I just glanced at the cover of a gossip magazine that gets delivered to me through no fault of my own and read that Angelina Jolie had both of her breasts cut off to prevent breast cancer. Which she doesn’t have. As we say in my country, the best remedy for headaches is a guillotine.
Do you think it’s true or these magazines cannot be trusted? Jolie is an extremely rich person. She could have hired the best psychiatrists in the world to treat her cancerophobia.
This is news from a couple of weeks ago, she has 87% chance of getting breast or ovarian cancer, as she is bearing the gene that causes it. Her mother died of ovarian cancer in young age, so she decided to have a preventive mastectomy to improve her survival chances:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22520720
LikeLike
I have a 100% chance of suffering from high blood pressure. And I do. Maybe I should cut my head off. 🙂
On a serious note, cancerophobia is highly treatable in therapy.
LikeLike
I doubt that opening the genes subject will lead to either of us getting things of value out of the discussion, so I’ll just say that I’d hate to have to face the odds she was facing and that, being an extremely rich person, she could afford to have the mammary glands and probably associated lymph nodes removed and the volume replaced with the most high-quality implants money can buy (and since this wasn’t a breast enlargement operation, many of the aesthetic issues with implants wouldn’t be a problem here). From what I understand, she won’t look any different in a bikini and the only difference noticeable if she’s topless will be a couple small scars. So it doesn’t seem this is something that will affect her life negatively.
LikeLike
One of the most treasured things by any human psyche is the inviolability of one’s body. A psychologically healthy person cannot, for instance, cut one’s own hand with a knife. The psyche blocks the invasion.
Choosing to lop off organs – and not just any organs but the ones that symbolize for the psyche one’s entire womanhood – is a sign of a deeply disturbed personality. I have no doubt she will look great but that will not help the real disease that is eating her alive.
Very tragic. It is especially tragic that there are sad, damaged children around the unhealthy person.
LikeLike
A psychologically healthy person cannot, for instance, cut one’s own hand with a knife.
This is just not true. Like most things, it is dependent on the situation. I have heard of cases where a person bitten in the hand by a coral snake, while harvesting sugar cane, cut his hand off immediately. He survived. The alternative would have been a painful death lasting several hours.
LikeLike
The hand you described has already been breached. If a person actually gets cancer (i.e.has his or her body breached) and undergoes an operation to remove the consequences of the breach, that is a very healthy reaction. Just like in your example. But to initiate a breach oneself for absolutely no reason is not a healthy reaction.
LikeLike
It is true. I will just say that the percentages Pika refers to are dubious.
Excellent related editorial http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/our-feel-good-war-on-breast-cancer.html?pagewanted=all
LikeLike
This is a VERY good article, thank you!!
LikeLike
She didn’t have her breasts “cut off.” She had inner breast tissue removed and replaced with implants. I really don’t understand why people are so hung up on women’s breasts. They exist solely for the production of milk, and if you’re not breastfeeding they’re just in the way. I understand that in our culture they’re also sex parts, but I don’t really give a damn about what our culture thinks about sex.
As for psychological inviolability of the body, that’s nonsense. People cut themselves by accident every day, and you don’t see them in hospitals with nervous breakdowns because their bodily integrity was “violated.” Having an operation is of course more serious, but I doubt Jolie just up and freaked out when she found out her cancer chances were higher than normal and demanded they lop off her boobs then and there. No doctor would perform such an operation without the ramifications being explained fully to the patient and being sure of her psychological stability: they’d get sued in this malpractice-happy land otherwise. And by the way, women who have their boobs removed from actual cancer don’t need to be told that they are now psychologically broken. Way to enforce patriarchal society’s ideas about women’s bodies not belonging to them!
In short, the next time you get a gossip rag in the mail, throw it in the garbage without reading it.
LikeLike
“I really don’t understand why people are so hung up on women’s breasts.”
– I would have written the exact same post if she had decided to have her foot, hand or ear removed. Or if a man had undergone this operation.
“They exist solely for the production of milk, and if you’re not breastfeeding they’re just in the way. I understand that in our culture they’re also sex parts, but I don’t really give a damn about what our culture thinks about sex.”
– ???? Nipples are the second most powerful erogenous zone in a woman’s body and the third most powerful erogenous zone in a man’s body. THis has nothing to do with this particular discussion, however.
