Lately it seems to me that detractors arose even for the most unusual things. People who like to disagree or sow controversy just by going against the flow.
I was astonished to know the opinion of some parents about Baby Glutton, the first infant doll made in Spain that is breastfed instead of a bottle. In my opinion it is a completely innocent toy that does not pretend to normalize breastfeeding among children, but there are those who have created a Great controversy around him..
Manny Alvarez, editor in chief of the 'Health' section of foxnews.comSeconds the idea of some parents that when they see their daughters play by lifting the shirt and putting the doll to their chest they have thought about a possible risk or trauma for their girls. They argue that it could lead to pregnancies at very early ages and that the breastfeeding action is too mature for a girl.
Isn't it going to be too far-fetched to think that way? Or I am very naive? Does playing babies encourage girls to want to have children at an early age? What is the difference between a doll that is given the bottle with one that is breast-fed, the most natural way to feed a baby? Is more dangerous?
Beyond whether the baby takes a bottle or is breastfed, girls recreate scenes of everyday life through symbolic play. The everyday thing is that there are mothers who feed their babies that way. Children can see it in a mall, on the street or in the home of a family member or friend. It is normal and I think it is positive that children see it that way.
Not because of the fact that they play mothers, girls want to become pregnant, nor because they play firefighters, children will get into a fire to try to extinguish it. It is clear that they are not yet old for that.
I sincerely see absurdity the controversy that has been mounted on the Wolverine Baby, a toy that was born with the intention of representing a situation in everyday life, that of breastfeeding. What do you think?
