Maybe you didn't mean it like this... but I find the use of the word "extreme" here in this context somewhat discomforting. Perhaps I'm an old-fashioned 35-year old, but her reasons for wanting to stay home don't come off as extreme to me.
If spouse A has earning potential of $300k/yr, and spouse B has earning potential of $50k/yr, and child care costs $40k/yr, it's absolute batshit insanity to take a "balanced approach" and A. lose money on a net-of-taxes basis whilst B. seeing your children less.
Those who don't find the time do be a parent because of work (again, excluding particular jobs) are either workaholics, or uninterested parents, or both; it's not about finance.
To be noted that from approximately the second year onwards (so, I'm excluding approximately the first two), children spend significant hours (whole morning and small part of the afternoon, depending on the parents' choice) in children care. Especially in a family where the mother works part time, the difference from a stay-at-home mom, in terms of time spent with the children, is little (or none).
Fully working = 8-10 hours a day
Still leaves a lot of time for parenting- and doesn’t seem so extreme, I’d say it’s one of the most common division of family life in the world
I didn’t say parenting only takes 8-10 hours. That’s the time the working parent works
That still leaves time to parent when off-work
I don't think anyone honestly believes that children are not better off by having more balanced input from both parents where possible. And the more people that do this (where the working parent is a workaholic) the more difficult it makes things for working parents who want to have a more balanced home life.
This is similar to the modern issue of dual income families. In the area where I live, homes are very expensive. The majority of home owners here could simply not afford a home without both parents working.
Which means if there weren't so many dual income families, homes would simply have to become cheaper here. The fact that many families here are dual income puts financial pressure on everyone else to do the same.
Family ambitions and personal ambitions are two separate things (although for some people, typically women, they do match).
Personally speaking, I do have parental and professional goals, and I don't think of any of the two as neither superior nor compensating respect to the other.
> they spent 5~6 years off the industry
It doesn't need to be like this (I have firsthand experience as parent). In a balanced family, two parents can be have full professional and familiar lives at the same time (although it's challenging). Of course on the first year or so there's a physical need for the child(ren) to stay with the mother.
Based on the description of the article, the wife and the husband deliberately chose extreme positions - the wife as fully involved stay at home mother, and the father as all-time worker:
> I took care of everything, so my husband could focus on work, which was super important as we were a one-income family
I sympathize with the difficulty of finding a job, but there are more balanced (in terms of gender roles) structures that benefit all the parties. Most importantly:
> I wanted to devote a few years of my life to raising them. I wanted to see their first smile, their first step, their first fall, and I was privileged and lucky enough to be able to do it.
One definitely doesn't need to stay 24/7 with the children to be a fully present parent, and
> my husband could focus on work, which was super important as we were a one-income family.
one doesn't need to offload the children to the partner, in order to achieve professional success, unless there's some workaholism involved; this is also not a great way to start the relationship with the children.