Me too, on both counts.
Industrialised childcare damages babies and small children - we know this objectively and instinctively, but have been so successfully groomed to believe that consumption is the foundation of happiness and a human right that it now feels impossible for one parent to be at home with small children for even three or four short years.
Also, that industrialised childcare is as bad for women as it is for children.
Firstly, they have an instinctive, developmental drive to be close to their young (even when it's boring/tough/otherwise shit) which they have been forced to suppress by the liberal fetishisation of 'progress'.
Secondly, this drive has been so denigrated in culture that they now experience it as a personal, intellectual and/or political failure.
Thirdly, they have been conned into shouldering half the family's economic output while being relieved of only a fraction of the parental and domestic labour, both physical and emotional.
Fourthly, that these apparently progressive and organic social shifts are in fact neither, but are underpinned by an ideology which, like all successful ideologies, is now almost invisible; that these strategies have been so fully internalised by women that they cannot allow themselves to see, let alone challenge, their own subjection - have become, in effect, its most convincing advocates.
Fifthly, that they experience the resulting cognitive dissonance as an alienation from themselves - a low but constant buzz of unease or pervading sense of inauthenticity.
I believe that (3) has been the overarching goal of (1) and (2) and (4), and that it has primarily been achieved through the careful co-option of feminism into liberalism, whose promise of reform has been the most consistent and succesful beard for capitalism (which must continuously expand to survive, and therefore continually finds new ways to convince us that it is not intrinsically anti-human).
Also very unpalatable to those on the broad Left:
My view that immigration is not a Universal Good absent a significant degree of enforced cultural integration, which must be cheerfully pursued in schools and the wider community. And that the liberal Left's cowardice in confronting the conflict(s) of values intrinsic to multiculturalism has led to the shitshow in which democracy now finds itself.
Perhaps more predictably (though as unpalatably to the liberal Left) I attribute this failure almost entirely to the misogyny inherent in Western society, which naturally prioritises a generic 'cultural respect' for its fellow patriarchy over the rights of women within that patriarchy to be perceived as fully human.
I believe that, if it was still rational, the right of women to full humanity would be the Left's first principle - sex is the final and fundamental distinction between humans, incapable of further division, and must logically be considered the primary axis of oppression in any conflict of rights; that the Left's failure to lay out this (or in fact, any) hierarchy of rights is philosophically and politically unforgivable.
Also unforgivable, the Left's failure to apply to multiculturalism the same structural analysis of power that has historically defined it; in particular, the principle that no oppressed group can be 'consulted on' the extent of their consent to oppression, precisely because the goal of any totalising ideology is to produce the conviction that their subjection is the natural way of things - is pleasing to God, for example, or protects them from a more terrifying predator or other existential threat.
I believe that religion is fundamentally perverse and irrational, and should be given no more weight in how society arranges itself than, say, our kinks, hobbies or dietary preferences.
I believe that sex is immutable, and that any internal sense to the contrary, however sincerely-held, can be explained with reference to existing (and in all other forms, unchallenged) psychiatric models of dysphoria.
I believe that many of those internal senses are not, in fact, sincerely held at all, but can be explained with reference to existing psychiatric models of atypical sexuality in tandem with the male, and very much not atypical, capacity to objectify and dehumanise women, for example through the idea that the mannerisms and appearances of 'gender' are innate rather than a self-protective mechanism through which women attempt to please and pacify men.
I believe that the Left has enthusiastically driven so much of the above because it contains as many, if not more, vicious misogynists as the Right, and that Left-wing men are more dangerous and despicable (and thus, despite themselves, more sexually repulsive 
) because they are the knowing exploiters and cynical co-opters of fundamentally humane ideas in the pursuit of their own political and personal comforts. I believe that the Right has simply and axiomatically monetised what the Left has engineered.
Finally, that women on the Liberal Left (which almost all progressive-Leftists are, whatever the pablums of radicalism with which they soothe themselves) are largely pathetic handmaidens who have perversely suppressed their own powers of critical reasoning in order not to see, in relations between men and women, what they could and would not ignore on any other axis of oppression (eg race/class), or within any similar paradigm of imperialism and/or colonisation, for eg cultural appropriation)
And that those women are marginally - and in this I am certainly guilty of victim-blaming, by far the most frequently thrown accusation of the broad Left, and therefore the one least frequently subject to careful political analysis - more loathsome and more culpable than their male counterparts, because their complicity is equally damaging in its impact on others, but lacks any rational basis.
I realise that this last is slightly at odds with my position on the internalisation of oppression, but fuck it - their bovine smugness is intolerable.
Thanks for holding space, OP 🙏