“People cut themselves by accident every day, and you don’t see them in hospitals with nervous breakdowns because their bodily integrity was “violated.” ”
– Actually, when these “accidents” become too numerous this is absolutely a sign of mental issues. Let’s remember that I happen to be very accident prone and this is obviously not a simple statistical deviation.
“No doctor would perform such an operation without the ramifications being explained fully to the patient and being sure of her psychological stability: they’d get sued in this malpractice-happy land otherwise.”
– In the US, you can get anything performed on you for money. As for doctors being capable of evaluating her psychologically, this is the country of the DMV and medicating toddlers with psychotropics. Let’s not be naive about the quality of the psychological help that is available to those who don’t actively seek it and prefer a knife or a pill instead.
“And by the way, women who have their boobs removed from actual cancer don’t need to be told that they are now psychologically broken. ”
– As I already said, reacting to an existing breach of the body – in this case, by cancer – is extremely healthy. It is initiating a breach for no reason than fears, worries, anxiety and other psychological problems that is unhealthy.
LikeLike
There was no cancerous cell in her breasts.
LikeLike
I’m surprised that we are even arguing about whether removing completely healthy breasts (ears, feet, arms, heads, etc.) is psychologically healthy.
LikeLike
Having tissue removed from your boob isn’t the same thing as having your foot cut off. That’s ridiculous. If someone told me I’d get bone cancer in my leg I probably would just monitor myself. On the other hand, cancer is sneaky and unpredictable, and has a way of spreading even despite monitoring, so who knows — if they could replace my cancer-threatened skeleton with a nice fake one made of titanium or something and I had the money to afford it I might just take that chance. Why not? It’s my body. (And no, removing bone and replacing it with fake bone would not be getting anything “cut off” any more than removing breast tissue and replacing it with fake tissue would be.Though if you would like to know, instead of just getting my boob replaced with fake boobs I’d get something more useful to me like speakers for my mp3 players or a couple of change purses.)
In any case, I doubt anything I say will break through this bizarre cloud of breastmania. I’m just glad I never wanted to be an actress. Imagine everyone on earth imagining my life and body parts belonged to them and not me. Ugh.
Okay one more thing: not everyone thinks nipples are their “second most powerful erogenous zone.” Personally I think nipples are kind of gross, and having mine messed with just irritates me. Not everyone is the same.
LikeLike
I can only repeat: this is not about breasts. I would have written the exact same post had she decided to remove her feet, a kidney, an eye, her hands, etc for this reason.
I would also have written the exact same post if she were a waitress, a doctor, a translator, etc.
This is not about breasts or actresses. It is about self-mutilation.
LikeLike
If it’s unhealthy (rightly so) to have breasts removed because of a cancerophobia, it’s also unhealthy for a MAB to cut her penis because of the “Gender” (sic) Identity “Disorder” (sic).
LikeLike
Transgender people never deny that they experience extreme psychological suffering that leads to the operation.
LikeLike
I agree. Jolie is denying her psychological suffering, but this psychological suffering is occuring to her.
LikeLike
That’s all I’m saying. Such decisions come from a place of terrible pain and fear and are not just happy fashion choices or whatever.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone (including Angelina Jolie, in the letter through which we found out about this) is claiming this to be a happy fashion choice or denying the psychological suffering this caused her. However, based on the odds she was facing, I still believe getting rid of her mammary glands while maintaining breasts that look normal (which was only possible because this was a pre-cancer mastectomy) would lead to less psychological harm than keeping them for another decade or two and risking death and/or far more mutilating surgery.
LikeLike
Cancerophobia – as well as any phobia, actually – is highly treatable with non-surgical, non-medicinal, non-invasive methods. The tragedy is that the surgery is not going to have any effect here. The problem is not in the breasts. It’s in the head. Just like anorexics don’t get any better after starving themselves to ridiculous weights.
LikeLike
Sitting there worrying constantly “OMG, everybody in my family had cancer, so I might too” is already a sign of a mentally disturbed person. Actually lopping off body parts as a result of this anxiety is a whole different stage of unhealthiness altogether.
LikeLike
Cancerophobia, yes. Cancer, no. And considering the odds she was facing, I understand why she’d choose to undertake a much gentler operation now to ensure she won’t need a much more disfiguring one (plus the rest of the misery that is cancer treatment) later.
