Breast feeding is absolutely important, but if you think that's the only thing you need to do in order to take care of a newborn, you might be in for a shock.
Breastfeeding is a necessary part of taking care of a newborn that men cannot do. Women can do all the parts that you listed, plus the vital component of breastfeed. Hence, it makes sense to encourage moms to stay home with babies. Dads should stay home too, because the ideal is for mom and dad to be at home playing with babies (isn't that everyone's dream??). However, most people are not independently wealthy, so compromises are made, and dad goes to work.
My larger point is, we shouldn't throw the traditional gender role baby out with the breast milk bath water. People have different preferences / requirements, and they should be allowed to make the choice to conform to traditional gender roles if they so choose, rather than forcing a 50 / 50 split of parental leave where there is some clear biological differences. The obvious ones being men lack mammary glands and uterus / ovaries.
The invariant need is a child that has a loving home environment and is well fed.
Living in Canada as an American citizen, I deeply appreciate the leave benefits we have here in Canada/Quebec.
I couldn’t agree more that the needs of the child is paramount.
What I mean to say is that there needs to be significant social welfare towards the wellbeing of children.
That typically means two people chosen by the mother could be delegated a minimum set of care hours for the life of the child, paid for by the state.
I couldn’t give a hoot who or what plays those roles.
The direction this conversation took is breaking my brain.
We have only to look at the decades in the US where babies were often formula-fed instead of breast-fed.
While there are certainly advantages to breast feeding, it is not necessary.
Your "to be at home playing with babies" should be "taking care of".
My dream was to raise children, not just play with them. Dads also need to be involved in changing, and feeding, and washing, and yes, even bottle feeding because Mom is so tired that she just needs to collapse, or because I want to take the 4 month old out to a baby meet at the library and not plan around being back home for feeding - whenever that is.
Nor was I the only father of a 4 month there, with bottled milk so Mom could have a break at home.
Sure, but it does have positive health benefits for mom and baby and is cheaper than formula. In order to continue to breast feed the baby to two years (as recommended by the WHO), the mother needs to actually breastfeed the baby. Using pumps can result in milk supply lowering, not because pumping is incapable of keeping up milk supply, but because without the hunger cues of a newborn, the mother doesn't typically pump as much and as long as a newborn would. Moreover, the oxytocin from holding the newborn and the hormones released when the newborn cries keep the mother's supply up. There is no way to replicate this in an office. It requires a baby.
My solution to this 'problem' is to create a society in which moms can stay home with their babies and simultaneously, for those women who choose to work, normalize bringing your child to work. Not only does this keep mom and baby together, but it also means there will be adorable babies in offices everywhere.
Before boldly proclaiming winning in something that is not even a competition, I think it's worth it to understand the argument.
Now you say you didn't write that?
Of course there's going to be circumstances where, for whatever reason, breastfeeding isn't optimal or even an option.
Isn't that like "Wearing a bicycle helmet - when and where it makes sense to do so - is a necessary part of riding a bicycle."
That is, your addition negates the seemingly firm statement of "necessary", while the later use of "vital" seems to support the firm intent of "necessary".