Smear tests to subordinate women

[sakura]

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.

It sounds a little as if you are diverting into things you can argue (women usd to not be allowed to be doctors!) because you have no good reason to not want men to be gynaecologists other than that you don't like men.

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.

That applies to every job ever. If a man is a bus driver he may be taking the place of a woman who wants to be a bus driver. Are you arguing that men should't be allowed to be bus drivers unless there are no female applicants?

That is an argument not for a level playing field but for a playing field in which men must always wait for women to go first.

No Trillian, I'm arguing that men have no business being in gynecology, nor childbirth. Just look at history.

WRT my original point, no Greer is not a medic, but she didn'T carry out the research herself SHe quotes and references medical research and statistics
As I say, I cba looking for them, but they're all in the WHole Woman.

There is a discussion to be had about how much the state has a right to force people to undergo medical procedures against their wishes. But this sort of deranged ranting is not helpful. I think your tinfoil hat needs adjusting again, Sakura.

My point was, sakura, that if you're ignorant about the subject (as you clearly are) than perhaps it would be a good idea to do some research before posting such a load of bullshit.

Fair enough about being appalled about the compulsory screenings.

But to state that smear tests are useless, because Germaine Greer says so? Not very bright and potentially dangerous if you manage to convince someone reading your posts of it.

You can't be expecting everyone on this thread to buy this book, fgs.

Sakura -

I think this is really irresponsible:

"did you think smear tests were about saving women's lives?"

"Honestly, I can't be arsed hunting it down, but obviously Greer has referenced all the studies in book."

It doesn't matter that you are not 'in power' you are speaking to a bunch of women who will all many times in their life have to decide whether to go for a smear test or not. And you are scaremongering.

It makes me suspect that you don't really want to know whether smear tests are effective in saving lives or not if you can't be bothered to look at the data, and just want (us) to take (your account of..) Germaine Greer's word for it.

Does anyone have any knowledge about other medical screening tests that are compulsory in Poland? Ones just for men, or for both genders? Just to clear up whether this is a common trend for Polish medicine or whether it's just women being 'targeted'.

exactly, Himalaya

Sakura, there is an interesting discussion to be had about the medical approach to "women's issues" and the attitudes to women that are institutionalised within the medical profession.

There is an interesting discussion to be had about how cancer screening programmmes could be improved (the cervical screening programme is a long way from perfect).

There is probably virtual unanimity on MN that smear tests should never be compulsory; less unanimity, probably, about whether Poland's new policy is related to an inherent misogyny or is just an expansion of the existing governmental mindset under which all sorts of medical tests and procedures are already compulsory, but there is an interesting discussion to be had there as well.

But one thing that is pretty much guaranteed to NOT lead to any kind of interesting discussion is your conjuring up an image of men in smoky rooms saying "You know, Carruthers, what I REALLY want to do is to get women to comply, to STFU and to be penetrated by gynaecological instruments" "Well, Frobisher, have you considered instituting a national programme of cervical screening costing millions of pounds every year? It might save quite a lot of lives, but that's OK so long as it's not the main point?". Or when you overlook that testicles are on the outside and handled by their owners on a daily basis, while cervixes aren't. When you start off a thread that way you sound as though you are in orbit somewhere around Planet Hatstand. And if Germaine Greer says the same thing then she sounds as though she's in orbit around Planet Hatstand too. In fact this thread has made me significantly less likely to buy her book, which I otherwise might well have done if I happened upon it -- I've met and liked Greer and (as I said in my first few paragraphs) there's a whole range of interesting stuff to discuss in this area. But now I'm likely to think "Ah, that's the book that hasn't noticed that testicles are the dangly bits on the outside".

Annie I'll have a look later, have to prepare lunch now (am Polish btw)

AFAIK, all employees have to submit to a medical test once every 2 years (I imagine that's standard, here in France it's the same, I think). Not aware of any other compulsory tests.

dittany FGS, most people on this thread are pissed of that OP is saying that cervical screaning is useless in saving lives.

There is a lot of discussion about possible issues with breast cancer screening - that's not a recommendation to scrap the program/discourage people from getting screened.

No need for anyone to be put off feminism just because some feminists are questioning what men are doing in gynocology! It's an area where women have suffered terribly in the past (and continue to). I can totally see in the far far future a time where all gynocolgists are female.

Look, for example at this job advert "We are looking for somebody who will share our values and whilst not necessarily an Anglican, is a practising Christian (this post is subject to an occupational requirement that the holder be a practising Christian under Part 1 of Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 because of its represetational role and its responsibility for maintaining a Christian Ethos within the national Church, as one of its senior officers). "

(Just trying to make an analogy btw..)

Equality does not have to mean 50% of men and 50% of women doing each job...

To me, feminism is about challenging and discussing the status quo not shying aware from stuff for fear of "bringing discredit on feminists/encouraging MRA activists/putting people off etc".

Many of us have said that we disagree with people being forced to undergo medical procedures.

It's possible to have a sane thread on whether this is right or wrong, but not if the main premise is "this is an excuse for men to rape women with bits of metal".

pissed off because

"Men who fall sick are not patronized the way that women are."

How do you know, sakura? My dh is chronically ill and I can assure you he hasn't been getting the royal treatment from the dear old NHS courtesy of his nadgers.

Here is some information on cancer screening in the UK - note that it includes men as well as women. Here is some information about wider screening programmes, which include the newborn tests.

To be fair Dittany, I don't think anyone is saying that at all.

Sakura well you certainly have received a bashing!

I totally agree with you on the background, i.e. that women's bodies have historically been seen as suspect (they can do things that male bodies can't ), ill-because-not-male, non-standard. Particularly in relation to female-only parts of bodies such as the uterus. Take hysteria for example, that mysterious female disease which is caused by the uterus jumping around in the body, and has nothing at all to do with being caught in a powerless subordinate situation without any ways to release your feelings let alone address the inequalities and daily frustrations, no sir.
Also, there is no question as to how medicine has historically been used as an instrument of control, not just of women but also of other groups of people that were seen to need control (Jews for instance, the proletariat, etc.).

All that does not necessarily lead to the logical conclusion which you implied, i.e. that smear tests are nothing but an instrument of control. I think if you want to make that point, you have to bring more 'evidence' regarding the reputed benefits of smear tests. I think what many here have been saying is, what do I care if smear tests are an instrument of control, as long as they might save my life?

In that regard, I do remember reading stuff (medical reviews) on the question of how much actual benefits are down to screening tests (can't recall if it dealt with cervical smear tests or just other 'female' screening tests such as mammographies). The consensus was that there are some benefits to screening stuff, but also quite a lot of disadvantages, such as the costs, stress, suffering, and pain caused by 'false-positives'. This review concluded that the disadvantages might actually outweigh the benefits and so argued for needing more evidence before introducing/recommending screening tests. So what I'm saying, for making your point that screening tests are nothing but an instrument of control, you'd need to point to that kind of evidence. (I don't know if this is the case for cervical smears, just saying that it is a gap in your logic).

To everyone who has argued 'but - cervical smears save lives!' I would reply that this might be true (or not), but it doesn't really change the fact that they are (also) controlling. I suspect it is true, but it is a bit besides the point. Because they fit neatly into the whole insiduous message that female body parts and processes are 'sick', prone to disease, dirty, shameful, in need of benevolent control.

It seems people are pretty unambivalent on smear tests being non-compulsory. In this regard I would say that there are other ways of making something 'compulsory' than making it law. The subtle pressures and coercions can be felt when people feel bad about being late for a test, and get an 'own-fault' feeling of guilt if they actually do become ill. Being told off for missing a test by the practice nurse. All that. It is a very neoliberal form of coercion which works with our feelings of personal responsibility. It's like when someone has a child with Trisomy21 (Down's). Quite a lot of people say 'but why didn't you do the test? In these days and times there is no need for any Down's children to be born any more.' And in some places, there is discussion of cutting benefits for those who chose not to have a test - it is their own fault after all, so it is their own responsibility to bear the costs. So, thinking along those lines, when will someone start arguing that women who missed out on smear tests should not be given full cancer treatment on the NHS?

As an aside, I'd like to add that this neoliberalisation of control and power affects men as well as women. Just like the 'feminisation of work' referring to the fact that more and more men now are working in conditions that used to be restricted to women (very low wages, high job insecurity, no pension plans, no respect, no job satisfaction, no career prospects, and such), we might these days talk about a 'feminisation of medical control' where the idea that health is something we need to work at relentlessly and that we are personally responsible for and that our bodies need to be checked up by doctors regularly because they can't be trusted, is now spreading from being a mainly-woman thing to being an everybody-thing.

although i think your views maybe a tad extreme

i do feel you have several good points
and i would hate for smear tests to become compolsary

i bet if it was men that had the babies they would be treated totally differently
ie much better

Actaully, have just done a quick Google, and the bill being discussed by the Polsih authorities is massively disturbing - here and here. A woman will lose her right to work if she does not comply with the testing, and there is not (according to these articles) any comparable testing for men which will result in their loss of rights.

Can we sweep aside some of the more insane ratings on 'penetration by metal instruments' and focus on, as dittany pointed out, women being forced to undergo medical investigations when it should be their right to refuse?