|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: From TICTH - The dozy chav
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember when Viagra became widely available, and there was a debate about it being available on prescription, and the Health Secretary at the time made the limpid comment that male impotence didn't cause pain, therefore it should not be given via prescriptions. I think medical opinion was opposed to this view.
[More personal anecdotes which I know <>data]
When I was on a very high strength of anti-depressants a few years ago (which were, rightly IMO, available on the NHS as it was/is a potentially life-threatening debilitating condition, affects my ability to work, etc) these had the unfortunate side-effect, as they often do, of depressing my libido to the extent that I needed Viagra-type stuff. This however wasn't available on the NHS - again, rightly IMO, since it wasn't any of the above and, although having the drug can jazz up one's love life, so can a meal out, and I don't expect other people to pay for that either.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think it's more that LeRoc believes that it's got nothing to do with you.
Someone posted this topic on a discussion forum - I'm not meant to comment on it? Give it a rest!
OK then, how do you think decisions should be made in the NHS? Should there be rigid rules that define the treatment available to all people in a given set of circumstances, which will have the advantage of impartiality, or do you accept that clinicians need to be able to treat people as individuals, which will mean taking the wishes of that person into account as well as the availability of resources and the benefits that may accrue to the individual, which can easily appear inconsistent.
Just wondering.
Added to that is the point that various Health Trusts can make different decisions about various treatments. I suppose this has the negative result of 'postcode lottery' with some treatments; the positive aspect is local decisions and accountability. But it militates against a one-size-fits-all approach.
I think it's been a burning issue with IVF, since it's easier to get in some Trusts than others.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember when Viagra became widely available, and there was a debate about it being available on prescription, and the Health Secretary at the time made the limpid comment that male impotence didn't cause pain, therefore it should not be given via prescriptions. I think medical opinion was opposed to this view.
[More personal anecdotes which I know <>data]
When I was on a very high strength of anti-depressants a few years ago (which were, rightly IMO, available on the NHS as it was/is a potentially life-threatening debilitating condition, affects my ability to work, etc) these had the unfortunate side-effect, as they often do, of depressing my libido to the extent that I needed Viagra-type stuff. This however wasn't available on the NHS - again, rightly IMO, since it wasn't any of the above and, although having the drug can jazz up one's love life, so can a meal out, and I don't expect other people to pay for that either.
That's puzzling as a few of my clients did get Viagra on prescription, as I think they ought to. It's not life-threatening, to use your term, but it causes depression and messes up marriages.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Homing in on one word, what do you mean by 'accountability'?
[CP -it wasn't actually called Viagra but something beginning with 'L' -Levitil(?). Cost about £25]
[ 02. October 2014, 11:56: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe we should prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
Do you have any evidence that the NHS doesn't prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
Herceptin.
[And, like seekingsister, I'm starting to get fed up with the way 'prioritise' is being misrepresented by some posters here]
It’s very expensive and no extra funds are made available for it so cuts would have to be made to other services to pay for it. What would you cut? Treatment for lifestyle related illnesses as these are self inflicted? The old as they’ll die soon anyway? Cosmetic treatments such as this one as a pair of socks down a bra will work just as well? The other problem is, I suspect, the media plays up the fact that this drug is a miracle cure without mentioning its limitations. Aside from if you fund that, you can’t fund this, it only works for a small number of patients and the benefits are small – weeks or months rather than years etc.
The thing is, if people agree that treating women in these circumstances is fine, why is it anyone’s business apart from the woman’s what cup size she selects? Or, what she decides to do with her life afterwards. They might not be life choices I’d make or want my daughter to make, but … And that’s not a lefty thing, it’s more about being tired of people demonising others for making choices that they themselves don’t approve of. Wanting to be a glamour model isn’t a crime last time I looked.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
OK then, how do you think decisions should be made in the NHS? Should there be rigid rules that define the treatment available to all people in a given set of circumstances, which will have the advantage of impartiality, or do you accept that clinicians need to be able to treat people as individuals, which will mean taking the wishes of that person into account as well as the availability of resources and the benefits that may accrue to the individual, which can easily appear inconsistent.
Just wondering.
This is an interesting thought experiment, but the second choice requires an unlimited budget to achieve. Which the NHS does not have.
There should be rules and where doctors are convinced and exception is necessary, a means to appeal or propose to an advisory committee to get the exception.
So in the case of augmentation if someone wishes to wait for their specialist to get permission for DD rather than take a size within the range as offered, that would be their choice.
I looked up NHS criteria for reductions (sorry don't have the link anymore) and there are all sorts of specific rules - cup size of F or larger, BMI below a certain level, chest measurement of at least X inches, etc. To think these ranges can't be determined for augmentation as well seems odd, especially since reduction is more clearly a medical need for many women due to back pain.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: It has well and truly been diverted into a discussion of the morality of her boob job, possibly because that's the only thing about her the lefties can bring themselves to defend And they have to defend her somehow, because she's working class and therefore can do no wrong. Unless said wrong can ultimately be laid at the door of someone who is either upper class or tory, of course.
I'll ignore your dumb swipe at the left for a moment. What I'm defending here isn't so much Ms. Cunningham. I don't personally know her, but I do think some of the things she has said and done are rather daft.
What I am defending though is the sanctity of the relationship between a doctor and a patient. What happens there shouldn't be influenced by what other people find 'normal' or 'natural', it shouldn't be influenced by what other people think they can diagnose on the base of a newspaper photograph, and it shouldn't be influenced by what effect it would have on public opinion.
What do you think should be able to influence the relationship between you and your doctor?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Bzzzz! Lots of people already do: the admin staff in the Trust, the receptionist in the surgery, civil servants in the Dept of Health, government, etc, etc.
[ 02. October 2014, 11:58: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
You have a point Marvin, and I really should have started a separate thread because I don't really know the particulars of this woman's "breast tissue" issues, but I do have a permanent bone to pick over the whole subject of breast implants.
Women's bodies of whatever height, weight or proportion were pretty well accepted and even desired for thousands of years, even while we played around with kohl around our eyes and henna on our hair -- all inexpensive and non-permanent.
Only in the last forty years have we gone to the unprecedented extreme of volunteered to pay thousands of dollars and submit ourselves to major surgery to make one particular part more enticing.* It's drastic.
The only thing comparable in history is the trend of foot binding in China and those women were seldom given a choice.
Today's modern post-feminist movement woman is volunteering for this! I think she believes her body is not satisfactory without this extreme Barbiefication of dieting to the point of almost zero body fat (thus losing most of her estrogen) while having a large surgically endowed top. Young men are growing up seeing this sort of model and believing it's the norm.
Women are buckling under the peer pressure and studies are showing that these same women are three times more likely to commit suicide. All those doctors, who we are told here not to question, are giving the okay for the surgery because the young women say they are depressed. Well great big Duh? If one's self-esteem is depending on something so superficial isn't that a red flag to begin therapy, not to try one other superficial thing that is sure to set up disappointment?
I'm against this trend, not as a moral judgment, but as a matter of human rights just as I would be over foot-binding. Sure, it's voluntary and legal, but shouldn't we be discouraging this rather than acting as though it's a painful right of passage that thousands of young women must endure to meet some arbitrary standard?
*Always accepting the small percentage who are correcting malformations and post surgical problems, of course.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe we should prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
Do you have any evidence that the NHS doesn't prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
Herceptin.
[And, like seekingsister, I'm starting to get fed up with the way 'prioritise' is being misrepresented by some posters here]
It’s very expensive and no extra funds are made available for it so cuts would have to be made to other services to pay for it.
I accept that to a degree. I was asked for an example of where the NHS doesn't prioritise life-saving treatment, and this is one. I accept there are reasons for his. quote:
What would you cut? Treatment for lifestyle related illnesses as these are self inflicted? The old as they’ll die soon anyway? Cosmetic treatments such as this one as a pair of socks down a bra will work just as well?
I can just as easily turn this around: given that the £4000 of this cosmetic procedure could have been spent elsewhere in the NHS, what would you cut to fund it?
quote:
The thing is, if people agree that treating women in these circumstances is fine,
The thing is, I'm not sure I do agree. (I'm not sure I disagree either, but I haven't even got to the point of agreeing so, for me, arguments about the 'morality' of cup-sizes don't really feature.)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Tubbs wrote:
The thing is, if people agree that treating women in these circumstances is fine, why is it anyone’s business apart from the woman’s what cup size she selects? Or, what she decides to do with her life afterwards. They might not be life choices I’d make or want my daughter to make, but … And that’s not a lefty thing, it’s more about being tired of people demonising others for making choices that they themselves don’t approve of. Wanting to be a glamour model isn’t a crime last time I looked.
Yes, I don't get the lefty thing. It is the demonization which gets my goat; it is so common now in various tabloids and politicians. Attack the poor, attack women, attack the NHS - and here they had a joyful fusion of all of them. Very sick behaviour, but it is now the norm in British society, or some sections of it. It makes me quite fearful really, as to where we are heading.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I agree with Twilight's point regarding the wrongness of surgically altering bodies but I disagree with quote:
The only thing comparable in history is the trend of foot binding in China and those women were seldom given a choice.
There is a long history of women's bodies being deformed by corsetry, which pushed ribs inwards, displacing internal organs. Belladonna in the eyes (to enlarge the pupils) caused immediate blurred vision and could lead to blindness in Elizabethan times. The "Alexandra limp" could cause hip problems. Etc etc etc.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe we should prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
... quote:
What would you cut? Treatment for lifestyle related illnesses as these are self inflicted? The old as they’ll die soon anyway? Cosmetic treatments such as this one as a pair of socks down a bra will work just as well?
I can just as easily turn this around: given that the £4000 of this cosmetic procedure could have been spent elsewhere in the NHS, what would you cut to fund it?
quote:
The thing is, if people agree that treating women in these circumstances is fine,
The thing is, I'm not sure I do agree. (I'm not sure I disagree either, but I haven't even got to the point of agreeing so, for me, arguments about the 'morality' of cup-sizes don't really feature.) [/QUOTE]
I don't have a clue what should be cut and am grateful that I'll never be asked!
I suspect that most people would say that any treatments that could be considered cosmetic or for conditons that are lifestyle related should not be funded on the NHS. People should go private instead. So no breast ops, sex changes, obesity clinics, viagra, ferility treatment, addiction clinics, drink or drug related illnesses or ... See, I've saved a small fortune already!
Until, of course, they or someone they know needs treatment for these things. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Then it's the job, the duty of the NHS to treat them. For free. At the point of need.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, clearly treatment of alcohol-related or obesity-related conditions is absurd. Why should some drunk or fat bastard get free treatment, when they have brought it on themselves? Of course, some of them are drunk and fat, pathetic losers.
<In training as a Daily Mail journalist>
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
On that basis we'd stop funding most cancer treatment, and I am going to guess that no one would be in favour of that.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
I always start my teaching sessions on health inequalities with a debate on providing liver transplants to ex-alcoholics and end with a discussion as to which members of society are disadvantaged by withdrawal of such services.
Defining only 'innocent' health problems is very problematic. If we really withdrew NHS treatment for self inflicted illness then the NHS would save millions by not paying for blood pressure and heart treatments for those who eat too much salt or fat or lead stressful lives. My parents' cancers wouldn't have been treated either, I'm sure their meat laden Northern diet contributed to those, certainly my father's love of whisky wouldn't have helped with his stomach cancer.
Re: the original post, I have no problem with her surgery as it was for medical reasons. As to her size, the surgery is between her and her doctor, IMO. And for all we know she might have been given the same size that her female relatives were.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
On that basis we'd stop funding most cancer treatment, and I am going to guess that no one would be in favour of that.
Well, hang on a minute, what about these fat chavs who drink and smoke, while they sit at home on the sofa, on benefits, watching Sky TV all day?
Why should my taxes pay for their self-induced ailments?
Yours, disgusted tax-payer.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is the demonization which gets my goat; it is so common now in various tabloids and politicians. Attack the poor, attack women, attack the NHS - and here they had a joyful fusion of all of them. Very sick behaviour, but it is now the norm in British society, or some sections of it. It makes me quite fearful really, as to where we are heading.
Quetzalcoatl, I love you, I really do. You're always out here ready to mix it up on the threads I'm interested in, and you're very nice about it .... but, on thread after thread, I have the, "You're wrong because you sound like the "Daily Mail," thing thrown in my face.
I'm tired of this. I never see the Daily Mail or any other tabloids. I read some Google News and watch the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN and listen to the National Public Radio, all relatively liberal.
Can't we just be responsible for our own considered opinions and not have to worry about sounding like any certain, disliked media?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Amen to that!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
This episode of the BBC Radio 4 Philosopher's Arms discusses choice in the NHS. It's on Trolleyology, the philosophy behind making decisions, and one of the experts in the room has been part of the decision making for NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence - the body that decides which treatments are affordable on the NHS).
(I ought to listen to it and see how much made the final edit, but there was a long discussion about how those decisions were made at the recording)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
<sarcasm on> What about the fat cats who drink and smoke and overeat and sit in front of a desk ordering other people about all day? Let's stop funding their care instead, they can afford to pay for it themselves. <\sarcasm off>
Funny how the outrage is only over poor people being treated by the NHS. Rich people are treated by it too; even the ones with BUPA, because their BUPA plans won't cover pre-existing conditions, or chronic conditions, or emergency treatment, or corrective surgery when their private operation at the BUPA hospital goes horribly wrong; any of the above patients will get thrown straight back to the NHS. That's why the private sector is so "efficient"; they only do the easy stuff and they never have to clear up after themselves.
If spending £4000 on a (medically necessary) operation will turn someone who is too ill* to work into a tax-payer in gainful employment, I am really surprised that any right-winger would object to it. Especially someone who believes in the unfettered free market; why do you care what she does for a living? The more she earns, the more tax she pays (unless she can afford to have the same accountants as Google and Amazon).
If you want to complain about wasteful government spending, what about sending a bunch of Typhoons (unit cost, somewhere in the region of £30 million each) to destroy one rather second-hand-looking pick-up truck?
*I'm including mental illness here.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Tubbs wrote:
The thing is, if people agree that treating women in these circumstances is fine, why is it anyone’s business apart from the woman’s what cup size she selects? Or, what she decides to do with her life afterwards. They might not be life choices I’d make or want my daughter to make, but … And that’s not a lefty thing, it’s more about being tired of people demonising others for making choices that they themselves don’t approve of. Wanting to be a glamour model isn’t a crime last time I looked.
Yes, I don't get the lefty thing. It is the demonization which gets my goat; it is so common now in various tabloids and politicians. Attack the poor, attack women, attack the NHS - and here they had a joyful fusion of all of them. Very sick behaviour, but it is now the norm in British society, or some sections of it. It makes me quite fearful really, as to where we are heading.
I hate to say this as it automatically means I’ve lost the argument, but if you take history as your example and think about the way media and political parties are taking about the sick and the disabled, it ends with Nazi Germany.
Tubbs
[ 02. October 2014, 13:55: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is the demonization which gets my goat; it is so common now in various tabloids and politicians. Attack the poor, attack women, attack the NHS - and here they had a joyful fusion of all of them. Very sick behaviour, but it is now the norm in British society, or some sections of it. It makes me quite fearful really, as to where we are heading.
Quetzalcoatl, I love you, I really do. You're always out here ready to mix it up on the threads I'm interested in, and you're very nice about it .... but, on thread after thread, I have the, "You're wrong because you sound like the "Daily Mail," thing thrown in my face.
I'm tired of this. I never see the Daily Mail or any other tabloids. I read some Google News and watch the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN and listen to the National Public Radio, all relatively liberal.
Can't we just be responsible for our own considered opinions and not have to worry about sounding like any certain, disliked media?
I'm puzzled why you think my comments are about you. The post you cited mentioned tabloids and politicians - why do you think you sound like them, or that I think you sound like them?
I don't see the demonization expressed on this forum, but it is certainly going on in the right-wing press and in right-wing politicians, and also in Labour politicians. I find it scary - attacks on women, the disabled, the poor - where the hell are we going?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
On that basis we'd stop funding most cancer treatment, and I am going to guess that no one would be in favour of that.
Well, hang on a minute, what about these fat chavs who drink and smoke, while they sit at home on the sofa, on benefits, watching Sky TV all day?
Why should my taxes pay for their self-induced ailments?
Yours, disgusted tax-payer.
You don't even have to get into the stigmatisation game.
If I have an ingrowing toenail that can be sorted out for a couple of hundred quid, surely I should be expected to fork out rather than take money from deserving cancer patients? Granted my couple of hundred quid isn't going to count for very much in the scheme of things but replicate that across the board a few thousand ingrowing toenails per year is going to add up to quite a lot of cancer drugs for someone or other. I suspect that there are quite a lot of treatments on the NHS which are comparatively piffling in the scheme of things and which would cost a lot of us a comparatively small amount to pay for and which could be diverted into paying for the latest alleged wonderdrug that NICE are refusing to stump up for.
If, on the other hand, you want a National Health Service (and most of the electorate do, there's a reason the Labour Party bang on about it all the time when they are in the doldrums and why the SNP wouldn't shut up about it during the late referendum) as opposed to National Cancer Service then you are pretty much committed to forking out for stuff which is less pressing than deserving cancer victims.
I'm not a woman, so I'm guessing at this point, but I suspect that growing up with no breasts worth speaking of, or breasts of obviously different sizes or whatever is, in it's own way, at least as painful as an ingrowing toenail. And the surgeon who does these sort of ops has got to justify them to his peers who are all convinced that their particular specialism is the most deserving recipient of all that taxpayers moolah which is going begging so I would, frankly, be bogglingly surprised if the NHS was routinely dishing out frivolous boob jobs just for the heck of it.
So what we basically have, here, is our old friend, hard cases making bad law. Granted the case in the OP may not be exactly what the Blessed Nye Bevan (PBUH) quite had in mind but if the plan is to have free health care, by and large, available to the general population not all of it is going to be lavished on cancer victims with the morals of Marcus Aurelius. Of course there are going to be cases which make people sit up and say "hang on a mo, I'm not sure that's right" but I would rather, all things considered, that those decisions were made by clinicians on the basis of medical need than by unqualified persons on the basis of rather more subjective criteria.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is the demonization which gets my goat; it is so common now in various tabloids and politicians. Attack the poor, attack women, attack the NHS - and here they had a joyful fusion of all of them. Very sick behaviour, but it is now the norm in British society, or some sections of it. It makes me quite fearful really, as to where we are heading.
Quetzalcoatl, I love you, I really do. You're always out here ready to mix it up on the threads I'm interested in, and you're very nice about it .... but, on thread after thread, I have the, "You're wrong because you sound like the "Daily Mail," thing thrown in my face.
I'm tired of this. I never see the Daily Mail or any other tabloids. I read some Google News and watch the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN and listen to the National Public Radio, all relatively liberal.
Can't we just be responsible for our own considered opinions and not have to worry about sounding like any certain, disliked media?
I'm puzzled why you think my comments are about you. The post you cited mentioned tabloids and politicians - why do you think you sound like them, or that I think you sound like them?
I don't see the demonization expressed on this forum, but it is certainly going on in the right-wing press and in right-wing politicians, and also in Labour politicians. I find it scary - attacks on women, the disabled, the poor - where the hell are we going?
Because:
Since my posts here have largely been "against the NHS" decision regarding this "poor" "woman" that puts me on their side, at least to some degree. So I feel included in the dreaded accusation of demonization of the NHS, the Poor, and Women.
This was at the root of our misunderstanding on the Pistorius thread:
a. I thought Pistorius should have a harsher sentence.
b. You railed against the "lynch mob in the media," who seemed to "want" Pistorius to go to prison.
c. I said maybe you "wanted" the victim to die.
d. You were surprised I was being so nasty.
