The smell of fear (quite rightly perhaps, perhaps not)

The gals across the way at our place are far fewer than the boys but when they do write or send, it's worth looking at.  I would say that as a central plank of my own platform, stall, whatever, is "men and women or women and men finding ways to effectively working together, using known strengths, the other covering when their strengths are to the fore."

Just sounds logical to me but there's been an entire political industry since Weishaupt, since Marx, the suffragettes, the Frankfurt School, since Friedan and similar Marxist harpies ... dedicated to finding points of grievance between the sexes, rather than points of agreement ... then working on them, prising them open, rubbing salt in ... and all weaponry of the shadow power have been dedicated to making women's lives a misery in the long term ... youtube has any number of vlogs, by women, on the topic ... such that may women are fearful in so many ways now, having lost so much faith in the medical profession for example ... just look for Mary Tally Bowden for a start ... she's on X.

Here's another example, sent by our Toodles across the way:

https://www.renegadetribune.com/study-women-in-their-40s-prefer-to-delay-mammography-screening-when-informed-of-real-risks/

There's also the other side of the coin ... robbing boys of masculinity so that they grow up as Little Lord Fauntleroys and Christopher Robins, rather than the boy in The Who's "I'm a Boy":

I'm a boy, I'm a boy
But if I say I am, I get it

… Wanna play cricket on the green
Ride my bike across the stream
Cut myself and see my blood
Wanna come home all covered in mud

But that song itself is about gender dysphoria ... in the 60s ... so the notion has been around a long time. Coming back to Toodles and her reading:

The national probability-based U.S. survey, led by Dr. Laura D. Scherer and colleagues, involved 495 women aged 39 to 49 years without a history of breast cancer or known BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Participants were presented with a breast cancer screening decision aid (DA) that provided information about screening benefits and harms, as well as a personalized breast cancer risk estimate.

The study’s findings were striking:

• Before viewing the DA, 27% of participants preferred to delay screening.
•  After viewing the DA, this number increased to 38.5%.
• There was no significant increase in the number of women never wanting mammography (5.4% before vs. 4.3% after).
• Women who preferred to delay screening had lower breast cancer risk than those who did not.
• Information about overdiagnosis was surprising to 37.4% of participants, compared to 27.2% for false-positive results and 22.9% for screening benefits.

These results suggest that when women are provided with comprehensive information about the benefits and risks of mammography screening, a significant portion prefer to delay the procedure, especially those at lower risk for breast cancer.

It all comes down, does it not, to "sound information", consistent, not to line Big Pharma's pockets but to help the women themselves ... out of a love for women as a species (as I'm guilty of jokingly calling them, applying it to men too ... are we not from Mars).

I'm at an NHS partner course, surrounded by mainly women and all go in for readings of this or that regularly, whereas it takes a lot to get me along once a year or biennially ... my health is staying out of those places. They cornered me three months ago and at least the readings were ok.

Point of this post? It's becoming more widespread, distrust of Authority, and we can argue about this ... is Authority today worthy of any trust, or is it all about not caring in the least, about me me me, about greed and to hell with the patient?