Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
LeninGrad · 09/07/2011 08:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Goblinchild · 09/07/2011 08:52

Sakura is not in need of counselling or anything else, she just has a very different viewpoint to many others and has expressed it emphatically.
I sometimes alarm people IRL by feeling as strongly and differently about ecology, sustainability and conservation. And have been called mad for it.
Enough name calling, back to smear tests.
I hate them.
I have them done.
Same with going to the dentist. I'd feel treated like meat whoever was doing the prodding.

exoticfruits · 09/07/2011 09:17

People obviously know her in RL, but online all you can do is make judgements based on what you read. Apologies if I then get it wrong-maybe I should stop suggesting anyone gets help..
I hate smear tests and I hate mammograms, I hate visiting the dentist and I hate anything to do with needles but they are all necessary evils (I am even a blood donor-fine if I don't look).
I don't think that men should be discriminated against-all branches of medicine should be open to both sexes. I'm sure that you could request that a woman does a smear test. I think it gives peace of mind to have it done by someone who has done hundreds-I wouldn't be convinced I had it right with DIY.

sunshineandbooks · 09/07/2011 09:34

Forced smear tests are wrong. It is everyone's human right to control their own health as they best see fit - preferably after having all the necessary information to make a genuinely informed choice, and, if they choose to undergo testing, to have that done in a way that treats them with dignity and compassion.

I don't think Sakura is mad at all. Her views are certainly unusual and at the extreme end of the feminist spectrum, but she's entitled to them and she's not at all wrong to point out how gynaecology has indeed been a means of controlling women in the past. In all other areas we are taught that past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour, so we ignore past sins against women at our peril. Maybe one of the reasons gynaecology has improved is because the medical profession has been held up to greater scrutiny about issues of control and abuse.

BTW I regularly undergo smears. I have made an informed choice to do so. In my surgery they are carried out by a female nurse.

Saf I don't think your experience of a colposcopy/Leet is unusual. I supported my friend through having this done, and it said in her admission appointment letter that she could be having it all done on the same day. They would check there and then and remove at the same time if they felt it was necessary. They did, too.

TBH, I am not against smear tests in the same way as Sakura. I think they are a good thing. But as a woman I have to say that jf the government really want to help women's reproductive health money could be spent far more effectively by encouraging men to use condom's as the default position, publicity campaigns on the negative effects of douching/feminine hygiene products, and making it unacceptable for men to pressure women into sex (nearly 25% of women experience sexual assault, which has long-term mental health implications as well as physical ones).

exoticfruits · 09/07/2011 10:57

I think they are a very good thing, but it is up to every woman to make their own,informed choice and if they don't want to have it done it is entirely up to them. I am all for preventive medicine. Of course other things could be done, but even if they were I would still have a regular smear test.

I think that all jobs ought to be open to both sexes. There would be an outcry (quite rightly) if certain branches of medicine were closed to women, and their motives for wanting to do it were questioned, and the same stands for men.

ZombiePlan · 09/07/2011 11:32

Completely wrong to make medical treatment compulsory (I think the UK's legal position - that you can refuse treatment unless you are determined to be mentally incapable - is right). Everyone should have the right to decline treatment if they so choose (even if it is not, clinically speaking, the best choice for them to make in the circumstances). Frankly, I'm horrified that this is even being considered as a possibility in a European country in 2011. Especially when the sanction is so draconian - being prohibited from working. How many Polish women can afford to not work, I wonder? So they couldn't even boycott in protest.

I think that it's worrying that a couple of posters here appeared to take the view that it's not really a big deal, because people should go for smears anyway. We all know that we should eat our 5-a-day, but would we like to see that legally enforced? Especially with draconian sanctions - such as being prohibited from working - if we don't comply. What about Jehovah's witnesses - should they have to accept blood transfusions? What about vaccinations - quite a few posters on here are vehemently against them. It's one thing for a person to say that they wouldn't mind something they do anyway being made compulsory, but how would you feel about something you don't want to do being enforced? BTW I think the argument that "it's for your own good" doesn't always apply - I think that there are cases, e.g. rape victims, where the trauma of the invasive test would outweigh the statistical benefit.

As an aside, am appalled at the GPs who refused to either prescribe or remove contraceptives unless the woman agreed to a smear. TBH I would have made a formal complaint. I can kind of understand why the doctor would want to monitor things where the pill was involved, as it increases the risk of cancer, but even so it should be up to the woman in question. And there is absolutely no excuse for forcing a woman to stay on the coil when she wants to TTC. Pure blackmail.

exoticfruits · 09/07/2011 12:00

I don't think that anyone should be forced to do anything. Sometimes there is a case for them signing a paper,e.g. my dentist had a woman who went against his advice and refused treatment-he thought that he could then be sued for being negligent so he just got her to sign that she had been given advice and ignored it-which seems fair enough.
The Jehovah's witnesses are a bit of a trickier problem-fair enough to decline a blood transfusion on your own part, but I'm not sure where I stand if their DC is going to die without one. It can be a huge grey area.

sparky12345 · 09/07/2011 12:22

actually-i can see what sakura is saying and i dont think her views are mad at all.
however-much as i hate the "big brother"patriarchic society-i dont think i agree.
i think we should have choice but i feel that theres a problem with this-which is-people always think"its never going to happen to me"or "oh i feel ok so ill have it done another time"ect ect.
sometimes tommorrows too late.
i feel the other side of it also is-i feel that we owe it to our children to have these things done-telling youre children that you might die because you didnt go for a test-awful all round.
the other side of it also is[i feel]if youre laying in hospital with tubes up youre nose and having invasive tests/examinasions-youre not going to say"oh dont do this"youre going to be saying"plese save me and do what you gotta do"arent you?-so why get to this stage when a test in the first place might save you from this!
obviously-not every woman gets cancer but how do you know youre the unlucky one?-you dont.
personnally-i dont give a damm who is giving me invasive tests ect at this moment in time-i just want to live a bit longer and i think it would be more patriarchial if i wasnt having examinasions.

