Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:32:56 +0100 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>I thought I was semi-familiar with the Code provisions, but I guess not as
much as I'd like to be. I get the "no pictures of babies" part - using
healthy-looking babies to advertise (mostly) unnecessary products -- but how
are the bears and rabbits any worse than any of the many other (formerly)
wonderful images appropriated by capitalists/capitalism for their own
exclusive use? Surely the bigger sin is advertising/marketing, period, of
which cutesy labels are only one example. Or is the idea that nothing
related to childhood should be used?<
Should not idealise bottle feeding. My favourite is the fluffy ducklings
who adorn ads for certain milks in the UK -- I mean, ducks,
lactation...shows you how little sense it makes on any level. And, hey,
these are ads for professionals (maybe midwives don't get taught about
mammals?).
Magda Sachs
Breastfeeding Supporter, BfN, UK
***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|