Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

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:
TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 14:09

If you think smears are use ful rather than use less why have you not had one in 10 years?

sakura · 06/07/2011 14:09

EggyAllenPoe

"I do think there are questions to be raised about the effectivenes of screening but that debate would probably be a statistical one - about negative associations with foetal abnormality vs cervical cancer vs age/etc of subject....and be very very dull. "

Oooh, now you're talking. That is exactly the kind of dull talk I get excited over.

OP posts:
LauraPoppins · 06/07/2011 14:09

Ok, so just saying that the Op is barking isn't good enough, I need to explain why I think she is wrong. You see you think that just because I've said I think she is crackers (and I do btw, based on her OP, I think she is crazy) that I haven't thought about the issue.

FWIW I think that compulsory smears go against the grain. However, if the OP has things of value to be said, they are disguised in her rant

So here is my take on the OP, then I'll piss off and leave all you feminists to it.

----------------
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.
Biologically, this whole paragraph is dodgy. Life preserving genes in the X?

Men don't really know how to look after their bodies either, in a general sense (healthy diet etc) Really? Men are unheathly? Whereas you never see fat women, women smoking (and in pregnancy), binge drinkers?

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. You have to look into which tests are available, at what cost and with how much of an impact they will make if offered. I think smears are an excellent test for example, because they are quick and cost effective and can save many, many lives. They offer good value to the NHS

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. There are campaigns aimed at getting men to self check their testicles in the same way as there are campaigns aimed to get women to check their breasts. Both campaigns are based on the fear of the disease motivating someone to check themselves

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) Again, biologically it is far more complex than the OP is suggesting. Its not a case of saying men are more vunerable or defective

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. I'd like to see the stats on this, but not enough to buy the book!

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. Absolutely, no procedure is fool proof, equally men are at risk of lab mix ups also with any test they have done. You have to weigh up the very small risk of a lab cock up against the possible benefit of knowing that you have pre-canerous cells

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. This is the point that I decided that the OP was barking btw 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]
Who are these female scientists and doctors? As a female scientist I don't have a band of sister-scientists grouped together, at the ready to research female vaginas. I work with fellow scientists, on an equal footing to my male colleagues, researching areas of interest and possible progress that we can get funding for

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.
I find it distasteful to suggest that smear tests are pointless

MillyR · 06/07/2011 14:10

I won't have another cervical smear test. I had one after DS was born, and after the doctor had put the speculum inside me, she started going on about how she was going to insert a coil. I said that I didn't want a coil because I was intending to have another baby. We then had an argument about it with me lying on the examining bench with my legs splayed. She basically thought I was too young to have kids.

Now I know that I am increasing my risk of cancer, but quite frankly with some of things DH has gone through with the NHS, I'm not sure that if I was diagnosed with anything I would be prepared to deal with the NHS and go through treatment.

sakura · 06/07/2011 14:10

Trillian, I think they have their place.

I am as worried about cervical cancer as I am about skin cancer, or any other type of cancer or disease. No more. No less.

OP posts:
boysrock · 06/07/2011 14:11

Yes all these things affect the efficacy of the map, but why does all this need to be documented down? Why does someone in authority have the final say on whether you qualify for free map or not? what is wrong with advising that these are the risk factors for it not working and here is the number for sexual health clinic if you think you dont fit the criteria.

why are women not credited with the brains to work out if map is suitable for them with the right information? without the consent of someone in authority?

Butlinsbabe · 06/07/2011 14:11

If women died younger and were unhealthier and had more heart attacks, feminism would be up in arms. But 'cos it's only men it's okay.

May I ask something?

Those of you with very radical manhatingviews, do you have men in your lives? Do you have husbands and sons and fathers ? Are they part of the patriarchy? Do they oppress you?

ShirleyKnot · 06/07/2011 14:11

This is such an interesting thread!