Can't you see that if you say, in so many words, that the people in the media who share my opinion are horrible mean folk, that you are insulting me too?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Twilight
I hadn't realized that you were attacking women, the poor, and the NHS! That is the agenda of the Daily Mail, and various right-wing politicians, and also some Labour politicians.
They use cases like 'the dozy chav', to quote the OP, to mount these attacks, since here they get them all in one package.
How on earth are you like that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I agree with Twilight's point regarding the wrongness of surgically altering bodies but I disagree with quote:
The only thing comparable in history is the trend of foot binding in China and those women were seldom given a choice.
There is a long history of women's bodies being deformed by corsetry, which pushed ribs inwards, displacing internal organs. Belladonna in the eyes (to enlarge the pupils) caused immediate blurred vision and could lead to blindness in Elizabethan times. The "Alexandra limp" could cause hip problems. Etc etc etc.
But this should be fixed by solving the problem, not punishing a victim.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Surely nobody objects to surgically altering bodies per se, do they? I think what is meant is altering bodies for purely cosmetic purposes, and not medical ones. I don't think anybody has suggested that this case is like that though.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
On that basis we'd stop funding most cancer treatment, and I am going to guess that no one would be in favour of that.
Well, hang on a minute, what about these fat chavs who drink and smoke, while they sit at home on the sofa, on benefits, watching Sky TV all day?
Why should my taxes pay for their self-induced ailments?
Yours, disgusted tax-payer.
What about me, then? Non-smoker, moderate drinker,taxpayer, generally take care of myself. Stepped out into traffic without looking while distracted by something else, knocked down (fortunately by pushbike rather than bus), olecronon fracture to elbow necessitating a couple of xrays, plaster, operation to pin it, follow-up physio, day surgery 18 months later to remove pins. My own bloody silly fault but the NHS did it all for me for free. Should I have been charged for all that?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Only if you used it to leverage a career in glamour modelling.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
*mic drop*
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Men's magazines = big tits
Women's Magazines = rail thin
Try again.
Ok I will.
Many men like big tits agreed. Not though the perfect equation to women undergo big tit surgery *because* that's what men like. 'Like' being in terms of -- I selflessly dedicate this surgery to the sexual gratification of a man.
Good looking women tend to have an unfair career advantage in a man's world I'll grant you that one.
As for thin women in women's mags? No idea.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Rolyn,
The competitive culture amoungst women you reference earlier exists because attractiveness has been seen as a woman's primary asset for millennia.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
On that basis we'd stop funding most cancer treatment, and I am going to guess that no one would be in favour of that.
Well, hang on a minute, what about these fat chavs who drink and smoke, while they sit at home on the sofa, on benefits, watching Sky TV all day?
Why should my taxes pay for their self-induced ailments?
Yours, disgusted tax-payer.
What about me, then? Non-smoker, moderate drinker,taxpayer, generally take care of myself. Stepped out into traffic without looking while distracted by something else, knocked down (fortunately by pushbike rather than bus), olecronon fracture to elbow necessitating a couple of xrays, plaster, operation to pin it, follow-up physio, day surgery 18 months later to remove pins. My own bloody silly fault but the NHS did it all for me for free. Should I have been charged for all that?
But are you sure that at the same time, you didn't have that chin modelled a little, so as to get that chiselled look? Just a little extra, you understand; we are a forgiving lot.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, I'm afraid Firenze got it right. Elbow glamour modelling is rather a niche market, of course, but it's a fiercely competitive one. Google 'hot elbows' and you'll probably find one of mine. There, my shameful secret is out.
[ 02. October 2014, 22:06: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I've got so much metal work propping me up the children plan to have it all removed post mortem, sell it for scrap (a lot is titanium) and use the proceeds for the wake.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Albertus?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Oh the shame, the shame, it is. You need a prosthesis to do that, you know!
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
seekingsister: Since we're playing thought experiments, I have one that may avoid what you find a moral or ethical hazard. You object that in the case of this woman's augmentation, the result is not typical.
All the NHS would have to do would come up with the range of all possible breast sizes for women of that age, height, BMI, ethnicity, etc. and then have a lottery! The patient would get the chance at a random draw of augmentation size. Hey, if it works for Mother Nature, why not the NHS?
"Ooh, I hope I get the D cup! Aw, crap... EEE?! Guess I'm off to the specialty lingerie store, for the rest of my life."
Or, it could be left as a decision between a patient and her doctor.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I agree with Twilight's point regarding the wrongness of surgically altering bodies but I disagree with quote:
The only thing comparable in history is the trend of foot binding in China and those women were seldom given a choice.
There is a long history of women's bodies being deformed by corsetry, which pushed ribs inwards, displacing internal organs.
I suppose the fact that there's no actual evidence for displaced ribs / organs as a consequence of corsetry doesn't bother you, because it's one of those things that everyone knows. And why do you know it? Because it's one of the various grotesque claims made by Victorian anti-corsetry activists in their attempt to halt the trend for tight lacing. Like the claims about women fainting, or dying due to their tight lacing, or the nonsense about women removing ribs.
And who were these anti-corsetry activists? Sisters outraged at the things their sisters were forced into? No. They were men.
Examination of the literature of the period shows tight-lacing as an exclusively woman-led phenomenon, a passion indulged in despite the opposition of brothers and fathers and husbands. It was, in fact, a kind of proto-feminist revolt, an assertion of identity and right to control one's one body.
As to Twilight's claim, it is clearly entirely incorrect, and in itself an unacceptable form of authoritarianism. Perhaps, as the case of tight-lacing demonstrates, you should talk to the women who want to modify their bodies instead of simply condemning them.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
*I'm including mental illness here.
Nah. Not real. If you can't see it it's not a 'proper' illness. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Anyway, on the question of health care costs... I'm curious whether any UK Shipmates have seen the series Food Hospital, which I've stumbled across here recently. In some respects it's a bit light and fluffy, but it does seem to have a serious basic point, which is that NHS costs could be significantly reduced by addressing some conditions through diet rather than medical interventions like pills. The show has illustrated that even conditions that are technically incurable can sometimes be managed very effectively through dietary changes.
Thinking like that seems a far more effective means of making the health budget stretch further, rather than making moral judgements. There have been quite a few cases on the show where they've said that a person's weight is a contributor to their health problem, but rather than saying "we won't help you because you're fat", they've said "let's help you NOT BE fat so that your health problem resolves/reduces, and then the need to help you in some other way will no longer exist".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
*I'm including mental illness here.
Nah. Not real. If you can't see it it's not a 'proper' illness.
Anyway, on the question of health care costs... I'm curious whether any UK Shipmates have seen the series Food Hospital, which I've stumbled across here recently. In some respects it's a bit light and fluffy, but it does seem to have a serious basic point, which is that NHS costs could be significantly reduced by addressing some conditions through diet rather than medical interventions like pills. The show has illustrated that even conditions that are technically incurable can sometimes be managed very effectively through dietary changes.
Thinking like that seems a far more effective means of making the health budget stretch further, rather than making moral judgements. There have been quite a few cases on the show where they've said that a person's weight is a contributor to their health problem, but rather than saying "we won't help you because you're fat", they've said "let's help you NOT BE fat so that your health problem resolves/reduces, and then the need to help you in some other way will no longer exist".
I used to be a nurse in a NHS obesity clinic held by an endocrinologist. We had a programme which combined medical supervision with that of a dietician and a psychologist and it was very popular and successful (I worked in the clinic whilst pregnant and the patients used to comment on my growing size as I'm only 4 foot 11 and spent several months looking like very round). Referrals were mainly from GPs but also hospital physicians.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
Examination of the literature of the period shows tight-lacing as an exclusively woman-led phenomenon, a passion indulged in despite the opposition of brothers and fathers and husbands. It was, in fact, a kind of proto-feminist revolt, an assertion of identity and right to control one's one body.
As to Twilight's claim, it is clearly entirely incorrect, and in itself an unacceptable form of authoritarianism. Perhaps, as the case of tight-lacing demonstrates, you should talk to the women who want to modify their bodies instead of simply condemning them.
I have condemned no one. I have asked why and deplored the trend not the women who follow it.
I think your view that men play no part in all this is short sighted. Yes, it's women who laced themselves into eighteen inch waists but it was men who, at that point in history found tiny waists desirable and attractive. If the most sought after debutante at the ball had a tiny waist, then the next ball might show that women had laced themselves more tightly. If the only Chinese women who were making good marriages had tiny feet, then the mothers might go home and have their daughters' feet bound. If most of the women chosen by the football team to make their cheerleading squad or Playmate of the year, have breast implants -- young women who think this is the way forward in those careers are going to make that choice.
Yes, it's usually the woman who makes the appointment with the foot binder or the plastic surgeon but it's men who are driving the need. That doesn't mean I particularly blame men for any of these things because women have to be complicit for it to work, but to say it's all a "passion" of women that men play no part in seems naïve to me.
Evidence that all those things are discouraged by men for their sisters and daughters is not surprising. Men have never much wanted their sisters and daughters to be sex objects.
I've known lots of women with breast implants and they all say they didn't do it to please men but to please themselves. I find it hard to believe that if they lived on deserted islands with no men in sight they would still want to have balls of saline inserted in their chests to make every movement more cumbersome and awkward.
Some of them might say they got their large implants as an expression of power, a desire to look like the women super-heroes in comic books drawn by men, they might as you suggest say "it is a kind of proto-feminist revolt, an assertion of identity and right to control one's one body." So might the women say this who have or perform genital mutilation. Wouldn't a better more logical feminist revolt be a refusal to do any of these things and to control ones own body by taking charge of birth control? Is it just coincidence that they are "asserting their identity" by playing to the fantasy of many men? Why aren't they asserting their identity by having large biceps implanted or shaving their heads?
