This business of "its every woman's duty to have children for the state" comes up regularly on a cyclical basis - during WW2, women were working, operating cranes and machinery, driving buses, delivering mail, runnning the emergency services, and it was acknowledged that women were making almost a big an effort to te "home front" as were men who were in action in the war, in Europe, and the Far East. Once the war was over, the male fighting force had to have jobs to come home to - and then, it was "discovered" by an expert by the name of Bowlby, that maternal deprivation caused untold distress and damage to young children- and so, naturally enough ;) , the nurseries that were so essential during the war were closed, and all "right thinking" sociologists enthused on women, home rearing, child rearing, etc etc etc. This was the generation in which I grew up.
In the early '60's when I got married, I was an "oddity" because (a) I enjoyed working and (b) did not become pregnant within the first year of marriage - at this time, although the pill was available as a contraceptive, unless you were in "swinging London". no doctor would prescribe it to women who had not already had one child

! Eventually, after more than 4 years, we decided that the time was right for us to have children - and I must add, that during those 4 years, I went through the Spanish Inquisition everytime I appeared at any family "do" without a lump in front of me - "are you having tests yet?" - and these from women of the 1940s who were quite content to be childless for 4/5/6/years!
When eventually I produced No 1 Son, my neighbour produced her 1st sprog at the same time - and boy, oh boy - did we stir up some gossip the following summer when we BOTH went back to work - 2 weeks one, 2 weeks t'other - we used to hand babys over the fence& off we would go!!! That lasted for about 6 months each and it made us both confident in the fact that we did still have brains, but at the same time, we were both capable of bringing up our sproglets. In my case, Baby 2 & Baby 3 came along, and with them I was instrumental locally in building up Mother & Toddler & Playgroups- which left me with a great feeling of achievement.
The big hike in inflation, in the 1970s, made it more imperative that women had no choice in whether they went back to work or not - if we wanted to survive, it became necessary. In fact, I was at Uni in the 70s doing a social work course (and on the pill) when we realised that Baby No 4 was on the way - he was born 2 das after I complete my dipoloma course - but two years later, when I was really confident thatwe had excellent childcare support arranged - OH working split shifts in Youth & Community work AND grandparents next door- our local County Council refused to employ me permanently professionally for a position they were happy for me to undertake voluntarily - on the basis that "I had 4 children to look after"!!!!
Now, it is accepted that women will return to work after the birth of their children whethr or not there are good child care arrangements in place. My DIL is lucky, in that her child-minder is someone that she grew up with, and who thoroughly enjoys babies and children, and considers childminding to be her profession. I know of too many women in their 30s who have very little choice but to leave their children with people who are not going to stimulate these babies.
Obviously, it is getting too expensive to run and supply good child-care provision - in other words, the government wants to weasel out of it - so, what's the betting another Bowlby report will be coming up??
Margot