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]