Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
winnybella · 06/07/2011 10:31

I think if you're telling other women that cervical screening is useless and the only reason for it is so that male doctors can rape women with metal instruments Hmm and so risk convincing some of them of the truth of this (and so risk them not undergoing potentially life saving testing) then you should have researched it a bit by yourself, instead of relying on one book written by someone who is not a health proffessional.

jetgirl · 06/07/2011 10:32

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.

ShirleyKnot · 06/07/2011 10:32

I think there is probably a debate to be had regarding the way that womens' heath care differs from the care that men receive.

But when you start a post with:

"[Oh, did you think smear tests were about saving women's lives?!?!]"

Then I feel a) patronised and b)fucked off. I don't really give a tiny shiny shit as to the politics of cervical screening TBH, I'm just grateful that if I'm unlucky enough to get cervical cancer, that it might be caught in time for me not to die from it.

winnybella · 06/07/2011 10:34

Forkful, that's what she said:

'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'

jetgirl · 06/07/2011 10:34

sakura - the word is gynecological, not gynelogical, btw.

sakura · 06/07/2011 10:35

Hi Shirley, all I'm asking is to please consider the argument. yes that line was badly phrased.

I'm not the Polish Government, or any government. It's not as though I actually have any power. It's not as though anyone but a few mums are even going to read this.

But as I said, I haven't just pulled the argument out of my arse.

OP posts:
sakura · 06/07/2011 10:35

Thanks jetgirl Smile

OP posts:
VivaLeBeaver · 06/07/2011 10:37

I think that male doctors go into gynaecology as it's one of the most varied and rewarding specialisms in medicine.

There's a lot of surgery involved without having to be a surgeon which is an attraction, a lot of general medicine, oncology and because most gynaes are also obstetricians then there's all the obstetric side of things.

sakura · 06/07/2011 10:37

I still don't understand WTF men are doing in gynecology.

OP posts:
Reality · 06/07/2011 10:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 10:37

That's a truly nasty piece of history, but as that was repealed in 1886 I don't really think it needs digging up in this context.

My point was simply that if a country has a culture of compulsory screening, then gendered conditions may figure in that.

I think compulsory screening for non-communicable diseases is entirely wrong, however I'm sceptical that there's any specifically anti-woman agenda in this.

TrillianAstra · 06/07/2011 10:40

If you want to have a sane discussion on how women's health care differs from men's, or on the ethics of compulsory health checks, I suggest you start again.

sakura · 06/07/2011 10:40

Viva I understand that men might want to go into the profession because of XYZ, but those are the very same reasons that women would want to go into it. They're taking the place of a woman.

Considering the disgusting history of gynecology in the UK alone, and the torture perpetrated by men in this field, isn't it time that men took a step back from this "rewarding" field and allowed women to take over the research and treatment?

I think men have dominated gynecology long enough.

OP posts:
sakura · 06/07/2011 10:41

Grimma
It was you who started going on about the History of Gynecology when you started talking about Polish history. I simply gave you a link to show you that the UK also has a horrendous history

OP posts:
motherinferior · 06/07/2011 10:41

I suggest you go back and re-read Greer's Female Eunuch, in which she talks about women 'regularly dying from diseases in organs they didn't even know they had'.

Smear tests are nobody's idea of fun. They are often badly carried out. The results are good, but not 100 per cent. They are, however, the best gauge we have at the moment of knowing whether or not we have cervical cancer and I for one would rather know that than remain ignorant and die for lack of treatment.

Women have campaigned for access to healthcare. For rights over our bodies which include the right to the tests and the screening that can safeguard our bodies. Forty years ago, women were just getting to know what cervixes were, and getting out the speculum and having a good look. (I regret not keeping the copy of Spare Rib, complete with black and white photos, that I bought some time around 1978 which showed you in great detail how to do self-exam.)

You can regard your cervix as a tucked-away secret that doesn't need inspection. Me, I'll do the temporarily humiliating splayed-knees act down at the local surgery every couple of years.

forkful · 06/07/2011 10:42

'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'

Hmm that's probably a little bit radical for me. But personally I love to hear different points of view that challenge me. Grin

I can see that Sakura's argument (taken without context is Shock) but I know there's an awful lot of "complying" wrt to women in medicine. (eg One Born Every Minute UK showed a lot of medicalised births but try lookin at the USA version which is on at the moment... Straight into hospital, on your back, on a drip to induce you, epidural - if they say you need a C-section and you refuse they can get a judge involved....)

There is an awful lot of medicine/medical procedures which in reality are all about making ££££ for men drug companies - but these treatments masquerade as "saving lives".

PatriciaHolm · 06/07/2011 10:43

This would suggest that screening was a success. Quote -

"without screening there might have been 800 more deaths from cervical cancer in women under 55 in 1997."

And the trends over time graph here quite clearly shows a steady state incidence rate until 1990, (national screening programme came in in 1988) and significantly reduced since then. There are differences between age groups and interestingly, the incidence rate for the under 25s (most of whom won't have had a smear test yet as it's not routinely offered until 25) has remained pretty stable since 1990.

Now, I know we can't assume casuality. BUT I think the stats are pretty clear.

Please take your uninformed and quite frankly embarassing ranting somewhere else.

coccyx · 06/07/2011 10:43

Have I overslept...is it April the 1st

dittany · 06/07/2011 10:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

melrose · 06/07/2011 10:45

I don't think a post on Mumsnet ahs ever made me quite so angry before!! What a load of rubbish, cervical and breastancer screening have saved so many women's lives, I just do not understand how anyone could think they are a bad things. I only have to look at my on MIL, who had early breast cancer diagnosed from a mamogram 10 years ago and is still with us and clear of cancer to know that. Survival rates from breast cancer now stand at over 50% and that has a lot to do with earlier detection.

As others have said there is not equivalent screening for testicular cancer as the area is easier to self test!

However in the next 2 years there will be a screening programme introduced for bowel cancer, which will be offered to both sexes and is thought to be one of the biggest breakthroughs in Cancer Research is recent years.

Poledra · 06/07/2011 10:45

And I cannot understand why men shouldn't be in gynaecology. I don't have dodgy lungs yet I work in respiratory medicine - should I not?

I agree with Forkful that it is shocking that "that it took so long for women to be allowed to practice medicine and that opportunities for career breaks and part time working at senior levels are difficult to manage in a medical career." But this is not specific to gynaecology, but true for all specialities.

ShirleyKnot · 06/07/2011 10:46

Whoa.

"I still don't understand WTF men are doing in gynecology."

OK. I consider myself to be a feminist - I've lurked around this board for quite a while now, and it really has opened up my eyes to lots and lots of things and it really has changed me. Honestly though? This kind of thing is just...massively off putting for me.

I thought feminism is about fighting to level the playing ground - equality?

SchrodingersMew · 06/07/2011 10:46

Shock This thread has baffled me!

I had a horrible internal done recently (by a woman) who left my genitals in a bit of a swollen cut up mess, I would have been much happier if an experienced man had done it than this particular woman who was obviously shit at it.

This is a dangerous thread, if this were to influence 1 woman to not go for a smear when it turned out she would in fact be one of those who needed it, you do realise you would be mostly responsible if she didn't get treatment in time?

GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 10:47

I didn't say anything about the history of gynaecology. Confused

All I was thinking was that Poland may be more inclined to authoritarian solutions in general than other EU countries because of where its come from politically.

forkful · 06/07/2011 10:47
Smile
Swipe left for the next trending thread