Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 01:22am PT
|
"It's all about return on investment."
Weak, Dave. Very weak.
Pathetic, even.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 01:32am PT
|
Dave, I'm just at a loss. I'm sure you're quite familiar with the phenomenon here at ST when you come up against a view that appears to be so entrenched & irrational that there is no point in making any effort towards discussion.
Edit:
As I said, I can understand the skepticism that many have of celebrities who take on social issues, esp. when it's clear their actual knowledge in that area is limited. In this case, though, I can understand one's skepticism about AJ's past media profile, but right now she's dealing with her own body, a central part of her 'brand'. She has more expertise in this area than you, I, or anyone else. If her willingness to take this bold step helps one other woman to be more comfortable about a similarly difficult decision, I can't imagine how this is a negative.
Edit 2:
rSin = w*r?
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 05:51am PT
|
Riley Wyna, I'm with you. (BTW, why do you want your account deleted? We all have our 'detractors' on the Taco Stand, and your medical experience and knowledge is valuable. Before Jennie's Korsakoff's Syndrome I was looking to be re-certified as an EMT and volunteer for both the Lifeboats out of Dun Laoghaire and Dublin-Wicklow Mountain Rescue, as I have some SAR experience. However, things have changed now that I am a full-time carer. I cannot answer a 2am phone call to go on a search/rescue/recovery and leave Jen alone for hours.)
Stick around Riley Wyna.
Unfortunately, due to circumstances I could not be in California to visit my late sister in hospital. Breast cancer as I have already written.
For that matter, my dear brother Mac who also died of (liver/lung) cancer last year. He wasn't a smoker, but he did have cirrhosis of the liver (occupational hazard in the wine industry), though he quit, just tasted and spat it out. After my oldest brother Casey retired from the Teamsters, he volunteered as chairman of the Northern California Teamster Substance Abuse Committee. He told me that people that had cirrhosis had a 34 times greater chance of liver cancer.
Anyway Taco Standers, I never was a big fan of Angelina Jolie, for some of the reasons that are mentioned in this thread by others. Plus I do not think that she is that great of actor (yes, many female actors I know preferred to be called actor, not actress. We don't say doctoress do we?)
But I highly doubt it was a publicity stunt. She gets enough press coverage as it is.
It was for her health.
If it is true that Myriad has a sole patent on what is a very important test, then the government should look at that, and according to Wikipedia (I always take with a grain of salt what is written there, good starting point though)...
BRCA1 Co-discoverers
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
University of Utah Research Foundation
University of Laval/Endo Research – Quebec
Hospital for Sick Children – University of Toronto
University of Tokyo
Myriad Genetics, Inc.
BRCA2 Co-discoverers
University of Utah Research Foundation
Hospital for Sick Children – University of Toronto
University of Pennsylvania
Myriad Genetics, Inc.
...Then how the hell did Myriad get the sole patent if there were other co-discoverers? Something seems fishy there.
|
|
beaner
Social climber
Maine
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 07:36am PT
|
I may be wrong but having a breast removed due to cancer doesn't qualify you for breast implants...you pay for those on your own (I assume--I know my Aunt doesn't have implants).
In the U.S. an insurance company is required to cover breast reconstruction after a mastectomy to either treat cancer or as a prophylactic measure for an at risk individual. It has been this way since sometime in the 1990s. Most insurances will also cover genetic counseling and if necessary prophylactic mastectomies for individuals with a family history of breast cancer.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 10:30am PT
|
Dave and rSin: nothing wrong with making lemonaid when life gives ya lemons - especially if ya share the lemonaid with others.
That doesn't make her a Heroine, I wouldn't say it was even "bold". It may even be argued that it was cowardly. But it was a tough choice, she made it and her publicizing the issue makes her a decent human being, and if she gets to "build her brand" in the process, so what?
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 10:52am PT
|
Dave... C'mon son.
|
|
JMM
Boulder climber
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 11:06am PT
|
I've been lurking for a while, and it would be one of the OT threads that would be my first post. Go figure.
