of preparing to launch a book of essays by queer moms of sons talking about feminist parenting (Boyhood Reimagined: Stories of Queer Moms Raising Sons). The power of *how* we parent is also something feminism can miss when looking at the choice of care as a focus of our work in the world. The kinds of parenting our kids receive shape them; it shapes the next generation. It doesn't get more powerful than that, at least collectively.
yes to the HOW -- and congrats on the book! sounds fantastic, and queer moms add so much to our conversations about how to care well, and what good care is, outside of patriarchal scripts. I included one such profile in my book and also pointed out that Adrienne Rich's liberating writing about separating motherhood from the institution of motherhood seemed to have taken shape around the same time she began identifying as queer. I don't think this is a coincidence.
Look forward to hearing more.
https://www.motinabooks.com/book/boyhood-reimagined-stories-of-queer-moms-raising-sons/
fantastic!
This is a fantastic chapter of your book. Congrats on getting it into Glamour - I'm so glad to see your message being spread far and wide!
thank you!
Love this piece (when is your book coming out in the UK??), thank you Elissa. Also just wanted to add the reminder, for those reading this that may not know of her work, that Arlie Russell Hochschild published 'The Second Shift' in 1989 (I came across her work when I had my first child, in 1999). I'm quite sure you didn't mean the 'in the past five years' to mean 'people weren't talking about this stuff before'! But I personally find it salutory to look past the Eve Rodskys of the current moment, at how thinking has evolved (or not) over the time we have been grappling with these questions.
thanks! and thanks for bringing this up. Absolutely re: the historical perspective and I am soooo with you. In my book I write about Black and working class feminisms from the middle of the 20th century, Great Depression-era ("Home economists") advocates who fought for seeing domestic labor as real work, and early 20th century economists who fought for care to be included in the GDP from the very beginning. Excerpts are always tricky in this way, but overall was referring to "care feminism" becoming buzzy and mainstream in the past decade.
I don't think we will really figure this out without a long perspective...the history is so important.
My book is available at online bookstores in the UK: https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/When-You-Care-by-Elissa-Strauss/9781982169282
Amazon too.
Yes, I absolutely did not mean to imply that *you* had missed anything out!! Obviously aware that the nature and context of the piece means it will necessarily be more limited in scope, but I just felt that 'The Second Shift' in particular was a context I wanted to post alongside it. Seems to be a phrase that gets used a lot but without any sense of where (or how long ago) it 'entered the discourse'.
And I'lll follow up with my local indie re the book too - thank you - I know they're often able to order in US stock.
I really appreciated this read, Elissa. It also took me back to when my own kids were small and negotiating the balance between my ambitions for my career and my desire to be a present caregiver felt like they were constantly in conflict. I still feel the professional cost of the choices I made to not be "all in" in my during those years (and my kids are almost grown now!) I know I'm supposed to say that I'd do it all over again, but sometimes I'm not sure that's true.
One thing I'd love to hear more about -- and maybe you write about this in your book, which I need to read! -- is about how the expectations of care work for mothers have grown and expanded in the past few decades. It's not just spending time at home and taking kids to the park, the library, and the doctor's office, but also planning elaborate themed birthday parties and making organic almond-milk popsicles, etc. etc. Does this hyper-escalation of what care should look like mean that we value it more? Or is it a way of elevating care with these ridiculous, unattainable standards because we don't value it enough in the first place?
yes, building on what Amber said -- I think we put A LOT of focus on the instrumental parts of parenting in this country...seeing it as a means to an end to produce a certain kind of kid and project a certain kind of image. We don't, however, put a lot of focus (collectively speaking) on the value of relational care, or the ongoing dance of one unique human tending to another unique human. There is just soooo no one-size-fits-all approach that would work.
Overall, I don't think much of the hyper-escalation stuff really qualifies as authentic care and is instead a product of our image-obsessed (hello Instagram) and competitive culture. (And all the sympathy in the world for all of us trying to do our best in this world. I am not immune to worrying about what college my kid will get into, etc.)
And yes, in my book I address a lot of this. Particularly in my chapter on care and philosophy, I think about what is at the heart of good care. It definitely isn't, fundamentally, the flashy birthday parties and almond-milk popsicles! (Though of course, those may work for some, and right on. Not my thing.)
