Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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)

swallowedAfly · 11/07/2011 09:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

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.

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.

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.

exoticfruits · 11/07/2011 17:13

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

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 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.

himalaya · 11/07/2011 18:57

I think jetgirl's is an interesting question. I'm not thinking of it in terms of 'its not fair that women's cancers get all the goodies' just an interesting q

It may in part be that men tend to be comfortable doing hobbies like running just for the fun and the glory of it where women tend to feel able to justify time consuming hobbies if it is 'for someone else' - a good cause, charity, the PTA etc...

And there is also the argument that a lot of the popularity of pink ribbon campaigns etc.. is because they have been seen as good ways to sell more stuff to women ...think before you pink...

CoteDAzur · 11/07/2011 19:01

"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."

"Alternative lenses"? WTF does that even mean? Hmm

Is it rational to claim that the point of smear tests is not to save lives but to control and subjugate women?

DaisyHayes · 11/07/2011 19:11

But the argument is never "why is there no funding/publicity/research for mens' cancers?"

It is always, "why is there no funding/publicity/research for mens' cancers when there is loads for womens' cancers?"

As though there is some vile feminist man-hating plot underway to save all the breasts and ovaries and bring about the downfall of men via the means of testicular cancer.

It doesn't really matter why women do all the daft running round the park in pink tutus stuff.

The point I'm making is that it is unbelievable male privilege to then get all aerated about the fact that women therefore get all the cancer goodies when they don't.

It's because women have actively made it happen and they have not. Yet that - apparently - is sooooo not faaaiiirrrr.

swallowedAfly · 11/07/2011 19:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

HopeForTheBest · 11/07/2011 19:49

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on request of its author.

DaisyHayes · 11/07/2011 20:37

HopeForTheBest - can Iask, why would you choose a male gynaecologist over a female one?

exoticfruits · 11/07/2011 22:12

Surely you have check ups on other things e.g. blood pressure? I can't see why anyone doesn't want to check on health or get fussy on which part of the body.
I don't see why it matters if the gynaecologist is male or female, the male one that I saw had the nicest manner of any doctor that I have ever seen-I was very worried at the time and he couldn't have been more sensitive to it.

GrimmaTheNome · 11/07/2011 22:59

why would you choose a male gynaecologist over a female one?
I wouldn't - but I wouldn't personally discriminate against a male either. I've had no problems with either.

If I was in some scenario where there was limited availability of female gynaes I'd make it clear I really didn't mind so that there'd be more opportunity for female appt available for women who did have a preference.

floyjoy · 11/07/2011 23:32

Cote"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."

"Alternative lenses"? WTF does that even mean?

Is it rational to claim that the point of smear tests is not to save lives but to control and subjugate women?

You're just ignoring Alice's point. It is wrong for a poster to declare that another poster's views are the result of some illness/experience just because they think they are not rational or don't agree with them. How would you like it if your views on a subject were dismissed by someone else (a stranger on a forum) as a symptom of mental illness or the result of some terrible experience? It is an attempt to marginalise and belittle someone's viewpoint because you don't agree with it.

One of the points of the feminism board is to give people the chance to discuss political issues from a feminist viewpoint. There will be diverse views. But one of the tenets of feminism is that women should be allowed to have a voice, that their voices should be heard. To say that voice is mad or effected by damaging experiences (pretty bloody presumptous) and implictly therefore not valid takes us back to the days before feminism. The madwoman in the attic who should be ignored or told you need help.

GothAnneGeddes · 12/07/2011 00:26

What I am seeing being ignored is the hideous ableism in the OP.

No, I do not think 'mad', 'crazy' and such are acceptable insults, but I do not understand why people are handwringing at those terms being used to describe someone who uses terms like 'genetically inferior'.

Yes, feminism should have a wide range of viewpoints, but the bio-supremacy crap spouted in the OP has no place in a decent society and rather then telling others to read Greer, the OP would do well to read about eugenics.

sakura · 12/07/2011 01:19

GotheAnne,
If you read eugenics into my post then that says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about me.

My point is that contrary to what the patriarchs will tell you, women's bodies are extraordinarily resiliant, compared to men's. This is connected to the fact an X chromozome is filled with life-enhancing properties. Medical institutions and literature are obsessed, literally obsessed, with pretending the female body is inherently faulty, requiring unecessary hysterectomies and unlimited "testing" for being female. I reject their premise with hard evidence

But if anyone is actually interested in reading a balanced view about this topic, instead of participating in a witch-hunt against someone who dares to contradict the wisdom of the demi-Gods i.e doctors then here is an article up about it on the Radical Hub.

I shall even provide a link.

The replies are fascinating.

OP posts: