Well, I have to put in my .02 worth on this issue of whether we should be
using positive language to describe breastfeeding or negative language to
describe bottle-feeding.  I agree completely with Rachael that the use of
negative language with bottle-feeding highlight the fact that breastfeeding
is the gold-standard against which bottle-feeding must be measured, and come
up short.  Looking at it in another way, would any of those of you who
advocate more genteel, moderate language praising the benefits of
breastfeeding also talk about:

the "benefits" of using a car seat
the "benefits" of not drinking during pregnancy
the "benefits" of not using cocaine during pregnancy
the "benefits" of not smoking cigarettes
the "benefits" of not laying down on the center-line of the highway on a dare
the "benefits" of using a condom during sex with a stranger


I suspect that you are all thinking, "No, of course, not, one talks about
the "dangers" of doing the opposite" of the activities listed above.  So why
is breastfeeding any different?  The local paper says it won't print
anything about the benefits of breastfeeding because that would be only one
side of the story.  And I ask, what, you won't print anything about MADD
(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) unless the other side gets its say also --
"The Benefits of Drunk Driving."?  This is ridiculous.  Lots of women drink
during pregnancy and their babies are OK, so we should have an article about
"The Benefits of Drinking During Pregnancy"?  Give me a break.


People should use whatever language they feel comfortable with in terms of
breastfeeding advocacy, but I would hope that those of you who are more
moderate will recognize the good that Rachael is doing.

Rachael's soul-mate in rabble-rousing and stirring people up so that they
will THINK!!!


Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology, Texas A&M University
e-mail to [log in to unmask]