Smear tests to subordinate women

I haven't time to read the whole thread, but I have to say that the OP is a perfect example of why 'feminism' gets a bad name and why not every woman would call herself one.

The OP is unbelievably sexist.

The solution to a male biased society is not to change it so it's biased against men.

Frankly the OP has made me almost incoherent with anger and frustration!
The OP is doing nothing for feminism or women's health with her distorted views. I would write further but I do not want to descend into a rambling rant that is ill conceived, poorly worded and poorly referenced; to do so would descend to the OPs level!! To write the reasoned and comprehensive response I would like to, would take at least an hour to compose, organise, check and reference properly and I have better things to do with my time!

Well done Bandwithering! :)

If anyone wants to talk about the ethics of compulsory screening IN GENERAL

"men have no business being in gynecology"

I don't want a male doctor full stop. but I don't want, especially in the current anti-feminist environment, a woman only speciality. just how do you think the research funding etc would be affected? it would become a second class area.

btw I don't think anyone - male or female - should be forced to undergo medical screening if they refuse. but that seemed to be a minor part of the OP's rant.

(four years since the last one)

Now see, what Poledra has done is get to the point of why these laws in Poland are dangerous to women without losing her point in a misandristic (?) rant.

Losing the right to work for refusing, and not male equivalent law is very worrying indeed. Would EU law allow this?

I have now booked my smear test thanks to this thread!

Cattleprod - andrology is the specialism you're looking for. And there are urologists, but they're interested in your kidneys, bladder etc.

I don't get this argument that women's bodies are seen as being inferior and more prone to failure, and thus needing more screening. Men are equally encouraged to be tested for testicular and prostate cancer.

Apparently 1/3 to 1/2 of all people will develop some kind of cancer. How can it possibly be a bad idea to screen for it where we can?

Conpulsory medical testing of any kind is another topic altogether.

Side question - what is the men's equivalent of gynaecology? Womens reproductive systems are obviously more complicated and perform more functions than mens, so warrant a whole separate medical sector. But men still have problems - is there a specialism that deals specifically with penises (penii?), testicles etc., or is it just absorbed in 'general medicine' or whatever type of disease/problem the man is suffering from?

Google says it's a 'urologist', but I've never heard of this term and haven't seen a 'urology' department in any hospital I've been to.

Poland does have some of the highest rates of cervical cancer in Europe, I would much more easily believe compulsory smear tests were in response to this and not some strange "what can we do to target women" strategy. They are not free you know, there was an outcry here just a few years ago because cost was factored into the smear policy. (WHO currently updating their European mortality database, so not sure link will work but it did a month or so ago the last time I used it).

www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/data-and-evidence/mortality-database-updated

I think this post is a sign of how dangerous it can be when someone with an ideology goes fishing for evidence in a field they have not the most basic understanding of. Yes woman still die of cervical cancer despite screening, but those in the screened group die at much lower levels. Anyone with even the faintest understanding of statistics knows you cannot expect absolutes. Your genetics is worse than high school level and the whole tone of your post reminds me of creationists trying to bend evidence against evolution. I don't feel even slightly violated by either a smear test or my male gynaecologist, why would I, not that different than going to the dentist?

Actaully, have just done a quick Google, and the bill being discussed by the Polsih authorities is massively disturbing - here and here. A woman will lose her right to work if she does not comply with the testing, and there is not (according to these articles) any comparable testing for men which will result in their loss of rights.

Can we sweep aside some of the more insane ratings on 'penetration by metal instruments' and focus on, as dittany pointed out, women being forced to undergo medical investigations when it should be their right to refuse?

although i think your views maybe a tad extreme

i do feel you have several good points
and i would hate for smear tests to become compolsary

i bet if it was men that had the babies they would be treated totally differently
ie much better

Sakura well you certainly have received a bashing!

I totally agree with you on the background, i.e. that women's bodies have historically been seen as suspect (they can do things that male bodies can't ), ill-because-not-male, non-standard. Particularly in relation to female-only parts of bodies such as the uterus. Take hysteria for example, that mysterious female disease which is caused by the uterus jumping around in the body, and has nothing at all to do with being caught in a powerless subordinate situation without any ways to release your feelings let alone address the inequalities and daily frustrations, no sir.
Also, there is no question as to how medicine has historically been used as an instrument of control, not just of women but also of other groups of people that were seen to need control (Jews for instance, the proletariat, etc.).

All that does not necessarily lead to the logical conclusion which you implied, i.e. that smear tests are nothing but an instrument of control. I think if you want to make that point, you have to bring more 'evidence' regarding the reputed benefits of smear tests. I think what many here have been saying is, what do I care if smear tests are an instrument of control, as long as they might save my life?

In that regard, I do remember reading stuff (medical reviews) on the question of how much actual benefits are down to screening tests (can't recall if it dealt with cervical smear tests or just other 'female' screening tests such as mammographies). The consensus was that there are some benefits to screening stuff, but also quite a lot of disadvantages, such as the costs, stress, suffering, and pain caused by 'false-positives'. This review concluded that the disadvantages might actually outweigh the benefits and so argued for needing more evidence before introducing/recommending screening tests. So what I'm saying, for making your point that screening tests are nothing but an instrument of control, you'd need to point to that kind of evidence. (I don't know if this is the case for cervical smears, just saying that it is a gap in your logic).

To everyone who has argued 'but - cervical smears save lives!' I would reply that this might be true (or not), but it doesn't really change the fact that they are (also) controlling. I suspect it is true, but it is a bit besides the point. Because they fit neatly into the whole insiduous message that female body parts and processes are 'sick', prone to disease, dirty, shameful, in need of benevolent control.

It seems people are pretty unambivalent on smear tests being non-compulsory. In this regard I would say that there are other ways of making something 'compulsory' than making it law. The subtle pressures and coercions can be felt when people feel bad about being late for a test, and get an 'own-fault' feeling of guilt if they actually do become ill. Being told off for missing a test by the practice nurse. All that. It is a very neoliberal form of coercion which works with our feelings of personal responsibility. It's like when someone has a child with Trisomy21 (Down's). Quite a lot of people say 'but why didn't you do the test? In these days and times there is no need for any Down's children to be born any more.' And in some places, there is discussion of cutting benefits for those who chose not to have a test - it is their own fault after all, so it is their own responsibility to bear the costs. So, thinking along those lines, when will someone start arguing that women who missed out on smear tests should not be given full cancer treatment on the NHS?

As an aside, I'd like to add that this neoliberalisation of control and power affects men as well as women. Just like the 'feminisation of work' referring to the fact that more and more men now are working in conditions that used to be restricted to women (very low wages, high job insecurity, no pension plans, no respect, no job satisfaction, no career prospects, and such), we might these days talk about a 'feminisation of medical control' where the idea that health is something we need to work at relentlessly and that we are personally responsible for and that our bodies need to be checked up by doctors regularly because they can't be trusted, is now spreading from being a mainly-woman thing to being an everybody-thing.

To be fair Dittany, I don't think anyone is saying that at all.

"Men who fall sick are not patronized the way that women are."

How do you know, sakura? My dh is chronically ill and I can assure you he hasn't been getting the royal treatment from the dear old NHS courtesy of his nadgers.

Here is some information on cancer screening in the UK - note that it includes men as well as women. Here is some information about wider screening programmes, which include the newborn tests.

pissed off because

Many of us have said that we disagree with people being forced to undergo medical procedures.

It's possible to have a sane thread on whether this is right or wrong, but not if the main premise is "this is an excuse for men to rape women with bits of metal".

There is a lot of discussion about possible issues with breast cancer screening - that's not a recommendation to scrap the program/discourage people from getting screened.

No need for anyone to be put off feminism just because some feminists are questioning what men are doing in gynocology! It's an area where women have suffered terribly in the past (and continue to). I can totally see in the far far future a time where all gynocolgists are female.

Look, for example at this job advert "We are looking for somebody who will share our values and whilst not necessarily an Anglican, is a practising Christian (this post is subject to an occupational requirement that the holder be a practising Christian under Part 1 of Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 because of its represetational role and its responsibility for maintaining a Christian Ethos within the national Church, as one of its senior officers). "

(Just trying to make an analogy btw..)

Equality does not have to mean 50% of men and 50% of women doing each job...

To me, feminism is about challenging and discussing the status quo not shying aware from stuff for fear of "bringing discredit on feminists/encouraging MRA activists/putting people off etc".

dittany FGS, most people on this thread are pissed of that OP is saying that cervical screaning is useless in saving lives.