> The majority of women could have a more nurturing personality despite your anecdotal evidence
And your evidence is?
5 karma · joined May 21, 2016
And your evidence is?
That's true. Most jobs in the U.S. allow women to do this, and those that don't are unfortunate and should be shunned if possible.
> Additionally the world health organisation recommends breast feeding for two years.
Yes, but the APA in the US recommends 6 months exclusive/at least 1 year. In our case, it was a bit over 1 year for the first child (she wanted to stop), and almost 2 years for the second (had to be weaned, imagine he would have kept going until adolescence had we permitted /s).
A major reason the WHO recommends breast-feeding for two years is because of water quality issues in developing countries. We are fortunate (for the most part) to have water here in the US free of those pathogens that cause early childhood mortality.
EDIT: I'm rate-limited at the moment, but after carefully reading your reply below, I'd say we probably agree on most parts of the issue posed in TFA. However, unless I'm misreading your position, we appear to disagree on the relative fitness of men and women to raise young children (My position: thanks to technology, both men and women in the West are equally capable of raising infants and young children. In my opinion, their fitness for that task depends on the person).
So are you suggesting my children didn't receive as much bonding, warmth, etc, because I fed them breastmilk instead of my wife? If that's the case, they're growing up to be remarkably well-adjusted, happy, and (quite) intelligent children despite that supposed deficiency.
It sounds like you've been exposed to a very certain, very traditional, kind of family situation. Please let me assure you that this is not the only way people raise successful families.
Even breastmilk, while highly recommend when possible, isn't critical for a babies' well-being since it's not possible at all in many cases (mother's health/can't breastfeed, adoption, etc.).
EDIT: Rate limited, my response to ps4fanboy:
> The fact that you were able to take time off to care for your children suggests that you are most probably middle class or better
Ironically, me taking off work to raise the kids brought us surprisingly close to the poverty line (wife's a school teacher). But we decided it was worth it, my wife wanted to return to work, and that I would be a great caregiver. But we're both highly educated, if that was somehow your suggestion.
> this social standing in society is much more likely to be a contributing factor to childrens long term success than breast feeding
Agreed, in general. So we both can agree that breast-feeding, while recommended, is not a critical factor in raising well-adjusted children.
If you're talking about a nurturing personality, I think this entirely depends on the person. I've known men that are very good parents of very young children, and women who are very poor parents of very young children. It really depends on the person.
If you're arguing this position from the perspective of breastfeeding, please see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744030
That's not true. Fortunately, we have in our society the technology (breast pumps) that allow women to save their breast milk for anyone capable of caring for the child to use at a later time: fathers, grandparents, and even the mothers themselves.
They're not the most pleasant contraptions in the world to use (so I'm told), but I wouldn't characterize their use as "very hard".
My wife was the primary caregiver for our children the first 2-3 months, and then she went back to work and I raised them as the primary caregiver. For me to provide them breastmilk after was a bit inconvenient at times, but never "very hard" (they continued to be exclusively breastfeed until ~6 months, and breastfeed in combination with other foods until ~1 year).