ZombiePlan · 09/07/2011 12:48

"The Jehovah's witnesses are a bit of a trickier problem-fair enough to decline a blood transfusion on your own part, but I'm not sure where I stand if their DC is going to die without one. It can be a huge grey area."
Doctors are able to make a court application for permission to override the parents' wishes in such cases. AFAIK they are usually granted.

GothAnneGeddes · 09/07/2011 12:48

Exoticfruits Legally, if children are involved, the hospital will usually seek legal backing to overrule the parents. In an emergency situation, they would act first to save the child's life and would be legally covered by various guidelines and previous case history.

Sakura's OP contained some absolutely hideous language, describing people as deficient because of their chromosones. I think calling her 'insane' or dismissing it as a rant is letting her off far too lightly, for an OP which perpetuated hate speech. Marie Stopes and others were ardent feminists, who were also very pro eugenics and it is disturbing to see that sort of language being used by modern feminists.

exoticfruits · 09/07/2011 13:37

I think that legally it is a good thing that parents can be overruled in life/death cases.
I am assured by people who know Sakura in RL that she is perfectly sane with no problems- but I think that if you are posting on the internet you need to be careful-people can only judge by what they read -and it comes out as an unbalanced, hate rant. (and not just to me).

CoteDAzur · 09/07/2011 13:53

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

GothAnneGeddes · 09/07/2011 13:54

Exotic -There is feminism and there is female separatism. If you read a few female separatist blogs, you'll find views like Sakura's are ten a penny. It doesn't make them anymore palatable, realistic or benefical to women or society as a whole, but it does explain where such ideas come from.

LeninGrad · 09/07/2011 14:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CoteDAzur · 09/07/2011 14:28

Some of those posts on childbirth threads are from me, talking about my traumatizing first birth and subsequent efforts to obtain a ElCS. Trust me, I do know that doctors sometimes do harm.

There is a big difference between talking about doctors' malpractice and saying smear tests are an elaborate ruse by the male-dominated medical profession to control, subjugate, and forcefully penetrate women with gynecological instruments Hmm

The former is completely normal. Of course, we will all talk about problems we see or have witnessed in hospitals.

The latter is only comprehensible if the judgement of the person saying it is thwarted by a painful experience in her past Sad This is why people here have suggested seeking professional help.

AliceTwirled · 09/07/2011 16:31

What?? Hmm

So you can only make macro scale analysis if you have been "thwarted by a painful experience in her past". I really don't get that.

I'm reading that recounting personal experience is OK. Suggesting individual malpractice is OK. But to connect personal experience to a wider societal context means you are insane and driven to it by some problem with you. Confused

That would make a heck of a lot of people over history wrong about a heck of a lot of things, and nullify a heck of a lot of social movements.

I find it really odd that people are so angered by Sakura's post as to label her mad and in need of help Confused Her post reads like a reframing of something that we take for granted through an alternative lens to me.

Agree, don't agree, meh. But the anger, hostility and madness accusations Hmm

sparky12345 · 09/07/2011 16:36

well-looking at things from diffrent angles as usual-
im sorry but if women are saying this[....are ten a penny]im concerned.
often its the middle class women who have the voices in feminism.
the very women who if things go pear shaped can get privite treatement[quicker treatement]
so-i feel like views like this is actually dangerous for working class/underclass women.

GothAnneGeddes · 09/07/2011 17:07

Sparky I'm talking about female separatist views. Sakura's argument is steeped in female separatist language. I pointed this out to explain that the OP was not written as a result of trauma (AFAIK), but from a particular viewpoint.

Alice - when people talk of 'genetic inferiority', I reserve the right to get very angry indeed.

sparky12345 · 09/07/2011 17:16

yep-i can see what youre saying GothAnneSmile-im not exactly on about Sakura-but as you say youre on about a paticular viewpoint-so am i!

exoticfruits · 09/07/2011 17:42

Thank you GothAnneGeddes-you learn something new everyday. They may be 'ten a penny views' but I have never come across female separatists before and just thought her unhinged. I have googled it and see that it is a very controversial view even among feminists. It explains a lot. (it also explains a lot on other threads). I can see now why I have always thought myself a feminist and yet seem not to be-the deep shade of pink is even deeper than I possibly imagined. (t isn't something that I agree with)
So sorry Alice-I thought it had to come from deep trauma-I didn't realise there was another explanation.

LeninGrad · 09/07/2011 20:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CoteDAzur · 09/07/2011 21:11

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

CoteDAzur · 09/07/2011 21:13

I had never heard of "female separatist", either, and so Googled. Very strange, indeed.

Is it supposed to be female supremacist, as well, or was sakura improving on female separatism with her "women are superior to men, look at X chromosome vs Y chromosome" line?

LeninGrad · 09/07/2011 21:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 09/07/2011 21:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.