LikeLike
Cancerophobia is fear of cancer. She has no cancer right now. She is using an operation to address cancerophobia. But this is not a treatment that has worked for anybody on the planet with this problem. Psychological issues can not be treated with operations.
LikeLike
Hadn’t noticed your latest comment. Basically, cancerophobia and cancer risk are two different issues, and while the mastectomy won’t help with cancerophobia, it does give her the best chances of being alive and with breasts that resemble the ones she had a year ago in 15 years’ time.
LikeLike
A person with this level of anxiety will not stop evaluating the odds of disaster even if she cuts of every limb and pokes her eyes out for good measure. Anxiety is in the head and it has nothing whatsoever to do with actual odds of anything bad happening. People with extreme terror of poverty do not stop feeling it after making millions. People with the terror of solitude do not stop feeling terrorized by it after finding an adoring partner. People with low self-esteem do not experience even a shadow of improvement after winning world-wide fan and having millions of people praise them.
These chances of getting cancer she is referring to are simply an excuse, a rationalization. Of course, it’s her body and it’s her choice. What is really tragic is the situation of all those people who starve and cut themselves to relieve anxiety and who receive reinforcement from Jolie’s self-mutilation.
The really heartening story would be if a movie star said, “I had extreme fears of cancer, even planned to chop body parts of. But then I sought psychological health and now I’m anxiety-free!” This would help so many people.
LikeLike
And by latest I mean the second-latest. We’re out of phase.
LikeLike
Anyone remember Portal of Evil?
It had links to all kinds of insane groups of people (who were finally able to share their crazy with the world because of the internet). About 15 years ago it was a daily stop for me. I had no idea many of the things they linked to could exist and it was a neverending trainwreck I couldn’t look away from.
Anyhoo, one of the weird things they linked to were sites by people who had compulsions to cut off end ends of their fingers and toes (why cut the whole thing off at once when you can convince yourself how special and unique you are three times before your ring finger is no more?) More extreme versons were about people who wanted to have healthy limbs aputated by I didn’t have the nerve to actually check those sites out…. brrrrrrrr
That’s all I can think of with regard to AJ. I find her decision (and media support) to be extremely bizarre.
I don’t have anything else clever to say except that it also seems like the medical establishment’s version of a stalking horse. If this catches on there’s a lot of money to be made from chopping healthy people up and putting them back together and who knows how extreme this will get?
LikeLike
“I don’t have anything else clever to say except that it also seems like the medical establishment’s version of a stalking horse. If this catches on there’s a lot of money to be made from chopping healthy people up and putting them back together and who knows how extreme this will get?”
– Exactly. It is very naive to expect the doctors to give up on profits because the patient is disturbed. Especially an extremely rich patient.
LikeLike
They do recommend these preventive mastectomies, also to people with a far lower “chance” than that. I also have the impression that some of these radical mastectomies for cancer could have been lumpectomies, people have so few cancer cells sometimes or “turned out to have gotten it all in the biopsy” (very suspicious, that last, if you ask me, although I am not an MD).
LikeLike
I would run a way from any doctor recommending preventative cutting off of anything.
Even a dentist who recommends preventative removal of wisdom teeth is a dangerous, dishonest quack, in my opinion. It is not surprising that these quacks only exist in the US.
LikeLike
My lower wisdom teeth were coming in crooked and if they hadn’t been taken out before they’d come in, they would have shoved my back molars forward. My teeth would have been shoved together, and it would have been painful. They were also too large for my mouth and no matter what the end result would be me with physically painful, crooked teeth. More orthodontia would have required me to get tooth pulled on either side. I saw the X-rays. That wasn’t a dangerous or a dishonest move. I was there for everything. I reviewed everything myself. Wisdom teeth are large objects, and if your mouth isn’t equipped to deal with the angle at which they come in, or their size, or if their roots begin to grow into your sinuses (for the uppers only, of course), or if they’re compacted, or if there’s more than one where there should only be one, chances are they do need to come out. Not everybody needs them removed, but it saves some people an awful lot of pain and expensive orthodontia.
LikeLike
I’ve been resisting the badgering of dentists to get my perfectly healthy wisdom teeth removed for 15 years. Their argument is always, “They will cause problems later.” I always have to stop them from describing these imaginary future problems because I consider that to be bullying. I recently gave up one of these teeth because it became damaged during the pregnancy but that was my own decision. And then I had to shut down the dentist who started badgering me about the rest of them once again.
