Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
claig · 06/07/2011 13:22

Do you?
I blame the elite.

Sidge · 06/07/2011 13:24

Far easier to suppress the ovulation of one ovum per month than the creation of 170 million sperm per day.

GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 13:25

I thought it was because we're all pissing oestrogen and they're drinking it.

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 13:26

some feminists though. Sakura is only one person. And 90% of people on the thread have shouted at her - most of them are self-identified feminists.

The point about Poland even considering this policy is terribly frightening though. And Sakura has brought it to all our attention - I would not have known about this otherwise.

If anyone ever feels that there is no need for feminism, there is always something like this that comes up to point out that there really really is.

I think it is well worth talking about.

claig · 06/07/2011 13:26

exactly Sidge

HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 06/07/2011 13:27

Laura - that's not what ItsNotUnusual said at all. But feel free to misinterpret her and any other femninists you may not agree with. Every other fucker does.

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 13:28

Theories about sperm count include

Laptops
Tight pants
Booze

They said never to try to conceive with a goth, the combo of skin tight trousers and loads of cider was not a good combo from a testicular perspective!

PGTip · 06/07/2011 13:28

OMG I read the Feminism topics occasionally and nearly every time I wonder who these women the claim to be championing are! How terrible to make a simple and quick medical check compulsory, what's the worse that can happen, they save a life!

I don't necessarily think it should be compulsory but to claim it is a wY to subordinate women by the patriarchy is ludicrous.

I'm not saying there is no place for feminism, but a lot if what us spouted on here seems to be an endless diatribe against men. There is no conspiracy to subjugate women.

GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 13:29

SQ - yes.

Anyone want to start again with a clear link to what the Poles are currently proposing and without all the red herrings?

LauraPoppins · 06/07/2011 13:32

I though part of the problem with the male pill is that it puts the man back in control. I though what was so freeing about the female pill was that it put the woman in control for the first time ever.

I sure as hell wouldn't rely on my DH to take the pill to stop me getting pg, he can't remember where he put his shoes, let alone to take a pill each morning.

Plus if I my teenage DD was having sex, I'd like her to be in control of her contraception not some think-with-his-pants teenage boy.

I suspect the male pill isn't here because there is no money to be made in it. Drug companies will only research, fund, test and bring to market drugs they think are money spinners. I think whilst the idea of it being the men that have their bodies messed about with taking contraceptive hormones instead of women sounds great, very few would actually do it.

claig · 06/07/2011 13:32

'Tight pants'

Hahaha, I'm surprised they didn't include global warming as well.

floyjoy · 06/07/2011 13:33

laura
Sakura has thought about the topic, has a definite view about it based on experience and political theory. She posts this and get rude, knee-jerk reactions from posters who may have never have thought about it, never have seen the argument before and don't view female experiences from this political point of view (or consciously from any but more likely unconsciously from the 'mainstream' political perspective). Calling someone 'barking' because you find the argument new, alien to you is not much of a contribution.

If an idea unsettles or offends you, you can reflect on it and think about the politics of it, the ideas it is based on, even the political, social and cultural context. Feminism is political - it involves a political critique of the status quo. I don't know why anyone would get annoyed by this. Calling someone you don't agree with mad is an immature response in what's supposed to be an adult discussion.

boysrock · 06/07/2011 13:35

Yes sidge i know, but you can also but the map over the counter i believe in boots. The only 2 questions that should be asked are is the event over 72 hrs previous and are you pregnant. But these forms ask what method of contraceptive was being used and if you attend a wic for it chances are you will be asked for a urine sample. Chances are you will be invited to consider long term methods of contraception. I think some of this has to do with audit and some with defensive practice.
However considering this can be bought and no questions asked then it is intrusuve. Yes there are good health promotion arguments for advising on long term contraception, but I note they are all focused on women.

Our sex lives are monitored and regulated, mens are not.

floyjoy · 06/07/2011 13:35

And the 'mad' label is getting very, very boring.

boysrock · 06/07/2011 13:38

Sorry walk in centre not wic ~ got carried away with the phone there.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 06/07/2011 13:38

Can I also add to floyjoy's remark (in a more measured way this time) that questioning someone's mental health - calling them mad, deranged, cuckoo - is very patriarchal. For centuries women have been subjugated using mental health reasons. As this is the feminist section please can we find other ways to describe our displeasure at someone's comments (like address those comments directly and explain why you don't like them).

LauraPoppins · 06/07/2011 13:39

You may think that 'barking' is offensive (tbh yes, it is) but it the easiest and most succinct way of expressing my opinion about the original post.

NormanTebbit · 06/07/2011 13:40

I also find threads like this very Hmm I consider myself fortunate to live in a country which provides health screening and to have a (female) GP who wrote me a letter telling me off for missing a smear (I then had one.)

OK making it compulsory may be dicey - although alot of screening and health checks are compulsory if you want medical insurance - but tryng to suggest it is some kind of patriarchal conspiracy sounds rather childish, petulant even.

winnybella · 06/07/2011 13:41

floyjoy

Again, most posters took issue with Sakura's claim that smear tests are useless. Not with her being appalled at the proposed legislation.

BerylOfLaughs · 06/07/2011 13:43

Thanks for this thread. It's made me realise that the patriarchy are just trying to orally rape me with their oppressive instruments whenever I go to the dentist, therefore I won't be going any more. Phew, close call. I'd rather have cavities any day!

winnybella · 06/07/2011 13:45

Having googled Polish medical websites, it seems only 7% of women have regular smear tests. Only 20% have mammograms they are invited to have (for free).

Poland has the highest mortality rate from cervical cancer in EU.

I can understand that the government wants to tackle this. Perhaps compulasory tests are not a way to go, but I very much doubt it's a patriachal conspiration to keep women in check/rape them/humiliate them etc.

GrimmaTheNome · 06/07/2011 13:45

Thank goodness no-one said 'hysterical'

NormanTebbit · 06/07/2011 13:47
Grin

I find it best to steer clear of the dentist at all costs what with their patronising provision of a chair in the waiting room because obviously the patriarchy wishes to keep me waiting as my time is not precious.

Pah!

boysrock · 06/07/2011 13:49

Laura have you ever considered the theory of the medicalisation of womens lives? Greer does cover it as do a few others. In essence this is what sakura is saying. It is far from barkig when you read up on it.

Have you ever noticed how it is womens reproductive health that is focused on from cancer to contraception? listening to the media you would think we died of nothing else. But we do.

Have you noticed how many routine check up appoontments we go to compared to put mal relatives despite being fit and well.

Have you noticed how when a screening programme is scaled back because it does not need to be so intense ( i think pap smear but could be wrong) there was media concern.

There are plenty morr examples. Why is it acceptable to regulate teenage girls mpod swings with a pill? Why isnt it acceptable to do this for boys?

SardineQueen · 06/07/2011 13:49

pgtips

"How terrible to make a simple and quick medical check compulsory, what's the worse that can happen, they save a life!"

Think about it for a minute. Say you are a rape victim, or a victim of child abuse, say you have had a terrible birth experience, things like that. Which mean that some women feel unable to have smears, understandably. Under the law which was proposed in Poland (which may or may not still be on the cards) these women will either have to have a smear, or be barred from working.

What's the worst that can happen? Use your imagination.

Swipe left for the next trending thread