Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
swallowedAfly · 06/07/2011 15:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

sakura · 06/07/2011 15:01

Trillian Well that's what's under debate here. Why are women sent letters and reminders? What equivalent are men sent?
Why is cancer of the cervix the focus?

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

OP posts:
ItsNotUnusual · 06/07/2011 15:02

Sakura - another thread that appears to have hit a sensitive spot - maybe the g-spot?

Who says feminists have no sense of humour.

I'll get me coat....

swallowedAfly · 06/07/2011 15:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

swallowedAfly · 06/07/2011 15:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 15:04

SaF girls are prescribed the pill in far less traumatic situations that you speak of.

I do think that the population in general is more accepting of girls being "fixed" than boys.

You only have to look back 30 years to see women being given hysterectomies without their permission when they went in for something like having a dubious thing on one ovary looked at. There was a general idea that while you were there you might as well "whip it all out".

Can you imagine a man waking from routine surgery to test to find his testicles removed "just in case"? It just wouldn't happen.

These things weren't so long ago and while the surface has changed the level of acceptance of what women should have to be prepared to put up with vs men is still different.

noddyholder · 06/07/2011 15:05

It depends on whether you see your cervix as a purely sexual thing or whether you treat it like any other body part and do your best to protect yourself from disease like you would with any test. I have had a vulval tumour and laser cervix treatment and I thank god it was spotted and when you are staring cancer in the face feminist angst is the last thing on your mind!

TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 15:05

Why is cancer of the cervix the focus?

Because you can't check it yourself
Because the checks are quick an cheap
Because if caught early the survival rate increases massively
That sort of thing? The NHS does a lot of maths relating effort/time/cost to quality-adjusted life years

GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 15:05

SQ - that is interesting about the HPV vaccine. I'd not heard anywhere before it would be more efficacious to vaccinate boys - but now you've raised it, yes, why wouldn't that be the case, so why aren't they doing it?

I guess its because its the girls who have the cervix that may get the cancer. Vaccinating someone purely to protect someone else perhaps has ethical problems? I can imagine the uptake might be too low.

EldritchCleavage · 06/07/2011 15:06

"I can't think of anything my DH is supposed to attend the docs for"

This can depend on ethnicity. Men of Asian or African origin are often encourged to attend regular screening for high blood pressure, diabetes and other conditions more common to their racial groups.

Actually there is quite a lot of broadly understandable but often irritating testing and monitoring based on rather crude ethnic origin box-ticking (memory of wasted morning with no breakfast and disgusting Lucozade ordeal for gestational diabetes test is fresh in my mind).

Like the tests to which women are subject (and I don't disagree for one moment with the characterisation by sakura and other posters of the history of gynaecology and its practitioners' attitudes to women as as unfortunate and often horrific) there is a well-meaning but sometimes poorly thought-out tendency by doctors to test because they can.

The technology is there, even if it is often oversold, the doctors are well-meaning, if paternalistic, and screening feels progressive, helpful, benign.

noddyholder · 06/07/2011 15:07

The thing about male gynaecological cancers is they are highly visible as they are external and much easier to spot.

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 15:07

SaF I had a smear at 16 which was borderline and they gave me a colp, and ever since then I have been recalled every year.

I used to go every year but then one of the people asked why I was on such a quick recall and was a. really shocked that they had carried out a colp on someone so young and b. said that after all those years I could ignore the letters and come every 3 years.

The annoying thing is that when I was pg with DD2 I gave my history including the colp and the woman (a registrar at the hospital) flat out didn't believe me Hmm

ItsNotUnusual · 06/07/2011 15:08

The technology is there, even if it is often oversold, the doctors are well-meaning, if paternalistic, and screening feels progressive, helpful, benign

I agree completely with this but can see why every element of that statement can be challenged.

TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 15:09

Vaccinating someone purely to protect someone else perhaps has ethical problems?

Very good point Grimma.

If there are side-effects for 1 person in a million:

  • then if you are a girl you would want the vaccine because the chances of side-effects from the vaccine are lower than the chance of getting cancer (if you didn't have the vaccine)
  • 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
swallowedAfly · 06/07/2011 15:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

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!

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.

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.

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 15:14

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

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.

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.

swallowedAfly · 06/07/2011 15:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

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.

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.