Posts by Hilary Stace
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks Mark, great responses. The thread here actually starts right at the bottom of page 2 with Cecilia's exclamation (10th August) at the Listener story.
-
And with respect to all the personal stories in this thread and in the whole Unfortunate Experiment saga - it goes to show that when you have a personal connection to such a matter of life and death, you really care about the issue.
-
Mammogram technology (and gentleness) has advanced greatly since those days, too.
Medical history is fascinating - never too soon or too far away to debate, discuss or revisit. My mother's generation of childbirth stories is horrific, with women left unattended for hours, without husbands, or support and then compulsorily anaesthetised. And if you were not married, you were beyond the pale. Sonia Davies has a good story of her daughter's war birth in Bread and Roses.
No wonder it was possible for my mother-in-law to have her baby swapped, and no one believe her.
-
Sorry, Russell, I wasn't criticising you. I meant that unless you had had that experience of being powerless because you were a woman, in a medical system, where male (mostly) doctors had power. There really were doctors who abused that power, particularly when women were at their most vulnerable, like childbirth. Women fought for many decades to get power over their childbirths. That's a long story.
And yes gender doesn't mean that other women are necessarily your allies.
Re Barbara Holt's letter - I wondered that too - as they are both staunch feminists. Again, it is for Sandra to tell her side of the story. I vaguely recall it may have been because a friend or family member developed advanced breast cancer because a mammogram had missed it? So mammograms could give woman a false sense of security and there would be less emphasis on ongoing personal surveillance.
-
But the Springbok protesters were doing something *important*. Not just being all humourless and feminist about ladybits
Danielle is right. This is about gender and all that historic stuff about women and bodies, gendered medicine, power, and who does and doesn't have it, It's why Russell can't really understand Phillida's anger at her doctor.
-
History is always going to be contested. Just ask other members of your family about a significant event in your collective past - there will be a huge range of interpretations. But that is the fascination of history.
I have no problem with Linda Bryder writing her interpretation of the written account (although I'm not sure if her funders who were expecting a history of National Women's will be so happy, and I'm not sure about the publisher's role). It will be another useful part of our historical record. But she has to front and defend it.
What I do have a problem with is with others assuming this is somehow a definitive view - that she is right and others are wrong. It is merely another interpretation, using a particular set of sources with a particular methodology.
Just imagine if someone reviewed the written record around the Springbok tour and came to the conclusion that the Rugby Union and Ron Don had been unfairly treated and the protesters had got it wrong about apartheid. It wouldn't be received reverentially and quietly.
-
Kerry, thank you. Though argumentative rather than patient. As a history and Women's Studies graduate, I was never going to be neutral on this topic. And disclosure: Phillida was one of my university lecturers many years ago, I'm on an ethics committee, and I've even had a cone biopsy.
-
Good, now the Dancing with the Stars money is being challenged. I've long thought there must be some middle people there taking very large cuts from the txt votes.
-
Steve, I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Thanks for suggestion about time-sheets Sofie, and I'll pass it on. But I have a feeling that a suggestion about more paper work will not be taken up with enthusiasm. -
That above was a reply to Sofie.
Steve, unfortunately, in the real world businesses have to make money to survive and charities need to buy their services eg rent for properties, accounting and IT expertise, hotels for conferences. That is part of the professionalisation of charities - they need staff who can negotiate with business to get the best deals.
But there are also great pro bono, discounting, sponsorship and other deals going on all over the place too. Mutually beneficial.