First impressions: there's a lot of mansplaining going on in here. Conveniently, a symbolic explanation of this phenomena can readily be seen in one of AJ movies: Mr. and Mrs. Smith. How do the two protagonists log in to the security systems at their workplaces? John Smith speaks. His voice is his identity. Jane Smith goes through a full body scan. She only speaks after her identity has been confirmed by her physical traits.
So how does this relate to AJ's Op Ed and to western culture more broadly? It means that women are not allowed to define themselves or their identity like men are. If you need another example of this, just look at Tammy Duckworth, who couldn't speak about her traumatic experiences or her physical state (her challenges, her femininity) without coming under mindblowing-ly idiotic criticism (e.g. she's attention seeking or she's "using her double amputation for sympathy votes").
Women aren't allowed to be ambiguous or multivalent beings (you know, humans) either we are perfect or we are attention/money seeking sex whores. You can't be both and you can only move one way (good to bad, not bad to good). After all, I don't remember Christina Applegate being accused of seeking publicity for her double mastectomy, but then she's always been so sweet and funny. We like her, she doesn't cause cognitive dissonance or rock the boat like AJ does.
I also think that, in large part, the trolls on this thread completely missed the point of the Op Ed. AJ's audience is specifically other women; women who have, just by being a part of western culture, been conditioned to think of her (and other actresses) as standards of beauty, standards to aspire to. So as a woman, I can say that it is 100% refreshing to hear amidst all the OMG celebrity this and that (as demonstrated by rSin) that for this moment in time AJ is admitting and embracing her humanity, her imperfections, her struggles--because this issue is something thousands upon thousands of women (and their family members) face every day. Did the fact that her breasts are part of her celebrity cross her mind when she pursued the mastectomy? Absolutely, I'm positive it did (every woman worries about her sex appeal post-mastectomy.) But not more so than personal memories like nursing her children.
Could she have said more in the Op Ed about the monopoly on BRCA1 and 2? Yes, but then, that wasn't the point of the article. And quite frankly, isn't much of an issue right now because a challenge to that monopoly is in front of SCOTUS right now, and oral arguments have already been heard, so what exactly is she supposed to *do (not being a lawyer, nor a SC justice)?
Also, Kos: when a woman goes in for "maintenance" or "breast enhancement," she does not chop off her breasts entirely. Mastectomies are incredibly invasive and serious surgeries, they aren't done for "upkeep." And while I'm at it, what she did afterward was not for publicity (although, being a public figure, everything AJ does is considered "publicity," be it good or bad). What she did was her right as a human being--to stand up and say "this is what happened to me, this is why I did what I did, this is how it affected me, and this is how I'm processing it"--just like Christina Applegate, Tammy Duckworth, or Christopher Reeve, for that matter. When it's your body, you get to own it; though, clearly all the mansplainers don't agree.
Edited for heat-of-the-moment grammar booboos and clarity.
Edit: Also, if anyone is interested one of AJ's doctors wrote about the process for those unfamiliar with it: http://www.pinklotusbreastcenter.com/breast-cancer-101/2013/05/a-patients-journey-angelina-jolie/
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 11:44am PT
|
+1 for JMM
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 11:48am PT
|
Yeah what he/she said.
|
|
JMM
Boulder climber
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 12:03pm PT
|
I don't remember ever saying that your opinion doesn't matter, Kos. But I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling the fact that you feel like you are coming under ad hominem attacks while you are doing the same thing to someone else ("it's just for the publicity, you know, because of who she is and all"). You can't have it both ways.
*Mansplaining. I do not think it means what you think it means.
|
|
JMM
Boulder climber
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 12:33pm PT
|
Oh. Clearly I misunderstood. The title of the thread is "Angelina Jolie's decision" which I should have taken to mean "Angelina Jolie" period. And the OP's statement about hearing others' perspective "regarding such a choice, esp. if you've had fairly direct experience with cancer" was really some sort of code for "be all judgmental about a celebrity's past, while also coming up with completely ridiculous theories about ulterior motives."