I have so much more to say about this, but will stop here! If you get a chance to read my book, let me know what you think. And I'm thinking this will be fodder for a Substack essay coming soon!
The latter! I think we substitute things like elaborate birthday parties because we don’t understand real care and its value. I also think we have a problem (in the U.S. at least) with performative parenting… people are (I would argue subconsciously) making choices in parenting based on how things look to others, when the reality is that most moments of true care are mostly invisible to everyone except the person being cared for.
So true, Amber! And that means that the elaborate work involved in performative parenting isn't really directed at the recipient of that care (kids aren't the ones who really need all of this performative work) but rather at elevating the adults' view of themselves as filtered through the lens of other onlookers.
Yes exactly.
I love this piece. I was a radical leftist for decades until I started interviewing neuroscientists on the link between infant neglect and addiction. (In short, maternal affection helps build an adaptive response to external stressors as well as the human oxytocin system: two things we need to stave off addiction—an affliction that piggybacks off the “love and attachment reward centres” of the brain.)
Today, more and more women are viewing libertarian Sandberg/Steinem feminism as a Trojan Horse of the patriarchy. It seems to them that, despite feminism, all the wishes of (toxic) men have come true: they no longer have to provide, protect, or even commit. And I don’t blame them: personally, I’d love to watch the boomer-feminist types who deride and ridicule the gravely important work of mothering sit face-to-face with hunter gatherer societies and tell the women they’re being lazy or anti-feminist for not hunting and acting like men.
We all know the plot line of nearly every coming-of-age teen movie: the comely nerdy girl, after getting belittled by the populars, starts dressing and acting like them to try to gain their approval. We, the witty viewers, scream, “Don’t conform girl! You are awesome as you are!!”
But somehow, Steinem/Sandberg feminists and the generations of women following in lockstep don’t see that this is exactly what they’ve advised us to do. “Act like a man to get his respect!”
Certainly second-wave is right in one regard: back then and still today some men started to belittle the feminine nature of women. Others, the value of women entirely.
Possibly due to a lack of physiological understanding after seeing the behavior that resulted from the significant brain changes in mothers, some men insisted “Welp, they’re crazy” (or hysterical, or “fussy”, etc.) Neuroscientist Lisa Mosconi has written how when women become pregnant: “the brain’s very architectural design and internal connectivity are all recalibrated; a neural overhaul to equip a new mother with some nearly superhuman abilities: the precision to distinguish her own child among a sea of faces; an enhanced auditory sense to detect the softest of whimpers; the unparalleled capacity to empathize with her newborn, comprehending their needs and emotions based solely on non-verbal cues.”
These are superpowers. Not something to disparage.
But rather than stand up for our damn selves, feminists told us that male traits, values, behaviors, etc MUST be more valuable and therefore we should start acting like them and shun the women who don’t.
Imagine instead, feminists stood up for the feminine. Imagine we actually GREW THE MATRIARCHY. Imagine we insisted on explaining the value of the softness and empathy of new mothers; the strength of a woman bearing, birthing, and feeding children; the important brain and limbic system-building work their focused affection does for children? Why not stand up for the extreme value that all these superhuman qualities bring to society.
I truly believe that if the Emily Oster types—rather than being celebrated and rewarded solely for their credentials and academic work, were instead cheered by society (and paid handsomely) for their mothering—they would not grandstand how much they love their work more than being with their kids. (Effectively denigrating mothers’ work to all.)
We have over 50 years of quality, cutting-edge neuroscience research and rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, alongside hefty meta analysis and neuroimaging data showing that maternal affection builds resilient brains—into adulthood. And still, the feminists tell us not to be there for our infants, not to confess our love for our children, and not to celebrate motherhood in any way.
Why don’t we all *finally* agree on the extreme value that sensitive and present mothers (and parents!) bring to humanity, so that policy can follow to finally support mothers.
I like the idea of the feminism of care. And believe that this is where we could actually have an impact to do so.
