Dr. Rhodes and your magazine are to be commended for presenting an article that explores the ways that a father might participate in nurturing his infant.
I disagree with several statements that Dr. Rhodes, makes, however.
"Dad protects his child by providing the basic *food,* medicine and
shelter a baby needs."
Daddy does not and cannot provide the basic "food" a baby needs. That is breastmilk in all but very rare instances. Presenting a bottle of formula (for that is always the assumption, that there is formula in the bottle), he can deliver a substitute, which is fourth-best compared to his mother's own milk.
*The baby enjoys the differences dad brings to the nightly feedings* or changing ritual."
This can be true. Though some exclusively breastfed babies will early on refuse feedings if they are not from the breast. And Dad can add variety to the feeding and changing rituals in other ways than giving a bottle. He can get up, change the baby, get a drink or a sandwich for his wife, and bring them all to her, so she can breastfeed in a totally relaxed fashion, without having to do any of the "work" herself. He can bottlefeed the infant expressed breastmilk. He can use other methods to deliver mom's own to the baby,as well. Infants can also be spoonfed, cupfed and fingerfed.
" A baby doesn't need its mother every minute, and small breaks from one another can help them both."
This is true, but the breaks don't have to be at mealtimes. And the breaks can still provide breastmilk, instead of formula.
Further, I object, most strongly to the use of illustrations of fathers bottle-feeding their infants, to make his point. I know, it is very hard to find other pictures that present the point and image you are trying to make.
No-one gets very excited seeing a daddy diapering his baby( they just commiserate), while everyone coos, and reads your article, when they see papa giving baby a bottle.
But to present this image is an implicit advertisement for formula, since that is what most people expect to find in a newborn's bottle. It also implicitly states that bottle feeding is a good way to feed one's baby. It maintains the current understanding that , especially in America, this is the normal way to feed an infant. And this is wrong. It is not normal or natural, it is what we have become accustomed to. According to WHO and AAP, and a global effort to increase breastfeeding initiation and duration, bottlefeeding formula is the fourth-best way to feed almost all infants. (Even formula companies have started to include the disclaimer in their ads, that breastmilk is the first best food.)
Granted, there is nothing wrong with an occasional bottle. It is
probably not going to permanently harm the child to get his mom's
milk in a bottle, while mom is unavailable, for whatever reason.
Most babies in our country, and much of the Western world, will
survive (and have done so), on formula. But by using this image, you
are perpetuating a status that governments, health care practitioners,
educators, environmentalists (and others), around the world, are
working very hard to change.
Because formula is still not the best food for most human babies -- their mother's milk is.
It has become politically correct to expect fathers to participate in
the raising of their children; it has therefore become advertisingly
popular to show him giving his baby a bottle, as the best
way to depict this participation. You have used this image to
illustrate your article. There are TV ads that show dad getting a
midnight snack, and while he's at it, giving the baby a bottle. There is
even an ad for a women's sport shoe, that shows dad bottle feeding,
while mom plays basketball.
Please, I urge and encourage you, your writers, and your magazine to
exercise your imagination to find other images of fathers nurturing
their young. We perpetuate what we see, and we (speaking globally)
don't want to see very many people bottle-feeding.
Sincerely yours,
Chanita R. Stillerman
CWC, RN, IBCLC, Lactivist
|