Now I'll know not to discuss: 1. What she said about her experience or 2. The cultural significance of her experience as it relates to others with cancer and/or the BRCA1 or 2 gene mutation and instead attack her for being a celebrity. Because clearly that's the real issue.
|
|
JMM
Boulder climber
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 01:24pm PT
|
I never said anything about her past. But now that I'm the bad guy, it's OK to make stuff up
I was adding rSin into that, I know you didn't say anything about her past. And in a logical argument (as you seem to want, having opposed logical fallacies being used against you), making stuff up isn't okay. It damages your position.
So let's look again at what ad hominems are:
Criticizing Obama for extensive use of drone warfare? Fine and good. Criticizing Obama for being President, black, or Christian? General ad hominem
Criticizing Angelina for her performance in a movie? Fine and good.
Criticizing Angelina for writing about her experience because she is a celebrity and will allegedly profit from it? Circumstantial ad hominem. You are attacking the person (AJ) rather than debating the issue at hand (BRCA1&2 mutation, cancer, traumatic surgery, etc.)
|
|
crusher
climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 01:31pm PT
|
Kos, this is not "minor surgery". Really insulting to the "non celebrity", "regular" women who've gone through this.
Thanks JMM, well said.
|
|
JMM
Boulder climber
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 01:53pm PT
|
Criticizing someone for what they do: not
Wrong, Kos, but good try.
A circumstantial ad hominem is an attack on a person (rather than the issue at hand) that hinges on his or her position. Hence your claim that AJ's position as a celebrity makes her message somehow less valid (or not valid at all. AKA it's just a publicity thing) because her celebrity makes her an attention whore. Hence ignoring the message altogether.
See the structure of the circumstantial ad hominem here: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
Person L says argument A.
Person L's circumstance or character is not satisfactory.
Argument A is not a good argument.
In other words, AJ writes about her significant experience. Oh! but she's a celebrity. Therefore, the experience is contrived for attention.
Mansplaining is when a woman, who is intimately familiar with a fact, circumstance, or experience, has a man, who is less familiar with the fact, circumstance, or experience, explain to her in great detail what it "means." In other words, you have felt the need to explain how Hollywood women get "boob maintenance" or how actresses are attention whores without actually being intimately familiar with Hollywood women, the pressures they face, or what it means for them.
Mansplaining is also telling me that the "thread is about AJ" when I have read it myself (I'm actually quite good at reading) and am perfectly capable of judging what this thread is or isn't about on my own.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 02:04pm PT
|
so,
given that Angelina is already a multi muli millionaire
why would one assume her motive is to "profit" by this surgery?
and lets say she does intend to profit, how would this surgery get her more profitable movie roles?
seems like the reverse would be true, that she would not be in movie demand much at all
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 03:32pm PT
|
JMM, I was right with you at your first post....then got to this:
"And the OP's statement about hearing others' perspective "regarding such a choice, esp. if you've had fairly direct experience with cancer" was really some sort of code for "be all judgmental about a celebrity's past, while also coming up with completely ridiculous theories about ulterior motives."
Sometimes underlying motivations get lost in these threads, so I can understand your misinterpretation. For the record, though, I'd suggest you go back and re-read my OP in the context of someone who has been directly impacted by this type of cancer, and supports AJ 100%in her choice.
|
|
JMM
Boulder climber
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 04:04pm PT
|
I am claiming that her motives for stepping up and choosing to publicize her message are mixed.
So now we are back to the issue of the voice vs. the body scanner. Because she is a celebrity and, worse, a woman with an ambiguous and multivalent reputation, she should just be silent and let everyone else define her experience for her. (Shhh. Sweetheart, just stfu and let the tabloids do their job.) That somehow she is not capable of speaking the truth of her experience because anything she says will be purposefully colored (e.g. "mixed motives") to make her look good, which semantically affects the message (in other words, it affect the very nuts and bolts of her message). Hence the whole idea of "I'm just referring to her motives" is still an circumstantial ad hominem.