Elissa, I'm so glad you're writing about care - it's such a huge topic, ignored in the mainstream for so long. I'm not sure I fully understand your concept of "glass doors" and I want to comment on this: "Glass doors are the reason I failed to see the political and economic value of my efforts raising my kids, and therefore hesitated before calling motherhood ambitious."
Individual mothers (and fathers who spend time caregiving) don't "see the political and economic value" because our politics and economics don't actually value and support raising kids. There are millions of parents who would prefer to spend more time with their children, they know the value of parent/child time together, but they are trapped in powerful systems that are designed to maintain parents' ties to the waged workforce.
Our grassroots nonprofit, Family and Home Network, was founded by three mothers in 1984. Originally named Mothers at Home, the organization was “devoted to the support of mothers who choose (or would like to choose) to stay home to nurture their families.” Its goals were: “to help mothers at home realize they have made a great choice; to help mothers excel at a job for which no one feels fully prepared; and to correct society’s many misconceptions about mothering.”
In reading your book, I'm often reminded of essays we published in our monthly journal, Welcome Home. Mothers explored their thoughts and feelings, and yes, their ambition. The journal was published on paper and mailed to subscribers (before the internet) and we don't have permission to share most of the content online. We do have permission for some essays, including this one by Nelia Odom: What About You? I think it will resonate with you: https://familyandhome.org/articles/what-about-you
As for glass doors and the realities of economics and policies, we believe it's time to demand that elected representatives adopt principles of equity and justice when it comes to policymaking. You refer in this essay to the lack of paid leave - but paid leave based on employment leaves millions of families out. Instead, we call for an inclusive leave, as Matt Bruenig proposes for families with a newborn or newly adopted child (People’s Policy Project). He explains: “parental leave would be understood as a benefit for children, with the benefit consisting of the care provided by their parents during leave. This also differs from conventional paid leave framing, which construes the program primarily as a benefit for working adults.” Bruenig’s plan, with benefits paid through the Social Security Administration, would be straightforward to administer, would acknowledge the critical importance of parent/child time together, and would free unpaid caregivers from the “family taxpayer” framework (an especially important factor for those parents fleeing a partners’ financial control or domestic violence). A federal “benefit for children” would not interfere with efforts by States or businesses to provide further support with their own paid leave policies.
For more about our call for inclusive paid leave, please see our letter to a bipartisan Congressional working group: https://familyandhome.org/articles/paid-leave-all-families
Will you join us in calling on policymakers - and all feminists - to adopt principles of inclusive family policies?
This is so resonant. The tension between care as constraint and care as calling lives in so many of us, especially those of us who were taught that feminism meant professional achievement above all else. I used to believe that if I prioritized caregiving—especially as a single mom—I was betraying the movement. But I’ve come to see how radical it is to say: this work matters. Not just emotionally or spiritually, but politically, economically, systemically.
You name something crucial here: we’ve broken through some ceilings, yes—but we’re still pounding on glass doors. The ones that make care invisible. That call ambition “professional” but never personal. That celebrate a man making lunch for his kids as exceptional, while a woman doing it daily goes unseen.
I believe the future of feminism includes care—not as a sacrifice we make quietly, but as a force that shapes economies, relationships, and political priorities. Thank you for writing this. I’m off to get the book.
"I believe the future of feminism includes care—not as a sacrifice we make quietly, but as a force that shapes economies, relationships, and political priorities." Yes yes yes yes, so well put! Thanks for sharing all this, and if and when you get a chance to read "When You Care" let me know what you think!
On this subject I read the excellent "The Rights of women" of Erika Bachiochi, an overview of the emergence and history of the two conflicting currents in Feminism, that continues to this day : care feminism and girlboss feminism. One says : Women need freedom in order to mother and need to be exempt from the market rules and coercion. The other says : Women need freedom from motherhood in order to enter the market on the same terms as men. I think the conflict is at the root of what it is to be a mother: ambivalence as always, need for flexibility throughout the seasons of life etc... but I think it has occured to every new mother of a young infan that being forced to retun to work within 1, 2 or 3 months is not the win we were sold...
I'm gonna check this book out, thanks for suggesting. And yes, totally, we need support and respect for both paid work and care -- and this goes for men and women -- and yet we are still stuck in this myth that the paid work is the ultimate achievement.