I just don't buy any of this. I think it's actually a sad desire to meet a false and superficial ideal that turns women into objects of sexual desire.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I've just been catching up with a programme on differences between male and female brains. Interestingly, or not, the male presenter believed that the differences were there and were innate, and the female believed that the differences were tiny, and emphasised by the plasticity of the brain and its response to social and environmental conditions. I came on here to make a comment about their vox pop (elsewhere) when reading this thread again struck me as making the programme relevant to it. All the practices mentioned have been ones which made the differences between the bodies of the women concerned and those of men much more apparent, pushing themselves to an extreme version of female. That some of these practices make them less able to carry and nurture offspring is a bit ironic.
[ 03. October 2014, 21:37: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
Examination of the literature of the period shows tight-lacing as an exclusively woman-led phenomenon, a passion indulged in despite the opposition of brothers and fathers and husbands. It was, in fact, a kind of proto-feminist revolt, an assertion of identity and right to control one's one body.
As to Twilight's claim, it is clearly entirely incorrect, and in itself an unacceptable form of authoritarianism. Perhaps, as the case of tight-lacing demonstrates, you should talk to the women who want to modify their bodies instead of simply condemning them.
I have condemned no one. I have asked why and deplored the trend not the women who follow it.
I think your view that men play no part in all this is short sighted. Yes, it's women who laced themselves into eighteen inch waists but it was men who, at that point in history found tiny waists desirable and attractive.
So why did they rail against the trend for narrow waists, complaining that they made women unnatural, undesirable and unhealthy?
quote:
If the most sought after debutante at the ball had a tiny waist, then the next ball might show that women had laced themselves more tightly. If the only Chinese women who were making good marriages had tiny feet, then the mothers might go home and have their daughters' feet bound. If most of the women chosen by the football team to make their cheerleading squad or Playmate of the year, have breast implants -- young women who think this is the way forward in those careers are going to make that choice.
And so it is impossible that women might want to reshape their bodies for their own reason. Maybe even because men didn't want them to?
Your argument shows the standard fallacy of feminist theory. It assumes that all women (save, of course, the feminist theorist) are pliant victims who are incapable of doing anything save because men want them to. This is deeply offensive to women. It is also deeply patronising, in that the feminist theorist appears to believe that she has the right to say what women should and should not do, which makes me wonder in what way she is meant to be better than the patriarchs. And worst of all, it has little, if any, basis in truth.
Take, as a case in point, the replacement of midwives with doctors bearing forceps. The feminist myth is that this was imposed on women by their husbands, determined to break up the cosy feminine world of the birthing chamber, and replace it with cold male science. Unfortunately, reference to the events shows that it was women who demanded the doctors and their devilish devices, for the very simple reason that they liked something that reduced the chance of dying or being seriously injured. Opposition came from men, who feared the presence of sexy male doctors in their wives' bedrooms, and who also rather liked the fact that the midwives tended to ask them whether to save the mother or the child, whereas the doctors had a distressing tendency to ask the mother...
But I'm sure you won't buy that either.
quote:
Yes, it's usually the woman who makes the appointment with the foot binder or the plastic surgeon but it's men who are driving the need.
How do you know? Do you have any evidence? Or is it just something that feminist theory teaches you in its 'All women but me are victims 101' class?
quote:
That doesn't mean I particularly blame men for any of these things because women have to be complicit for it to work, but to say it's all a "passion" of women that men play no part in seems naïve to me.
No, it's naive to think that women cannot get excited by things that the sisters, with their complete lack of historical context, and lack of interest in understanding viewpoints other than their own, have decided to disapprove of. If you read the correspondence in the ladies' magazines of the period, or the horrified commentary by their menfolk, you might see why one might describe it as a passion. People can be passionate about all kinds of things, and it is deeply patronising to assert that women cannot be passionate about something, just because you have (post facto) decided that men might like it.
And, if you want to know, part of the reason for the excitement about tight lacing could relate to the fact, suggested by a certain amount of medical evidence, that it can induce a state of mild orgasm...
quote:
Evidence that all those things are discouraged by men for their sisters and daughters is not surprising. Men have never much wanted their sisters and daughters to be sex objects.
Oh come on, that is just full of unspoken assumptions. You have decided that men objected because they saw it as sexy. Do you have any proof of that? Do you even know that they did find it sexy? Evidence from contemporary sources (including a large number of quite nasty cartoons in Punch) suggests that they did not.
quote:
I've known lots of women with breast implants and they all say they didn't do it to please men but to please themselves. I find it hard to believe that if they lived on deserted islands with no men in sight they would still want to have balls of saline inserted in their chests to make every movement more cumbersome and awkward.
And it doesn't strike you that that attitude is astonishingly arrogant? Would it not be better to perhaps accept that these women know what they are talking about? You have merely decided that they are wrong. And why should it matter if there are men about? The fact that men might see it doesn't make their decision any less self-empowered.
quote:
Some of them might say they got their large implants as an expression of power, a desire to look like the women super-heroes in comic books drawn by men, they might as you suggest say "it is a kind of proto-feminist revolt, an assertion of identity and right to control one's one body."
