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:
floyjoy · 06/07/2011 13:35

And the 'mad' label is getting very, very boring.

boysrock · 06/07/2011 13:35

Yes sidge i know, but you can also but the map over the counter i believe in boots. The only 2 questions that should be asked are is the event over 72 hrs previous and are you pregnant. But these forms ask what method of contraceptive was being used and if you attend a wic for it chances are you will be asked for a urine sample. Chances are you will be invited to consider long term methods of contraception. I think some of this has to do with audit and some with defensive practice.
However considering this can be bought and no questions asked then it is intrusuve. Yes there are good health promotion arguments for advising on long term contraception, but I note they are all focused on women.

Our sex lives are monitored and regulated, mens are not.

floyjoy · 06/07/2011 13:33

laura
Sakura has thought about the topic, has a definite view about it based on experience and political theory. She posts this and get rude, knee-jerk reactions from posters who may have never have thought about it, never have seen the argument before and don't view female experiences from this political point of view (or consciously from any but more likely unconsciously from the 'mainstream' political perspective). Calling someone 'barking' because you find the argument new, alien to you is not much of a contribution.

If an idea unsettles or offends you, you can reflect on it and think about the politics of it, the ideas it is based on, even the political, social and cultural context. Feminism is political - it involves a political critique of the status quo. I don't know why anyone would get annoyed by this. Calling someone you don't agree with mad is an immature response in what's supposed to be an adult discussion.

claig · 06/07/2011 13:32

'Tight pants'

Hahaha, I'm surprised they didn't include global warming as well.

LauraPoppins · 06/07/2011 13:32

I though part of the problem with the male pill is that it puts the man back in control. I though what was so freeing about the female pill was that it put the woman in control for the first time ever.

I sure as hell wouldn't rely on my DH to take the pill to stop me getting pg, he can't remember where he put his shoes, let alone to take a pill each morning.

Plus if I my teenage DD was having sex, I'd like her to be in control of her contraception not some think-with-his-pants teenage boy.

I suspect the male pill isn't here because there is no money to be made in it. Drug companies will only research, fund, test and bring to market drugs they think are money spinners. I think whilst the idea of it being the men that have their bodies messed about with taking contraceptive hormones instead of women sounds great, very few would actually do it.

GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 13:29

SQ - yes.

Anyone want to start again with a clear link to what the Poles are currently proposing and without all the red herrings?

PGTip · 06/07/2011 13:28

OMG I read the Feminism topics occasionally and nearly every time I wonder who these women the claim to be championing are! How terrible to make a simple and quick medical check compulsory, what's the worse that can happen, they save a life!

I don't necessarily think it should be compulsory but to claim it is a wY to subordinate women by the patriarchy is ludicrous.

I'm not saying there is no place for feminism, but a lot if what us spouted on here seems to be an endless diatribe against men. There is no conspiracy to subjugate women.

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 13:28

Theories about sperm count include

Laptops
Tight pants
Booze

They said never to try to conceive with a goth, the combo of skin tight trousers and loads of cider was not a good combo from a testicular perspective!

HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 06/07/2011 13:27

Laura - that's not what ItsNotUnusual said at all. But feel free to misinterpret her and any other femninists you may not agree with. Every other fucker does.

claig · 06/07/2011 13:26

exactly Sidge

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 13:26

some feminists though. Sakura is only one person. And 90% of people on the thread have shouted at her - most of them are self-identified feminists.

The point about Poland even considering this policy is terribly frightening though. And Sakura has brought it to all our attention - I would not have known about this otherwise.

If anyone ever feels that there is no need for feminism, there is always something like this that comes up to point out that there really really is.

I think it is well worth talking about.

GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 13:25

I thought it was because we're all pissing oestrogen and they're drinking it.

Sidge · 06/07/2011 13:24

Far easier to suppress the ovulation of one ovum per month than the creation of 170 million sperm per day.

claig · 06/07/2011 13:22

Do you?
I blame the elite.

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 13:22

I like the idea of "THE sperm count" as a kind of stand-alone feature that exists somewhere, as well!

I agree with itsnotunusual's post as well

LauraPoppins · 06/07/2011 13:22

itsNotUnusual You are absolutely right, the other thread asked why a woman would not identify themselves as a feminist.

This thread is exactly why, because some feminists are CooCoo for Cocopuffs, totally barking.

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 13:21

The sperm count is falling?

I blame feminism.

Grin
floyjoy · 06/07/2011 13:17

The lack of male contraceptives is unbelievable. When I was so, so much younger the male pill ws just around the corner...a very large and hard to get round corner.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 06/07/2011 13:05

True claig!

claig · 06/07/2011 13:04

'No effort to pump men full of hormones to prevent sperm release, denature sperm or whatever.'

no need to. The sperm count keeps on falling for reasons unclear.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 06/07/2011 13:02

Agree floyjoy and ItsNotUnusual. Its all about shifting the overton window which can be an uncomfortable experience. I may not agree with everything sakura said but it certainly made me think about my mainstream perceptions of semar tests etc.

happybubblebrain - I have often thought that about contraception, pumping women full of hormones. No effort to pump men full of hormones to prevent sperm release, denature sperm or whatever. Not that two wrongs would make a right btw!

Sidge · 06/07/2011 12:59

Oh and back to the OP - compulsory smear testing would be a hideous policy, but to state that smear tests are entirely ineffective and exist only to subjugate women by forced penetration of a gynaecological instrument is frankly absurd.

Until your cervix relocates out of the vagina and starts growing somewhere more accessible then there is no better way to sample it for screening. To choose not to attend for a cervical smear as some sort of feminist protest is only doing yourself a huge disservice IMO.

claig · 06/07/2011 12:57

If there is something sinister about it, then I don't believe it is this

'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.'

Out of interest, what does Germaine Greer say the reason is in her book?

ItsNotUnusual · 06/07/2011 12:55

Well, doesn't this thread illustrate quite neatly what the other 2 monster threads were getting at.

That some people are 'put off feminism' by a passionately committed Radical Feminist with a very strong individual voice raising heavyweight feminist issues which could have consequences for all of us and doing so using challenging language and unpopular concepts.

If I'd written the OP, it would have sounded very different in my 'voice'. Would that have made it more acceptable to some? Who knows?

Sakura may not be changing medical law in EU countries, but is sparking thought provoking debate on the internet, whether you agree with all the entiments or not.

Sidge · 06/07/2011 12:54

boysrock intrusive questions are necessary when assessing whether emergency contraception (EC) can be given. It is not safe or efficacious to give hormonal EC when intercourse has taken place more than 72/100 hours previously, if there has been more than one episode of intercourse in this cycle and what contraception may normally be used, if any. (The newish hormonal contraception Ella One can 'clash' with progestogen-containing pills for eg).

When someone attends for EC it is usually a prime opportunity to assess whether they have appropriate contraception normally, and that may well include a consultation about long acting reversible contraception.