The point that I took away from Morgan's analogy is that the *image* 
of a bottle is powerful, and it should be seen rarely enough that it 
grabs our attention in the same way that the image of a gun or knife 
does.  Images of guns or knives are generally not used casually 
because they signify danger and violence.  Any graphic designer 
creating an advertisement would be highly aware of using these 
images, not slap them in without a second thought.

It should be the same with images of bottles.  As we've all surely 
observed, images of bottles are ubiquitous on all kinds of baby and 
child products, gift wrap, signs, logos, media, etc etc.  The bottle 
is seen as a benign symbol of babyhood.  This should not be so.  If 
there was a true understanding of the costs and dangers of artificial 
feeding, images of baby bottles would carry the same visual and 
emotional weight as images of guns and knives.  They would not be 
used lightly but only with careful thought.

It's not that a baby bottle is as inherently violent and dangerous as 
a knife or gun, it's that the *image* of a bottle should affect us as 
powerfully.

Margaret
LLLL, IBCLC
Longmont, CO

who notices and reacts (internally) every time I see a bottle used as 
a symbol of babyhood -- or a Nestle logo for that matter.  Both 
symbols represent the undermining of breastfeeding.

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome