Women Without Breasts Are Still Women

Women Without Breasts Are Still Women

The focus of a breast cancer survivor should be the woman, not her anatomy

The New York Times

We must stop imposing our patriarchal views of what a woman is supposed to look like on breast cancer patients. 

It is engrained in us to attach a certain value to women's breasts in respect to their femininity and value. But the decision to undergo reconstructive surgery or wear breast forms should be left up to a woman - and her alone. 

Following her double mastectomy at age 34, Cathie chose not to use any type of breast forms. A fitness instructor, Cathie found her prosthesis to be too "uncomfortable" and"impossible to wear" while teaching her classes. Her decision was a difficult one, but one that she felt was necessary for her own body. 

Cathie

"Going flat", as many women and physicians call it, is the decision that women who have had a mastectomy make to not have any further reconstructive surgery or prostheses. However, the majority of women still continue on with the reconstructive process. It is a deeply personal choice and it is one that should not be imposed upon by others.

Chiara D'Agostino speaks of her own decision to go flat, which was influenced by an article in The New York Times that featured "strong, beautiful, and creative images." This representation of women without their breasts depicted in a beautiful, strong manner is important in framing the narrative of empowered, breast-less women. It allows for other breast cancer survivors to  see a physical example of these women and understand that their beauty is not intertwined to what is deemed as a "normal" woman's body. 

For some women, like Cathie, going flat was the right decision due to their love of physical activity. Some women prefer to not have any additional or unnecessary procedures. Some women want to get back to their everyday lives as quickly as possible. Some women just wanted time to heal. Some women with breast cancer do not have the choice of reconstructive surgery due to radiotherapy. And for some women, not having breasts is a part of their narrative in overcoming breast cancer. Reconstructive surgery is not the right choice for every woman, but it is their choice and their choice alone.

After having a mastectomy, women are bombarded with expectations about how they will once again return to their "true form". To be a woman in a patriarchal society, of course, means having breasts. Therefore, it is only natural that a woman who has had her breasts removed would want to have them back once again.

By pushing our expectations on breast cancer survivors to wear a prosthesis invalidates the struggle in which they experienced. This struggle is something of which to be proud. In fact, around 42% of women do not have any form of breast reconstruction post mastectomy. 

Audre Lorde

In The Cancer Journals by Audre Lorde, she states that “each of us [breast cancer patients] struggles daily with the pressures of conformity and the loneliness of difference from which those choices seem to offer escape. I only know that those choices do not work for me, nor for other women who, not without fear, have survived cancer by scrutinizing its meaning within our lives, and by attempting to integrate this crisis into useful strengths for change.” Herein lies great power for these women in the choice of whether or not to seek restoration of their breasts. 

Furthermore, Lorde recalls an instance where she was told by a doctor that she should wear her prosthetic breast in order to "boost the morale" of her fellow breast cancer patients. Boosting the morale of these breast cancer patients is synonymous here only with having one's breasts back. Breasts, in the realm of breast cancer survivors, are equated with strength, warriors, and success. Implying that breast cancer patients need them in order to claim victory over the disease or regain a sense of self-worth is an unfair sentiment that undermines all women. It puts their validation in the hands of others instead of themselves. It does not allow for women to reclaim their own bodies from cancer. Lorde was enough with and without her breasts - a prosthesis or surgery never had the capability to change that.

The New York Times

There is nothing wrong with choosing to have reconstructive breast surgery or choosing to wear prosthetics. Choosing this route is empowering for many women. It makes them feel more attractive. It makes them feel like their old selves. For the majority of women, reconstructive surgery or the use of breast forms is the right decision for them. 

Choosing not to have breasts after having a mastectomy, however, is also empowering. These women are still themselves. And they are still attractive. Women can be all of these things - with and without breasts. The anatomy of a woman does not change her value. By implying that women should have reconstructive surgery or use some form of prosthetics is to say her value is directly tied to her physical body. 

This sentiment is untrue and must stop being perpetuated. What makes up a woman who has survived breast cancer is courage, strength, and perseverance. We can't continue to diminish these qualities with the sentiment that the power of survivors lies within their breasts. These qualities carry more weight in a person than does breast tissue. 

Going flat is a physical symbol of the strength these women contain. It is something to be proud of. It should not be seen as something abnormal or something that is needed to be fixed. But, most importantly, it is a decision to be made by the patient and only her. Women deserve to make this decision without the pressure of outside forces. 

Cathie goes on to state that "breast cancer never truly leaves you," but isn't that the point? We often long so much to return to normalcy after a difficult life experience, whether it be cancer or the loss of a loved one, that we don't quite accept that these hardships make us who we are. They do not define us, but rather they shape us into the people we are today, they contribute to our character, they make us grow.

The breasts of women who have survived breast cancer are not symbols of her success. They are not comparable to her tenacity. The woman herself is - we must remember that.

Know Your Silenced History, Before Choosing the IUD

There is more to your birth control than meets the eye. 

Source: https://www.bedsider.org/features/643-iud-expulsion-is-it-as-scary-as-it-sounds

As a young woman exploring her sexual freedom, control over one's body is imperative, vital, and liberating. Birth control provides just that for women who wish to prolong or prevent childbearing, help regulate periods, and mitigate health issues. One of the most popular methods of birth control for women in the United States -almost 4.5 million to be exact- is the intrauterine device, otherwise known as the IUD.  The IUD definitely delivers its promises of granting its users a voice in their reproductive choices...

But at what price did this seemingly magical device come at?

The history behind the development, distribution, and marketing of the IUD is a troubling and hidden one. But it's one that matters.

Know your silenced history before choosing the IUD.

The troubled history of the IUD had its beginning in the 20th century as a method of population control for women in the global South. In other words, the IUD was used in poor countries as a means to keep these women from reproducing. Researchers used disturbing rhetoric to describe these IUD users from "less advanced countries" as women who lacked the "sophistication" and "motivation" to use the pill. Insinuating that these women were unwilling and unable to limit their own fertility, scientific studies strategically targeted them as the perfect candidates for the IUD. Instead of promoting this device for women in the global South as a means of reproductive freedom, it was instead used as a tool to control them and limit their fertility.

This idea also carried over to the United States by using the IUD as discriminatory mechanism for marginalized women, particularly women of color. This method of birth control specifically targeted women who received government assistance, were poor, convicted, and/or addicted to drugs and alcohol. It was also distributed to women who belonged to the Native American population and to  young inner city teens at school-based clinics. These carefully planned tactics were used to stop women who belonged to these "less favorable" demographics from having children. Rather than be what we all think of as the modern IUD, it was actually used as a mechanism to constrain the freedoms of these women.

The concept of scientific researchers developing and using the IUD as a tool to keep women of color from having children has left significant marks on American society, which can still be seen today in the form of marketing the IUD. In a commercial for the Mirena IUD, the audience is introduced to an African-American mother with two children. Throughout this entire commercial, there are constant reinforcements of the IUD's dark beginning history. While these problematic messages are no longer outright, they are still present in the marketing tactics of the IUD and influence how and to whom this form of birth control is distributed.

The center of this Mirena advertisement is the African-American woman and her upper middle-class family. She is married, well off, and at an age that traditionally would be deemed appropriate to have two children. In other words, she is seen as an acceptable mother. This commercial only promotes a constrained type of reproductive freedom for only certain types of women. It is no coincidence that this woman of this particular race is so well established in life. This key point is reflective of the prejudices that single and younger, less established mothers who belong to minority groups have always faced. This advertisement is portraying the fertility of an African-American woman as what is deemed the only acceptable and responsible way for a woman of color to have children. Furthermore, the children of this woman are horribly misbehaved throughout a majority of the commercial. The ad begins with these children making a mess at the grocery store and making life for their mother increasingly difficult. This is a deterrent in an ad that targets women of color from having more children or any children at all. The ideology of population control within these groups of women is no longer explicitly stated; however, there is no mistaking that these biased undertones are still prevalent.

In the making of one of the most important advancements for women's health, we often fail to recognize the long, dark history that preceded it. Although the IUD has now become a popular method of birth control that has successfully aided in the reproductive freedom of many women, it is still important to acknowledge the racial biases and prejudices that formed the foundation of the IUD. In order to contribute to the future, we must be aware of our past. The IUD is consistently shown in the present day as a device made solely for the liberty and comfort of all kinds of women. This is all we as consumers are shown. But now we know more. Women were targeted and selected so that their fertility could be controlled. These women were minorities, low-income, insulted, and used as tools in order to stop the reproduction of their kind. Women of color are still connected to this harmful history and have suffered for the freedoms we enjoy today. It is the responsibility of all to bring to light the history of systematic control over women.

Don't turn a blind eye to the injustices that made the IUD what it is today.

Healthcare Hysteria

Healthcare Hysteria

Why healthcare providers give women headaches rather than treat them

Going to the doctor is supposed to ensure that we are being cared for medically, right?

Not exactly. 

Rachel, a seemingly healthy adult woman, had collapsed one morning in her bathroom from unspeakable pain. Described by her husband as "not the type to sound the alarm over every pinch or twinge," he knew that his wife's pain in that moment was something to take very seriously. After calling the ambulance, Rachel was rushed to the ER.

As it turned out, Rachel had an ovarian cyst that had gone undetected for so long it had turned into an ovarian torsion, which is a cyst that is so heavy it weighs the ovary down so much that it twists the fallopian tubes. This medical emergency leads to organ failure if not intervened with surgically.

Sounds serious, right?

As you may guess, Rachel's experience in the emergency room was less than pleasurable and downright problematic. As for many citizens, women especially understand that the American healthcare system was not designed for them and will -more often than we like to admit- fail them. Rachel's pain will showcase the fact that women are not taken seriously enough when it comes to healthcare, which exacerbates their medical issues and the subsequent pains that come along with them. 

The mistreatment of women in the healthcare system comes in many forms and dates back centuries. From the misconception that women were "unbalanced" because of our wombs to the over diagnosis of hysteria. Marriage was even suggested as a cure for women with mental illnesses at one point. And let's not even get started on "frigidness".  

The current mistreatment of women in healthcare, however, seems to be the dismissal of painful symptoms. As soon as Rachel got to the ER, she was stuck in the overcrowded waiting room filled with people, who unless they were explicitly dying, were waiting their turn to be seen by the doctor. In writhing pain, Rachel could barely speak. 

"You're just feeling a little pain, honey." That's all that was said from the nurse that Rachel's husband flagged down to try and inform them of his wife's condition.

And her experience would only get worse.

The majority of doctors in America are men. So when female patients over the years presented with "atypical" symptoms of heart attacks, they were often overlooked and even sent home. Why is it that so many doctors did not recognize the symptoms of a heart attack in this particular population of people? This phenomenon furthers the patriarchal ideal that men are considered the norm, so much so that most studies related to coronary heart disease have only included male participants. Overlooking women in medical literature may provide some explanation as to why doctors are only on the lookout for symptoms typical in men. As described in Women More Likely to Survive Heart Attacks if Treated by Female Doctors by Ed Yong, there is a severe gap in results between male and female doctors when it comes to treating women and there is no gap in survival rates when the attending doctor is female. A long-term study of Florida emergency rooms found that when treated by male doctors, women are more likely to die. The researchers of the study stated that "most physicians are male, and male physicians appear to have trouble treating female patients."

This being said, it should come to no surprise that women who experience heart attacks are less likely to survive than men.

According to a study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, female patients were also found less likely to be offered diagnostic tests by their doctors. They are often not offered an EEG or angiogram that would be given to any man experiencing chest pain. This fact especially rung true for Rachel's medical ordeal. After waiting hours in agony, a physician finally came to see her. However, he never performed an exam and no tests were ordered. Rachel was asked a few short questions and simply written off as having kidney stones. It was only when a female doctor came to see Rachel that she discovered this miscarriage of medical justice.

Now obviously not every doctor is intentionally harming their female patients. There is no malicious organization amongst doctors promoting the dismissal of women or their symptoms. But in places such as urban trauma centers, there is an atmosphere that does not exactly allow for doctors to hold hands with their patients. However, this fast-paced sentiment is taken too far when female patients are not receiving the adequate treatment they need and experience short or long-term suffering and even death. Moreover, in a study conducted at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, male doctors were found to have a higher success rate in treating heart attacks in women when they themselves worked with more female doctors. Women cannot come secondary to men -as we have for so long- especially in an area where our lives are on the line. We must be included in the conversation and work together with our male counterparts to improve this situation.

Dismissing pain as a symptom often leads to complications of patient's problems, as it did for  Rachel's. But more than that, to dismiss a woman's pain is to dismiss her entirely. How many more women will continue to suffer unnecessarily while being brushed off as "dramatic" and "too emotional"? Women know their bodies and we are more than capable of knowing when something is wrong with them. 

The pain that Rachel experienced was real and happens to so many other women whose stories we will never know. As a woman, it is hard enough to have your feelings and experiences validated by others. We get silenced, gaslighted, and some will just plain out not believe us. This is why more and more women must speak out about the injustices they face in the healthcare system. This will never completely fix the problem, but it is the first step in making it known that the way we are treated, dismissed, and overlooked is not acceptable anymore.

It is time to start taking women -and their bodies- seriously. The mistreatment of and bias towards women in the American healthcare system must come to a stop.