Oh dear, oh dear. Do you actually read comic books? Real comic books? Some of the most well endowed characters have been drawn by women. You check out the work of Melinda Gebbie or Dame Darcy for a start. And, of course, the spectacularly endowed women drawn by the great Amanda Conner. Now Conner, famously drew Power Girl (Shock horror: woman draws superheroine with boobs!), who is extremely popular with more statuesque cosplayers everywhere. Now, you would (on the basis of the above) assert that this is because they want men to like them. Well, no. What they actually say is this: in a society where the image portrayed of feminine perfection is a stick with a duck's beak on top, it is hugely empowering to be able to identify with a character who is (a) stacked, (b) notoriously bad tempered whenever any male even tries suggesting she do something, (c) Kryptonian, and hence immensely strong, invulnerable, super intelligent, etc. Regardless of the 'I know better' argument deployed above, this is not women wanting to please the patriarchy.
quote:
So might the women say this who have or perform genital mutilation. Wouldn't a better more logical feminist revolt be a refusal to do any of these things and to control ones own body by taking charge of birth control? Is it just coincidence that they are "asserting their identity" by playing to the fantasy of many men? Why aren't they asserting their identity by having large biceps implanted or shaving their heads?
And isn't it arrogant to assume that one knows what is going on better than they, with little knowledge of their context or culture? What gives first world white (I assume) women the right to assume that their issues are those of everyone else?
quote:
I just don't buy any of this. I think it's actually a sad desire to meet a false and superficial ideal that turns women into objects of sexual desire.
And I don't buy the desire to impose the really very, very unpleasant world view of feminist theory on women and men all over the world. It looks at the world and sees all men as vicious exploiters and all women as dumb slaves. It sees women the world over who insist that its interpretation of their actions is wrong, and replies that it doesn't buy it, and they must be victims really. If any of its practitioners had the slightest shadow of intellectual integrity, they would see this as reason to dump the theory and get a better one. One must conclude that they do not.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:
How do you know? Do you have any evidence? Or is it just something that feminist theory teaches you in its 'All women but me are victims 101' class?
Alright then, you tell us how women have been valued through the millennia.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:
How do you know? Do you have any evidence? Or is it just something that feminist theory teaches you in its 'All women but me are victims 101' class?
Alright then, you tell us how women have been valued through the millennia.
I don't think I said that they had been. My complaint is at the extraordinary, and frankly insulting to women, theory that just about anything any woman does, that a feminist theorist doesn't like, must be done, not because she is a free agent, but because men are making her do it. In other words, a woman is only truly being herself if she does exactly what the sisters say she should. Is it just me, or is this not simply exchanging one tyranny for another?
Moreover, I am sure that the word 'valued' is loaded in such a way that, no matter how I respond, no matter how strong my evidence, you will still find some way of claiming that it doesn't really constitute women being valued, but is merely exploitation. That is, of course, the advantage of overarching single narrative theories: they can be used to explain anything (and nothing).
But here goes. Two examples.
- If you went to the exhibition of Ice Age art at the British Museum about a year ago, you would have noticed a large number of very powerful figurines of divine female figures. And, er, no men.
- Similarly, if you examine the culture of ancient Sparta, you will see that women were powerful in society, and that other Greeks were shocked at their freedom and forcefulness. Indeed, one of Sparta's greatest heroes was a young girl who interrupted the debate in the Assembly on whether to join the other Greeks in war against the invading Persians, and demolished the (then) winning argument that the Persians weren't hurting Sparta, so staying at peace was clearly the right thing to do, launching a devastating argument, so powerful that she turned opinion around, and ended up with her statue in the Assembly. In 'enlightened' Athens, she'd have been whipped.
I could go on, but your question is disingenuous. You appear to imply that no woman has ever been valued in any way at all. That this is nonsense scarcely needs saying. It depends on a definition of 'value' that allows more or less anything to be written off as exploitation. So being 'valued' only counts if it accords with your idea of 'value'.
In other words, it is a determination to adopt victimhood as a badge of honour. Which is where we started in on all this.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... There have been quite a few cases on the show where they've said that a person's weight is a contributor to their health problem, but rather than saying "we won't help you because you're fat", they've said "let's help you NOT BE fat so that your health problem resolves/reduces, and then the need to help you in some other way will no longer exist".
But OMG! that's not lifesaving treatment! What about the children with cancer?
<yes, sarcasm>
One fundamental drawback of prioritizing life-saving treatment is that preventative care gets less priority. Even though preventative care gets more bang for the buck, in so many ways.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... There have been quite a few cases on the show where they've said that a person's weight is a contributor to their health problem, but rather than saying "we won't help you because you're fat", they've said "let's help you NOT BE fat so that your health problem resolves/reduces, and then the need to help you in some other way will no longer exist".
But OMG! that's not lifesaving treatment! What about the children with cancer?
<yes, sarcasm>
One fundamental drawback of prioritizing life-saving treatment is that preventative care gets less priority. Even though preventative care gets more bang for the buck, in so many ways.
In a couple of cases they flatly said it WAS life-saving treatment. They told a couple of patients what their current life expectancy was, and it was not flattering.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
