<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Birth Vernacular</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.birthactivist.com/2008/10/old283/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.birthactivist.com/2008/10/old283/</link>
	<description>bloggin&#039; for better births</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:04:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Molly</title>
		<link>http://www.birthactivist.com/2008/10/old283/comment-page-/#comment-1755</link>
		<dc:creator>Molly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1755</guid>
		<description>Breastfeeding Language This was a very interesting and thought-provoking post. 

Last year, I attended a fabulous presentation by Diane Wiessinger called &quot;Watch Your Language&quot; in which she explored the language used about breastfeeding, or by breastfeeding advocates. One of the points she made was that in talking about formula, we have more impact by actually calling it formula, rather than &quot;ABM&quot; or &quot;artificial milk&quot; or &quot;human milk substitute&quot; because that is the language that is recognized. Using a new word, even if it is better matched for the situation, moves you to the &quot;fringe&quot; and makes you seem less credible--she used the example of how effective would it be for the American Lung Association to insist on re-naming cigarettes &quot;cancer sticks&quot; in all their literature and campaigns.

Back to birth, &quot;normal birth&quot; is another one that has certain clarity issues.

Best wishes,

Molly</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Breastfeeding Language This was a very interesting and thought-provoking post. </p>
<p>Last year, I attended a fabulous presentation by Diane Wiessinger called &#8220;Watch Your Language&#8221; in which she explored the language used about breastfeeding, or by breastfeeding advocates. One of the points she made was that in talking about formula, we have more impact by actually calling it formula, rather than &#8220;ABM&#8221; or &#8220;artificial milk&#8221; or &#8220;human milk substitute&#8221; because that is the language that is recognized. Using a new word, even if it is better matched for the situation, moves you to the &#8220;fringe&#8221; and makes you seem less credible&#8211;she used the example of how effective would it be for the American Lung Association to insist on re-naming cigarettes &#8220;cancer sticks&#8221; in all their literature and campaigns.</p>
<p>Back to birth, &#8220;normal birth&#8221; is another one that has certain clarity issues.</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Molly</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Travelcia</title>
		<link>http://www.birthactivist.com/2008/10/old283/comment-page-/#comment-1796</link>
		<dc:creator>Travelcia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1796</guid>
		<description>What you have wrote here What you have wrote here will inspire not just me but everybody else how will read it.
Very nice post. 

A. Gotin</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What you have wrote here What you have wrote here will inspire not just me but everybody else how will read it.<br />
Very nice post. </p>
<p>A. Gotin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

