The former (health) is absolutely true, but it's nothing that couldn't also be solved by the mother pumping her breast milk and the father doing the actual feeding by bottle.
"bottle vs breast" is about the actual milk being fed, not the delivery method.
I'm not sold on the validity of it all, but it's something to think about.
Here's the important bit:
"According to Hinde, when a baby suckles at its mother's breast, a vacuum is created. Within that vacuum, the infant's saliva is sucked back into the mother's nipple, where receptors in her mammary gland read its signals. This "baby spit backwash," as she delightfully describes it, contains information about the baby's immune status. Everything scientists know about physiology indicates that baby spit backwash is one of the ways that breast milk adjusts its immunological composition. If the mammary gland receptors detect the presence of pathogens, they compel the mother's body to produce antibodies to fight it, and those antibodies travel through breast milk back into the baby's body, where they target the infection.
At the same time that it is medicine, breast milk is a private conversation between mother and child. While my daughter lacks words, breast-feeding makes it possible for her to tell me exactly what she needs. The messages we are sending each other are literally made of ourselves, and they tell us about what is going on in our lives at that very moment."
http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/09/mothers-and-babies-commun...
It would certainly be interesting to see how often the mother was producing antibodies for things that the father wasn't (more mundane infection vectors are one of the ideas presented at my link, if baby, mother and father are all sick, you don't have much evidence of the saliva being important).
that's a very descartesian view, and from my experience and study also very unfounded. all you need to do is observe a baby while it's brestfed vs. bottlefed.
would you say that you feel the same after eating off the floor (very clean of course) vs. in a nice setting? after all, it's just about the nutrients, right?
No, it's a summation of the debate behind the phrase "bottle vs breast". From a few links when Googling:
- "Deciding whether to breastfeed or use formula for your newborn?"
- "Breast vs. bottle - breast milk is the perfect food for baby, with numerous advantages over infant formula"
- "Here's help deciding if you should breastfeed your baby or bottle feed with formula."
Pretty much every discussion of "bottle vs breast" is discussing "breastmilk vs formula".
> would you say that you feel the same after eating off the floor (very clean of course) vs. in a nice setting?
Would you say that a newborn baby is capable of comprehending the difference between a 5 star restaurant compared to a 3 star one? I'm not sure applying adult opinions to newborn babies is likely to achieve much.
...for the simple biological reason that fathers can generally run faster and thus chase down the kid... ok, that's just trolling :P
While the father normally is unable to do so without effort like a woman is, they do have all the equipment and their are ways to get it functioning. Somehow I don't think people would be for that option.
Only that paternity leave should be considered normal, something that all companies offer and expect you to take. Whether both parents are at home, or just the dad in cases where the mother can't easily take time off, either is fine.
Currently there is a gender asymmetry in that maternity leave is normal (and required by law), but paternity leave is frequently non-existent, or discouraged.
Normalized paternity leave is the norm in most of Europe.
I took four weeks off for our first child, and will be taking 3-4 weeks off for the second. It's awesome.
In the US, at the federal level, maternity and paternity leave (both unpaid) are covered by the same mandate (FMLA).
In California, paid maternity and paternity leave are covered by the same mandate.
That doesn't negate the social asymmetry, of course.
Not as much as you've been led to believe:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sibbreast.htm
"A new study comparing siblings who were fed differently during infancy suggests that breast-feeding might be no more beneficial than bottle-feeding for 10 of 11 long-term health and well-being outcomes in children age 4 to 14."
A young child will be nursing many times during a day, giving plenty of opportunities for a working mother to nurse their child without giving up time to work on their career. Feedings while the mother is out can be done by bottle using pumped milk, or through formula.
Sexual differences do not need to imply social advantage/disadvantage here ...
Beyond that, if you adopt a policy that considers these outliers and normalize parental leave, there will be parents where breastfeeding is possible but the fathers still take the parental leave.
I wasn't actually making an argument beyond what I posted; if I was to provide an explanation of its relevance it is that it is a fairly common position that real and relevant differences are a necessary, but not necessarily, sufficient condition for policy distinctions, and that insofar as the subthread on the advantages of being with the mother was relevant to the broader subject to start with, it remained relevant (though not, in and of itself, demanding any particular conclusion) as long as there was a real, on-average difference.
Don't have a kid, but I would think that an infant is better off having his mother close to him in his early months of life compared to having his father, for the simple biological reason that the mother can breast-feed, while a father can't. From what I remember reading kids who are breast-fed tend to do better in life in terms of health or being better from a psylogical point of view.