But I still remain cynical about those who exploit charitable causes And the charitable cause here is what? And how is it being exploited? By whom?
Sometimes underlying motivations get lost in these threads whoa apogee!--that post you're referring to was a sarcastic response to Dave Kos, based on where this thread has gone vs. the initial point of the thread. I think you initial post was excellent, and it's a shame that the thread got derailed by Dave and rSin with things that are completely irrelevant.
I'm actually not a huge fan of AJ, but I think she handled the situation really well. She made the decision that was right for her and she expressed her experiences beautifully.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
|
I agree, this thread did get sort of hijacked by a couple of people, who have beef to grind, for whatever reason. What kind of beef, I don't know. (EDIT Fillet or striploin?)
I usually like Dave Kos's comments, then when I really noticed that his avatar was Patton (or is it Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson?), oops, George C Scott (a fine actor, great in Dr Strangelove), I began to wonder about Dave. ;-)
I hope you do not think that was an ad Ad hominem attempt.
Just joking Dave. I'm just trying to lighten things up.
But it was a tough choice, she made it and her publicizing the issue makes her a decent human being, and if she gets to "build her brand" in the process, so what?
I agree with Couchmaster (and that is not often).
|
|
JMM
Boulder climber
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 05:37pm PT
|
First, I am not rSin. Yet, you are using the same type of "she's a celebrity therefore cannot be trusted to speak absolutely about herself, it's all just self-serving publicity" type of message. Though, you are more articulate about it than rSin.
Would you be reading (and misquoting) (haha, good one) my words differently if my name was Susan Kos? No, because not all women are feminists. Not all women believe that women are equal to men or that they have the same right to speak of their experiences without being placed on the good girl vs. bad girl scale. In other words, because Phyllis Schlafly's cronies are still alive and well.
if you want to have a discussion about breast cancer and treatments - it is a worthy goal and an important subject. If you want to have that discussion I suggest you start a thread that is focused on that topic and leave names out. (Perhaps that's what apogee was trying to do here, but I think it was a mistake to frame it in the context of a celebrity.) It was the point of this thread, as apogee said in his/her OP, before you jumped in with your "it was probably little more than an elective boob job that some attention whore celebrity put a positive PR spin on."
I have a pet peeve with the exploitation of the sick and needy for marketing purposes, some of it based on legitimate life experience. Of course this situation is a little odd because I am claiming that someone is exploiting themselves (as well as others, indirectly) for marketing purposes. So then riddle me this. The tabloids would have published it eventually, yes?. So the woman come out and says, "yes, this happened to me. It sucks, but I'm handling it." And that means that she's exploiting herself and others? I'm really not following the logic. Should every person who faces a serious illness keep silent about it because someone on the interwebs might think they're in it for the sympathy points? Unless there's some information that you have forthcoming, there's been no proof that this was done for "marketing purposes." I, for one, saw no call for money in the Op Ed, nor any mention of the incredibly misleading Susan G. Komen Foundation, AJ's next film doesn't come out until 2014 (by which time this will not be considered news), and Myriad Genetic's monopoly is, hopefully, about to come to an end since their argument for SCOTUS was was very poorly presented. It is only publicity in so far as any information that circulates about a public figure, whether released by them or by someone else, is "publicity."
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 09:03pm PT
|
Dave, most of the time I regard you as a fairly middle-of-the-road type, but the comments you made last night....
"It's a shame that a tragic disease has become a vehicle for corruption and profit."
"It's all about return on investment."
...with the ridiculous, cynical insinuation that someone would do this solely & primarily for 'profit & return on investment'...
To my eye, those are pathetic comments of an as#@&%e.
Maybe I've misread your persona all along. I'll try to be more observant. In the meantime, you've been around ST long enough to know that when one puts out strong positions like yours, you'd best have a good thick skin.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!