Can I ask you Sakura WHY you think the system wants us to have regular checks if not to save our lives?

sakura · 06/07/2011 14:14

Laura
I'll address your first rebutal: "Biologically, this whole paragraph is dodgy. Life preserving genes in the X"

about the female X chromozome

"A female fetus (normally XX) can survive with only one X chromosome, but a male fetus (normally XY) could not survive with only one Y chromosome. This is because not having an X chromosome is much worse than not having a Y chromosome. The Y chromosome carries very few genes essential for life. In contrast, the X chromosome is a much longer DNA molecule and contains many, many genes that are needed for cells to function. "

OP posts:
TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 14:15

Laura you missed a bit.

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.

You shouldn't have to do research, this is currently (don't know how long ago you were 18) stated on the letter that is sent to you saying that you need to book in for a smear.

I am as worried about cervical cancer as I am about skin cancer

If you had a funny-looking mole, wouldn't you get it checked out? I can't see the moles on my back, so I get someone to look at them for me. I can't see the cells in my cervix, so I get someone to look at them for me.

sakura · 06/07/2011 14:16

ButlinsBabe,
Women do die younger than men. BUt not because their chromozomes are weaker, but because two women a week are killed by their spouse in the UK alone.

Feminists (quite rightly) are up in arms about this. Men usually die peacefully. WOmen are frequently murdered, by men, in the most heinous of ways.

OP posts:
Reality · 06/07/2011 14:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sakura · 06/07/2011 14:17

I would not go for regular checks for skin cancer, liver cancer or any other type of cancer, unless it struck me that I might want to do that.

OP posts:
TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 14:17

There's no such thing as a male fetus that is just Y.
A foetus can live with just one X, but to be fully-functional and fertile (sorry anyone with Turner syndrome) you need either a second X or a Y. That doesn't mean that one is better than the other.

sakura · 06/07/2011 14:18

Oh dear GOd, Nooo. She's going on about men murdering women again. Puhlease. Not in the feminist topic.. Whatta man-hater.

OP posts:
GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 14:18

An X chromosome is essential to any human being. Its not the 'female chromosome'.

TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 14:18

Men usually die peacefully. WOmen are frequently murdered, by men, in the most heinous of ways.

I imagine more men die violent deaths than women. And what's that got to do with smear tests or medical ethics?

sakura · 06/07/2011 14:19

No, Trillian.
If the second chromozome is a Y, the baby will not survive. It must be an X because X chromozomes have so many more genes needef for life to function.

OP posts:
GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 14:21

Yes - every human needs an X. Yes, its 'life giving'. No its not 'female'.

TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 14:21

I said: A foetus can live with just one X, but to be fully-functional and fertile (sorry anyone with Turner syndrome) you need either a second X or a Y.

Sakura said: If the second chromozome is a Y, the baby will not survive. It must be an X because X chromozomes have so many more genes needef for life to function.

I think this proves that Sakura should not speak on the matter of chromosomes any more.

If XY were non viable there wouldn't be any men.

sakura · 06/07/2011 14:21

Wrong Trillian,
Two women are murdered violently every week in the UK, by their spouse alone. Men are not being killed to the same extent.
When men are killed, it's by other men.

It's relevant because someone upthread talked about feminists being up in arms if it was women who died earlier. I explained that they do. They are frequently murdered. Ask that person why they veered off topic.

Grimma, the X is absent in the mother, but if the father supplies another X the baby can survive. If he supplies a Y, it cannot.

OP posts:
Reality · 06/07/2011 14:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 14:23

Men are not being killed to the same extent.
When men are killed, it's by other men.

Men are being killed to a much greater extent. Not by women, I'll grant you that, but you are claiming that men get murdered less which is completely untrue.

sakura · 06/07/2011 14:23

Trillian,
XY is viable, but in Turner's syndrome there is only one chromozome.

Let me break it down for you:

Mother-- X
Father --X = Girl

Mother--X
Father--X =Boy

Mother---
Father---X =Child with TUrner's

Mother---
Father--Y Child will die

OP posts:
sakura · 06/07/2011 14:23

that second one was

Mother---X
Father---Y = Boy

OP posts: