Misogyny

**julie** · #31 26th-July-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Percy

Honesty requires that you be called out on that, Julie. It is emotive language. Victim language.

Just what do you mean by 'guinea pigs'?

I wrote about it in this post to do with prostate cancer.

It's the silent killer that nobody talks about

But I only linked to the women's sites.

Quote:

Cartwright Inquiry
In 1987, Women's Health Action founders Sandra Coney and Phillida Bunkle, published an article called "'An unfortunate experiment" at National Women's Hospital' in the monthly Metro magazine. The article outlined an unethical study at the country's premier women's hospital. The study, started in 1966, involved following women with major cervical abnormalities without definitively treating them. By 1987 many had developed cervical cancer and some had died.

The revelations led to a Committee of Inquiry, called the Cartwright Inquiry after the presiding judge, Judge Dame Silvia Cartwright (now New Zealand's Governor General). Her report (1988) was a blueprint for patients' rights in New Zealand and also recommended a National Cervical Screening Programme

http://www.womens-health.org.nz/cart...cartwright.htm

Quote:

The 1966 Study of Cervical Carcinoma In Situ

There was a study of the natural history of carcinoma in situ (CIS) at National Women's Hospital (NWH), officially commenced in 1966, even if it was poorly designed. (p69) The study was of little scientific value. (p55)
By the early 1960s world medical opinion was that CIS was a precursor of invasive cancer. (p24)
Normal adequate treatment at the time at NWH and elsewhere was hysterectomy or cone biopsy. (p24-25)
The proposal was to prove Associate Professor Green's "personal belief' that CIS was "not a forerunner of invasive cancer." (p33)
The biopsies to be taken under the 1966 proposal were for "diagnosis not treatment." They were to check invasive cancer was not present, rather than treat CIS. (p35)
The study involved "no treatment or under-treatment of women with positive smears." (p35)
The safeguards accepted by doctors approving the study were "illusory." (p37)
There would be punch biopsy diagnosis of the most significant part of the lesion with minimal disturbance of it. (p39)
Managing patients by punch biopsy alone was not adequate treatment. (p41)
The cone biopsies performed by Green under the 1966 proposal (sometimes up to six on the same woman) were to check invasive cancer had not occurred rather than treat CIS. (p43)
Multiple biopsies had unpleasant painful effects for the women - "there seemed to be little gained in repeatedly subjecting women to this procedure." (p46)
The option of hysterectomy was usually not discussed with the women, even though many had completed their families. (P49)
Dr Green ignored the "safeguards", "laboratory and clinical evidence suggesting the possibility of invasive cancer was overlooked or downplayed and warnings of progressive disease were dismissed or ignored." (p49)
"Assiduous" follow-up of the patients "did not always result in treatment. Indeed, I have come to the view that Dr Green's care in this part of the Hospital's work resulted from his need to keep track of the condition of patients with positive cytology who were part of his 1966 study.... follow-up was not conducted for the purpose of monitoring and treating the patient where necessary, but to ensure that no data were lost which could be included in the study results." (p49 and pS l)
By delaying treatment until invasion occurred "treatment is more radical and... live expectancy significantly endangered." (pSl)
"Obvious symptoms of invasive disease were sometimes overlooked or downplayed." (pS2)
By the end of 1969 three cases of invasion had occurred in patients. Green should have seen what he was doing was "unsafe," that his proposal was incapable of testing his hypothesis, and was therefore "scientifically unsound and dangerous to the patient." (p52) .
Green's study was carried out at enormous cost to the women and their families, and also at financial cost to the hospital, placing pressure on hospital resources. " (pS3)
The understanding of a number of staff at NWH of the e natural history of CIS has been strongly influenced by Green's views. (p57)
The findings of the 1984 paper by McIndoe, McLean, Jones ZE and Mullins reviewing Green's NWH cases are correct. "The criticisms do not stand up to examination." (p60)
No consent to the trial was sought from the women. Only one of the 81 women interviewed by the judge knew she was part of research, (p67-68). "The fact that the women did not know they were in trial, were not informed that their treatment was not conventional and received little detail of the nature of their condition were grave omissions. The responsibility for these omissions extends to all those who having approved the trial, knew or ought to have known of its mounting consequences and its design faults and allowed it to continue." (p83)
There was no need to conduct an experiment on replacing hysterectomy with cone biopsy as treatment of CIS as this was already happening at NWH and other parts of the world. (p83)
There were also supplementary trials, that is the "baby smears" programme and the study of foetal cervices taken from aborted and stillborn infants. The baby smears study was formally approved; the foetal cervices trial was not. No formal consent was sought from parents to either trial. (p211)

http://www.womens-health.org.nz/cart...artsummary.htm

This is, from what I have been told the start to women protesting and collecting and so forth for women's cancers themselves.

There are other things that were done experimentally which caused major side effects for mothers and babies.

Quote:

- In the 1960's, thalidomide was pronounced a safe drug for pregnant women experiencing morning sickness. It was not safe, as thousands of adults with flipper arms and legs can attest.

Didn't stop until the late 70's early 80's.

- In the 1960's, the birth control pill was developed and women were assured that its use had no harmful side effects. Studies now report that the pill can be the cause of a greatly increased risk of stroke, heart attack and blood clots if taken for eight years or more. (British Journal of Medicine, 16 or 17 September, 2007).

- Between 1938 and 1971, as many as 4 million U.S. women and many Canadian women took the drug, diethylstilbestrol (DES) to prevent miscarriage. Daughters of these women who were exposed to DES in utero have experienced a range of structural reproductive tract abnormalities in the uterus, cervix and vagina. The incidents of abnormality occurs in 18% of cases, but it may be as high as 33% in women exposed to DES in utero. The male offspring of women who took DES during pregnancy also have an increased incidence of genital abnormalities and a possibility of increased risk of prostrate and testicular cancer.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121905.html

.

Marx · #32 26th-July-2008

Lotta posts to deal with - damn me for being asleep while this was going on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TERA

How many jokes do we have to endure about a hypothetical female president having a bad "PMS" day with her finger wavering over the little red button that causes world war III?

You can actually thank feminism for this joke. How many times have we heard of a husband being beaten, abused or even murdered - and she gets away with it because she apparently suffers PMS? Now, ok, it's not a daily thing, granted, but it's happened enough where feminism has stepped in and insisted she was not guilty due to PMS. So, if women can murder while being on the blob, I daresay they may just press a button.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TERA

Forgive me please for saying this, but I hope that in my lifetime I will live long enough to see a female become president....I want to see a well-qualified female president before I die....I think Hillary was one of them.

I do not htink Hitlary Cliton was one of them. No. She openly committed D/V, marginalized the deaths of thousands of men and continues to promote female victimhood. She clearly has issues with men as a class. There is NO way on Earth I would vote for someone who has such disrespect for half the planet's population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Percy

Male politicians are very often the butt of criticisms about their dress, hair, sagging jowls, whathaveyou. Look at the stick Gordon Brown gets for his teeth. Peter Costello, here, was called out for his 'smirk'. Look at our PM, Kevin Rudd - we have even coined a new word, 'Ruddled' and 'Ruddaddled' which have connotations of muddled and addled. They get criticised for their manners - or lack of them - their sex lives (no man gets to high Office in Britain without a history of transvestism or prostitutes to pick over, or corruption, but the latter gets glossed over) and their nose hair. PM, Bob Hawke was televised weeping with snot dripping from his nose.

Misandric?

Well, he was male - so it *simply must be* misandry, right? Or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim

Yes, but the number one reason people voted for Bill was because they found him likable and approachable....the same can hardly be said for Hillary.

Indded

Quote:

Originally Posted by TERA

In your opinion, she's a horrible person.

Could you elaborate on that? Why is she a horrible person?

I was going to hilight a lot for you, but it's been mostly said already..

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevalier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

Here is a good example of her honesty.

LMFAO - *that* had me cracking up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobYork

Agreed 100%

In the UK Prime Minister Blair was renamed B- Liar !!!

Robert.

Indeed. Was it because he was a man? No, it was because he was a liar.

Aug9th-LiveOrDie · #33 26th-July-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TERA

Her character? What's wrong with her character besides she's "too aggressive" for a woman to be and still be "liked"? What's wrong with her policies? They are just like Obama's. Their platforms are nearly identical. And America is supporting him. Why? Because he's a smooth talker. He can play the audience like Beethoven played a fiddle. Hillary didn't have that charisma. But she did have experience in the White House. Guess that counts for nothing, as personality is everything in this country.

hitlery is a low life scum suckin politician just like her punk ass husband
and her "experience " in the white house consisted of being a spouse
she was not elected to the white house and she overplayed that hand

Aug9th-LiveOrDie · #34 26th-July-2008

the clintons were one of the worst things to happen to this country
NAFTA and the brady bill
hillary and obama are both gun grabbers
they can have my gun if they want
bullets first

**RobYork** · #35 26th-July-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aug9th-LiveOrDie

the clintons were one of the worst things to happen to this country
NAFTA and the brady bill
hillary and obama are both gun grabbers
they can have my gun if they want
bullets first

Yes, they will come for your gun.

It will take more illuminati engineered gun deaths at colleges.

Robert.

Aug9th-LiveOrDie · #36 26th-July-2008

Aug9th-LiveOrDie · #37 26th-July-2008

so TERA, you would support a woman who was for this??????????????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_bill

AKUUS · #38 26th-July-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TERA

...You can't tell me that you haven't heard a dozen times comments made about how old she is, how she dresses, her weight, her hair, the "sound of her voice", how "aggressive" she is, and so forth...and so on. Did other candidates get these sorts of public commentary? No. Wonder why that is...

...Hillary is no more a "bitch" than McCain or Obama. Problem is, she's a woman. An assertive woman...

Tera, you are defining Hillary was "aggressive" and "assertive" and then asking why she is being called a bitch! A bitch is a woman who is aggressive and assertive!!

Women in leadership often try to compensate for not being men by being overly aggressive and assertive. They usually wind up saying and doing things that men would not do and generally behaving in irrational ways.

Quote:

I will concede that misogyny is a strong word...but what would you call it when people (men and women) dislike a candidate based on gender traits, and distrust the candidate because of her gender? How many jokes do we have to endure about a hypothetical female president having a bad "PMS" day with her finger wavering over the little red button that causes world war III?

It is a relevant issue. Of course the presentation is hyperbolic. You have presented a straw man, i.e. "pushing the little red button" as a means of discrediting the idea that women might have problems leading due to PMS. There are other concerns related to a president's emotional competency that would more realistically pose a problem than the "red button." For example, do we want a president that might hurt diplomatic relations by uncontrollable outbursts with foreign leaders? How about decisions that require logical, emotionless thinking such as whether and how to proceed in an unforseen rescue operation?

It's a valid point. If a man had a history of mental illness and was known to be emotionally unbalanced (like McCain?

), it would be reasonable to bring it up. So why is it unreasonable to bring up a monthly issue that affects a woman's emotions and thinking?

**TERA** · #39 27th-July-2008

Quote: "For example, do we want a president that might hurt diplomatic relations by uncontrollable outbursts..."

LOL...I'm about to have a uncontrolled outburst.....of laughter...heh

O.k. you guys, I know my view is NOT the popular view. I expected this. Particularly here. And it's o.k. You won't hear another word from me (at least not on this particular thread).

shaazam · #40 27th-July-2008

"PM, Bob Hawke was televised weeping with snot dripping from his nose."

Fair go Percy !!

it must have have been the profusion tears running along the ridge of his pompous nose and dripping off at the end so simulating dripping snot

you know Bob was wont to weep any time