II.... but I can't remembered what I had just been asked and hadn't answered yet.
One point about whether working parents were burying their heads in the sand about damage to children, not reading the literature etc. I think having been a full time working mother for 23 years I have a pretty good idea about what impact it has or hasn't had on the 5 children. I've certainly read most stuff produced. A lot is misrepresented and a lot of studies contradict each other. Bowlby for example studied children taken from their parents and then living away which is nothing like a mother and father there every day for their child.
As for which is more insulting - the original thread saying why have children if you're going to work (only applied to woman apparently - men are allowed to do it with impunity and without criticism) or it's better for children if both parents work it's just part of lively banter on line. It's pretty easy in life to ensure you only mix with people whose views are like yours whether that's in your church, cult, WI, working mother group, class, race or whatever but the internet gives you a chance to see other views like women who think it can indeed be best for babies and relationships and families to return to work when the baby is 2 weeks old.
Someone asked if I went back early because of money. I doubt it. I did discuss with their father before we even married who would look after the children if a nanny didn't work out and he suggested he gave up work although it never came to that. These are certainly conversations people should have before they marry so they do find out if they're marrying a sexist man or someone who won't go 50/50 on chores etc. But certainly the fact you just get 6 weeks at 90% got be back quickly. If I had been in the same job for 8 years and then had a right to 3 months at full pay I would probably have felt that quite reasonable.