I think the most important goal for all women is to stay economically independent. For some reason our mentality is very liberal and still most couples in the end lead a fairly traditional life, out of choice (or habit?).
I don't understand how this could work... if both men and women had the #1 goal in their life of being economically independent, then you'd have to be FIRE before having kids, if you wanted either parent to stay home with them. If you're going to hire someone for childcare, I guess both could remain economically independent while still having kids.
If either parent is going to give up money-earning hours of their day to be with the kids, that would make them less economically independent. So if a woman's 'most important' goal is to stay economically independent, she'd need to have kids with a man who is willing to be economically dependent on her while he stays home with the kids (Unless one is already FIREd). Isn't part of the family unit concept an interdependence on each other so each can accomplish different things? I do understand that the interdependence leaves one or both vulnerable after a break-up, but that's a risk we take. The alternative is to remain fiercely independent of all others, but you lose some benefits too.
You make it sound a bit extreme, I don't think it's that black and white.
I believe both partners should make it a priority to remain economically independent - that means, having a way to support yourself and possible dependants. It doesn't have to mean FI. Yes, it does mean that choosing to stay at home with your kids, without any significant assets to your name, and not doing any activities at all that you can put on your resume, to me, is a very bad idea. Of course, it's not always a choice for someone to not be economically independent, but I do believe it should be a goal.
I think the best case scenario (outside of FIRE) is for both parents to work parttime. This means that parents will be able to keep their day-care costs low, while they both have a lot of hands-on time with their kid and also stay economically independent. I also believe that going to daycare or having a nanny is good for a child's development (except for very young babies). Having one parent stay at home indefinitely is something people should only do when they already have significant assets + life insurance + preferably the stay at home partner should start a consulting gig or another type of business or enroll in a course to make sure they don't totally ruin their chances on the job market.
Of course, in some situations, one parent bringing in the income and the other one staying at home works perfectly. I don't see a lot of examples of this in my personal life, but I'm sure it happens. But it can lead to awful situations. I know many examples of women trapped in a relationship because they couldn't afford to live on their own, women getting into financial difficulties after their partner dies, breadwinners getting a severe disability, etc etc etc. To me, being part of a family union means that someone has your back when shit hits the fan, but it also means taking responsability. And one very responsible thing to do is to not make your entire family's financial future dependent on one breadwinner.
In my current relationship, we are both financially independent from each other. It means that we both earn enough to live off on our own, if we wanted to. It means that when something happens, I can pack my bag and leave. It means that if my partner would die tomorrow, it would be a huge emotional loss, but it would not affect my financial future - and this happens, a 40-year old lady I know was widowed very recently. You may be surprised to hear that my (male) partner is planning to stay at home if at one point in the future we'd medically be able to have a child. But he will be enrolling in college parttime, will continue his current side hustle and he has assets. Staying at home with a child is important to him, but it's not worth risking everything for.