One has to be very strong to resist the endless attempts of American doctors to bully one into unnecessary treatments, surgeries, medications, procedures, etc. In other countries, this simply doesn’t happen.
LikeLike
Well, you’re wrong about Jolie’s cancerophobia, but absolutely right about your wisdom teeth. I’m pushing seventy, and mine have never given me any trouble.
LikeLike
Of course, there is also a possibility that this has nothing to do with cancerophobia but is simply a gesture of an extremely narcissistic personality with the Munchhausen syndrome. Actors are all narcissists as it is and it’s possible that she simply can’t keep hers under control.
The endless adoptions fit in with both theories.
LikeLike
I don’t think actors are all narcissists.
Yeah, but maybe all hollywoodian actors are narcissists, so…
LikeLike
You can’t exist for the purpose of getting others to stare at you and not be a narcissist. Have you noticed how often the children of actors in absolutely all countries kill themselves or become drug addicts?
LikeLike
So, all teachers (and bloggers) are narcissists?
There are many underground actors who are not very narcissistic, but I agree about mainstream actors, though.
LikeLike
“So, all teachers (and bloggers) are narcissists?”
– To a degree, of course! All teachers are also people with a significant level of aggression that they channel into a socially productive profession.
LikeLike
By the way, a good psychologist can identify a teacher’s child within minutes of talking to him or her. We have very obvious and special psychological issues.
Children of doctors are another such group.
LikeLike
I am having mixed feelings since the very first day I heard the story. The main question I have is: What’s the purpose on going public?. What percentage of women in this world have 1) a realistic opportunity (financially at a minimum) of having a genetic test to find out their chances on BRCA1 and 2) in the case of a similarly alarming result to that of Jollie, how many women can afford the surgery and treatment she has had?.
LikeLike
How are they going to create demand for a very expensive, elective process _without_ the endorsement of a movie superstar / self-styled moral crusader ?
I fully expect this (and similarly deranged procedures) to be the next big feminist healthcare issue (I wish I were joking, I really, really do….)
LikeLike
Oh, I agree with you. After hormone replacement therapy and HPV vaccines, I will not be surprised at further attempts to present the female body as diseased by definition and in need of constant modification. This is, indeed, the alarming direction of the dominant trend in US “feminism”.
LikeLike
Oh, this is PR, pure and simple. The way the story was framed in the gossip rag made me want to vomit: children playing in the backgrounds, she looks at them dramatically and tells her husband she wants to live for them. . . Disgusting.
LikeLike
Wait, what’s wrong with the HPV vaccine? It stops the nastier versions of a STD that isn’t stopped by condoms.
LikeLike
Medicalization of the female body. Female bodies are seen as problematic and in need of constant fixing just to function tolerably well. It’s curious how there are no medications for male regular hormonal changes (which happen more often and are more harsh than the female ones), no hormonal treatments for andropause, no prophylactic removals of male organs, no yearly visits to urologists since men turn 15, no equivalent to mammograms on the testicles, no male Mydol, no male hormone replacement therapies, etc. Male bodies are the standard, while the female bodies are a perennially diseased deviation that are constantly tuned up.
Of course, the moment when the campaign for the HPV vaccine begins to feature boys and girls in equal proportions, I will have no problem with it.
LikeLike
Oh, I definitely agree HPV vaccines should be promoted for boys and men as well. While the HPV-related cancers they get are much rarer, they still exist, and it makes no sense for half the population to skip the vaccine when they still pass on the disease.
LikeLike
You did a very good job putting the horror I felt upon hearing this news into words.
LikeLike
“Female bodies are seen as problematic and in need of constant fixing just to function tolerably well. It’s curious how there are no medications for male regular hormonal changes (which happen more often and are more harsh than the female ones), no hormonal treatments for andropause, no prophylactic removals of male organs, no yearly visits to urologists since men turn 15, no equivalent to mammograms on the testicles, no male Mydol, no male hormone replacement therapies, etc. Male bodies are the standard, while the female bodies are a perennially diseased deviation that are constantly tuned up.”
ROCK ON! 🙂 🙂
“no equivalent to mammograms on the testicles”
Men have something like this for prostate cancer, but this is in a lesser degree. But, you’re absolutely right.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment