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:
exoticfruits · 11/07/2011 18:37

Of course it isn't! They can be shocked and angry-it won't do them any good unless they do something about it themselves.

DaisyHayes · 11/07/2011 17:29

exoticfruits Mon 11-Jul-11 17:12:45
"I don't think that men are shocked that it doesn't exist-they simply don't give it a thought until they need it."

And when they need it they are often shocked and angry that it has not been given more publicity/research/money etc which would have made them give it a thought before they need to just like breast cancer awareness stuff does.

This is when the "it's not fair that women's cancers get all the goodies" argument often gets wheeled out.

To which I'd repeat - that's because women got off their arses and made it happen. Because, unlike men, they never had any expectation that their intimate healthcare issues would be prioritised or funded or campaigned for unless they did it their bloody selves. They have never lived their whole lives under the belief that society is set up to support and favour their issues as a priority, so are not surprised at all when it turns out that this is not the case.

If men want a Race For Life and so forth then they should bloody well organise one. Or is that womens' job to sort out for them?

exoticfruits · 11/07/2011 17:13

I always feel it is a positive expression of care-usually from another woman.

exoticfruits · 11/07/2011 17:12

Men just aren't as keen on preventative medicine as women-they put off doctors until they have to go. Women tend to be more sensible and go before there is a problem-they also talk about it. I don't think that men are shocked that it doesn't exist-they simply don't give it a thought until they need it.

DaisyHayes · 11/07/2011 16:27

The debate has moved on a long way since this, but felt I had to repond:

jetgirl Wed 06-Jul-11 10:32:23
"Can you explain why fundraising for research into women's cancers appears to be more fashionable (for want of a better word) than that for men's cancers. I for one find it deeply frustrating that there is far less awareness among men of the need for prostate and testicular checks, than there is for smears and mammograms among women."

There is a shit load of publicity and funding for breast cancer and other women's diseases because women got off their arses and made it happen. Do you think a load of men organised Race For Life?

Men seem supremely shocked that this stuff doesn't already exist for them, nicely sorted out and ready in place, just like most other things are in this world. That'd be male privilege for you, Jetgirl, in a nurshell.

iggagog · 11/07/2011 10:49

Ok, back from smear. Am I allowed to say it was more of a positive expression of care, of one woman (the nurse) caring for the health of another? That's how it felt to me.

swallowedAfly · 11/07/2011 09:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

iggagog · 10/07/2011 20:35

I probably shouldn't have clicked on this thread when I'm having a smear test tomorrow! Maybe I'm just too relaxed about internal exams, do not feel it as an invasion (if done professionally, obviously)

AliceTwirled · 10/07/2011 20:21

"re past sins of gynecology and your stubborn insistence on judging the present day science on these sins. "

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the argument that the OP is insane or deluded or damaged from previous experiences because she is reframing a contemporary issue though an alternative lens is wrong.

I've not really got a view on gynecology. It's not something I know lots about. I do think it's an interesting discussion. My comments have been on the way that the OP was spoken to and about, and the ways in which her arguments were dismissed rather than gynecology.

CoteDAzur · 10/07/2011 17:28

Alice - re past sins of gynecology and your stubborn insistence on judging the present day science on these sins.

Astronomy used to be a pathetic exercise in myth and make-believe much like astrology. Let's not believe anything those astronomers say in the year 2011.

Religion used to be a tool of oppression and torture, costing the lives of 10,000s of women on the stake in Europe alone. Don't ever believe in Christianity nor listen to a word uttered by those priests.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

MamaChocoholic · 10/07/2011 15:34

HHLimbo

This is because with XX, you have 2 copies of genes to choose from, and a backup if one is faulty. Whereas if you have XY, the Y is 'missing' one of the 'legs' which contains many genes. Therefore you will only have one copy of those genes, and no backup if one is faulty.

No. You don't get to "choose" which copy of a gene is active. If you are XX, about half your cells will have genes from one copy of your X active, the other half from the other X. This is called X inactivation. If you carry a dodgy gene on one X, yes, only about half your cells will produce the dodgy protein rather than all of them if you were XY. This can protect you from rare Mendelian X linked disorders. But as you are XX you have twice as high a chance that any given gene on one of your X will be dodgy and the X inactivation is thought to make you more susceptible to autoimmune disorders.

The healthier woman bit comes, AFAIK, from the fact that female hormones protect our cardiovascular system until the menopause, which is the cause of most western deaths. Those hormones are switched off by a Y chromosome (rather than switched on by being XX).

GoodDaysBadDays · 10/07/2011 15:15

In the feminism topic There are often people questioning why women shy away from feminism and referring to themselves as feminists.

The bonkers and frankly insulting op is a prime example of what many women are anxious to distance themselves from.

AliceTwirled · 10/07/2011 15:04

So medicine in the past had problems, and did dubious things that made sense in that social context. But now medicine is all sorted and we don't need to take account of the social context. Hmm

I don't see any pretension we are in the dark ages. I see a contemporary situation reframed through a lens that isn't mainstream. Whether that reframing is valid or not is an interesting discussion. But the idea that reframing the mainstream though alternative lenses isn't a valid way of examining the world doesn't make sense. That's what politics does. That's what all social movements and advocates of change have always done, be that at the radical end or mainstream end of politics.

There are always dominant narratives that mean that things 'just are' or are 'common sense'. People from all types of standpoints interrogate them.

exoticfruits · 10/07/2011 13:35

The medical profession didn't start knowing the answers-they were completely in the dark and had to experiment-it isn't as if they just said 'lets use women to experiment'-everything was an experiment the first time and men had terrible treatments too. Everyone dreaded going to hospital at one time-before they understood anything about hygiene etc.
I really don't think that we need to delve into history-just be thankful we weren't alive then!
I know lots of young people going into medicine as a career-generally from the best of motives-I think they would be shocked to think that anyone could think that they were going into it to subjugate women- and they would be equally shocked to think that they had patients and conditions that they shouldn't treat.

CoteDAzur · 10/07/2011 13:14

"But to suggest OP is wrong on the basis that we can't challenge medical norms as they know best"

Nobody said that. OP is wrong because smear tests are not done to control and subjugate women.

"Dr knows better than you" was something I said to Lenin (not OP) re necessity of antenatal testing.

Re history of medicine - Yes, there was a long period when "doctors" didn't know what they were doing. Bleeding was thought to be a remedy for a variety of problems, mercury was venerated, people were lobotomized for psychiatric problems. However, we learned a lot since then. It is not the dark ages anymore and pretending it is does not help any feminist argument.

HHLimbo · 10/07/2011 12:21

It is true that the X chromosome gives more protection from disease than the Y chromosome.

This is because with XX, you have 2 copies of genes to choose from, and a backup if one is faulty. Whereas if you have XY, the Y is 'missing' one of the 'legs' which contains many genes. Therefore you will only have one copy of those genes, and no backup if one is faulty.

With the smear test, I have not looked into the efficacy of smear tests, however the PCTs commisioning healthcare would have a team of analysts ensuring value for money, so I would be surprised if something so expensive but ineffective continued to be funded. Cervical cancer would be harder to spot than cancer on external organs.

However a few nurses doing the tests do seem to be on some kind of power trip! You just have to put your foot down Sakura :) If you don't want someone else poking around down there, make sure you are the one doing it. It is like putting in a tampon/mooncup. If you still feel uncomfortable you can always refuse, but its a good idea to have a check up if you can.

creighton · 10/07/2011 10:57

look for j marion sims on google. it will tell you all about the development of gynaecology.

exoticfruits · 10/07/2011 10:44

It seems to me to be common sense to have health checks if they are available, prevention is better than cure. However if people don't want to prevent and would rather wait for the cure when things go wrong, that is up to them.

MarySueFTW · 10/07/2011 10:43

Germaine Greer lost her marbles became an unreliable source of opinion over a decade ago when she attacked another woman's choice of 'fuck me' shoes Her recent appearance on Question Time had her telling a father in the audience there was something sexual or flirty about him kissing his daughter goodnight. And as for the book 'The Boy' featuring her slavering over photos of pre-pubescent boys? I don't know how anyone still returns her calls.

AliceTwirled · 10/07/2011 10:20

Medicine (and architecture and dentistry) are all a reflection of the context they operate. Did they know best when they locked up single mothers and the poor in asylums, performed lobotomies, thought the womb moved round the body, and tested on and withheld treatment to poor, black men without their consent? Of course they thought they did, and the society around them in the main thought all these things were just dandy.

Did the architects and planners know best when they knocked down old housing and replaced with shiny modernist tower blocks? Celebrated then, criticised now.

Challenging medical norms really isn't particularly out there. The discussion of breast/formula reflects the shift from the beliefs that humans had mastered nature and science ruled all, to contemporary challenges to that.

That doesn't meant the OP is right. But to suggest she is wrong on the basis that we can't challenge medical norms as they know best and it's just common sense, ignore the whole political/social context that everyone operates in.

CoteDAzur · 10/07/2011 07:48

Mitch - I said "knows better than you" not "knows best".

Yes, a gynecologist knows this subject better than you, just like an architect knows construction better than you and a dentist knows teeth better than you.

Who in her right mind would claim to know better than a specialist on every subject, and why?

Humourme · 10/07/2011 06:54

I can't understand why Feminists hold Greer in such high esteem - this was a woman who knowingly slept with John Peel :)

CoteDAzur · 10/07/2011 06:17

What zombie said.

cory · 10/07/2011 01:00

The only time I have felt subjugated by a procedure "down below" was in my first labour when a midwife during the internal squeezed my cervix as hard as she could (hurt far more than any other part of labour) and explained that she was doing this to get me used to the feeling. (fortunately she went off her shift shortly afterwards)

Now I am quite prepared to believe that this woman actually did get off on a sense of power. So can we extrapolate and take it as a proof that women should not be involved in gynaecological procedures?

MitchiestInge · 10/07/2011 00:42

the greatest mingeologist in the world wouldn't always if ever 'know better' would they? There are lots of different things to know and lots of ways of knowing them

Swipe left for the next trending thread