Oh, good grief. VT, you clearly have an axe to grind. FFS, what is wrong with thinking it's a good thing to take a couple of weeks off work with one's newborn baby? (That's not a rhetorical question, by the way.)
I shall quote from my first post:
"It's a pity the article doesn't report their thoughts, and it doesn't say whether her DH works, but I do hope her children get the nurturing and family support they need from both parents."
- In other words, I would like to know more about her whole family life. The article portrays her as driven. The current example of that is her taking 7 hours' maternity leave - an extreme choice made in favour of her work. We also know from the article that she took no mat leave with her other two children.
If, for example (note: "for example"), her husband is similarly driven, then it would be fair to assume that neither parent was available to the children in the way that the kids might need. As I've already said, we do not know this information but I would like to know.
When I said "I do hope" xyz for her kids, that does not mean "I bet they're not nurtured"; it actually means "I do hope that they are nurtured". Can you see the difference between these two interpretations? The first one was your interpretation. The second was what I actually wrote.
If you choose to see this as me "implying" specifics about her family life (rather than asking questions about it - questioning can be open-minded, you know), then that's because you're adding thoughts to my post that simply were not there.
I've had too many pointless debates like this on MN in the past. I shan't waste my time on arguing this point with you, it's clear that you're more interested in a verbal boxing match than an open-minded discussion.