Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Smear tests to subordinate women

614 replies

sakura · 06/07/2011 04:30

I have been looking at the recent threads about compulsory smear tests in Poland, and I have to say, it doesn'T surprise me that they're compulsory in some countries. THis is a natural, inevitable, progression from the actual purpose of screening.

[Oh, did you think smear tests were about saving women's lives?!?!]

wildkittydear made an excellent point (I hope she doesn't mind me quoting her}
"It is shocking that Poland is thinking of making very personal medical examinations for women compulsory. I personally am very offended by the way only breast and cervical cancer are championed as the only killers of women and I know that is an exaggeration!! but do you get my drift? Some illnesses get priority in the media and I am not convinced there is always a benign reason for this."

Yes, Womanhood is the "problem" to be cured. Women's organs that are seen as faulty-- because men don't have them. Not male = pathology.

The truth is that women's bodies are much, much healthier than men's because we have two Xs in our chromozomal make up and each X contains lots of life-preserving genes, whereas the Y is slightly pitiful by comparison.
This is why women live longer and why boys are more like to be born with chromozomal abnormalities or die when they get sick. Girls tend to recover.
The extra X gives women the biological upper hand.

Men don't really know how to look after their bodies either, in a general sense (healthy diet etc)

Considering this, it's really important to question why the medical fraternity is obsessed with getting women to their tests and not men. Men are more likely to contract all sorts of diseases and cancers, and much earlier in their life than women too.

But men are trusted to look after their own bodies and decide for themselves whether they want to be screened or not. There is no goverment promoted mass-screening programme of testicular cancer, for example. BEcause testicles belong to men, and are therefore regarded as "healthy until proven otherwize"Men are not frightened, coerced or cajolled into being screened because there is no obsession with controlling them.

THe history of medicine teaches us that women, and by default their sex specific organs, are regarded as defective and pathalogical. (when if any sex is defective, it is the male sex due to the Y, which renders them biologicaly more vulnerable to disease in a number of ways)

Greer has covered this in detail in The Whole Woman. She has examined the evidence which shows that cervical screening has done nothing to save women's lives.
Women are still dying from cervical cancer. Although the rate of cervical cancer has been dropping , that is not because of screening, but because because it was actually dropping naturally before mass screening was invented, and continues to drop at the same rate.

Often mistakes are made in the laboratories, and there have been cases of women who actually had healthy cervixes being treated for cancer, and women who had cancer were missed, and ended up dying.

As I said, the point is not to actually save women's lives, but to get women to comply, to STFU and to be penetrated by gynelogical instruments.I don'T get screened, because I've looked at the statistics and found that, despite screening, women are still dying of cervical cancer so the margin for human error in the tests is too great.

Which brings me to another important question. WTF are men doing in gynecology anyway? I mean, WhyTF are they even there? In the room? Sticking bits of metal into women? Researching vaginas, when it's not their place to do so? THe funding should go to female scientists and doctors [but that's for another thread]

I haven't had a smear test for over ten years. WHen I had my first at 18 the results came back telling me I needed to go for a re-test for possible cancerous cells. I went back, had another check, the second time it came back clear (after me scaring myself to death). After doing research I learned that if you have had sperm or even your period (if you'd just finished it) can interfere with the findings, making it look as though there may be cancerous cells when there aren't.

WHat a joke. And the joke's on women. And I haven't been back since.

OP posts:
EldritchCleavage · 06/07/2011 16:34

Agree BoF. And credit to sakura who has taken the scathing posts (including my first) pretty well.

BitOfFun · 06/07/2011 16:25

There's shifting the Overton window, and there's stretching credulity...but there is still an interesting discussion going on now. I'm not sure that would be happening if this was in AIBU Grin

This thread proves to me that far from being ranty shriekers, the Feminism topic actually comprises many patient, calm and rational posters who are prepared to go the extra mile to try to understand somebody else's world of bizarro point of view.

ShirleyKnot · 06/07/2011 16:03

Duh. Of course. My brain in in the shed.

GothAnneGeddes · 06/07/2011 15:51

Sakura. To dislike the patriarchy is one thing. To talk of genetic inferiority and using that to shore up your personal hatred is quite another. You know well the evil such discourse has been used to perpetuate and I'm saddened to see it being used in a supposedly progressive space.

And please do not give a "Oh, but I'm talking about men, so it's ok" response.

TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 15:48

Annie it would cost more to vaccinate boys against HPV because you'd need more vaccine, and more Dr/Nurse time. And then there's the ethics of vaccinating someone (with the risk of side-effects) against something that will do no harm to them and is only for the protection of others.

GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 15:48

I thought now everyone does get vacc'd against rubella - its the R in MMR - and they just double check teenage girls that they're still immune?

TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 15:47

Rubella is the R in MMR. All children do get this now (or they will if their parents take them along to the routine vaccinations).

AnnieLobeseder · 06/07/2011 15:46

Shirley - everyone is vaccinate against rubella now. It's the 'R' part of MMR.

ShirleyKnot · 06/07/2011 15:45

That stuff about the HPV vaccine is very interesting, and it makes me wonder why the rubella jab hasn't been rolled out to all as well, thinking about it. Hmmm. Couldn't rubella be completely eliminated if everyone was vaccinated against it?

AnnieLobeseder · 06/07/2011 15:41

I too am intrigued that vaccinating boys against HPV would increase efficacy. If a mother took her son in to be vaccinated, I wonder if they would give it to him? Yes, the uptake for boys might be low, but is that any reason to not even try? Why not just make the vaccine available for all 12/13 year olds and let people choose whether to get it or not? That wouldn't cost any more.

NormanTebbit · 06/07/2011 15:40

Sakura - quoting stats like those from Barzil is meaningless. Surely maternal mortality rates are dependent on a whole host of factors not the least of which are the levels of poverty and inequality of access to health screening and care in the US and Brazil.

In Scotland there are concerted health campaigns to get men to attend their GP (They are less likely to than women) to check for testicular and prostate cancer and prevention of heart disease etc. In one area of Glasgow the average life expectancy for a man is 57.

ItsNotUnusual · 06/07/2011 15:40

If I was succinct, or rude enough to say 'barking' or 'crazy' I wouldn't be politely wondering if there is any way I could unequivocally convince you otherwise itsatiggerday?

fuzzpig · 06/07/2011 15:39

I don't really see why men shouldn't be gynae Drs either, TBH.

fuzzpig · 06/07/2011 15:35

I absolutely hate smear tests (or indeed any other gynae examination - pregnancy and birth was a nightmare) - but until they figure out a less invasive way to detect a killer disease I think I'll put up with it thanks Hmm

This might be the craziest OP I've ever read Confused

TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 15:31

Have you actually read the thread tiggerday? Or just the OP? The majority o posters on this thread are against the conspiracy theory.

itsatiggerday · 06/07/2011 15:29

And this is why I'm going to avoid the feminism section again in future. I had been browsing with some flickering interest now and again, but this thread has unequivocally convinced me that it's more conspiracy theorist than sociologist. See ya.

swallowedAfly · 06/07/2011 15:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 15:19

SQ - I think the physical costs of reproduction inevitably fall on the female in any society - its just biology. However, the societal burdens are clearly unbalanced - less than it used to be, less than in many other societies but still for sure a work-in-progress.

Hullygully · 06/07/2011 15:15

There is definitely a history of "fixing" women (hysterectomies/clitoridectomies etc until quite recently), but there has also been a concerted effort to raise the profile of female reproductive health eg Marie Stopes, Brook clinics - so, it's complicated.

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 15:14

I mean in terms of how unwanted pregnancy is seen as being the woman's problem, HPV is seen as being the woman's problem, pregnancy in many situations is still stigmatised etc etc etc if you get my drift.

Not that in a different society men would have the babies Grin

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 15:12

"for example the burden of reproduction and it's physical costs (from periods, to pregnancy, birth and menopause with subsequent brittle bones etc) falls disproportionately upon women " in our society which is where the radfem bit comes in

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 15:11

"if you are a boy then there is zero risk from not having the vaccine, so that 1 in a million chance of side-effects is not worth taking"

But there is a risk that you will infect someone you have sex with, someone you might love, no vaccines are 100% protective.

I would have thought that would be a good enough reason, but from threads on here I understand that it is not.

So the answer is that the take-up would be too low.

CinnabarRed · 06/07/2011 15:11

"Why does everyone ignore the fact that the pill can cause cancer?"

People don't ignore it. They take it into account when making their contraceptive choices and decide what suits them best based on any number of different factors.

And let's not forget than many things in life are linked to cancer (driving, eating cream cakes) but we still do them because the convenience/pleasure outweighs the cancer risk.

ItsNotUnusual · 06/07/2011 15:10

And I am glad that there are educated, articulate, and opinionated women out there willing to challenge so I don't have to!

swallowedAfly · 06/07/2011 15:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn