http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/14/angelina_jolie_breast_cancer_surgery_the_actress_discusses_beauty_after.html
QuoteToday, Angelina Jolie published a piece in the New York Times about her decision to undergo a preventive double mastectomy last month. As a carrier of a gene mutation called BRCA1, Jolie cut her chances of contracting breast cancer from 87 percent to under 5 percent by undergoing the procedure. I felt so honored to read Jolie's detailed first-person account of her experience, as well as her advocacy for all the women around the world to gain access to the too-expensive tests and procedures that have empowered her to fight for her own life. Those warm feelings were soon deflated by some of the unexpectedly nasty commentary that pooled around her story. Commenters snarked that Jolie had received a "boob job." Some suggested that her medical emergency was just a tabloid ruse to cover up elective breast implants. Others morbidly asked after the whereabouts of the breast tissue removed from her body. "RIP Angelina's boobs" was a typical ignorant comment. Said one commenter on a Jezebel post about the op-ed, "How many guys stopped reading as soon as they realized Angelina Jolie has no breasts—she's dead to me!"
I'm just lamenting the fact that ANYBODY gives even half a shit about anything Angelina Jolie does. Why is she even still famous?
She was in a miniseries about SEGUIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Women).
This tells me everything I need to know about Angelina.
Like I told you on Facebook, I could give two fucking shits about her, but the fact that a woman, any woman, did this to potentially save her own life is courageous. This could have been any celebrity. If it was Scarlet Johansson or God forbid, Christina Hendricks, the reaction wouldn't be any different, it would probably be worse, ESPECIALLY with Hendricks.
She had an 87% chance of getting breast cancer, and considering 1-in-4 women get it anyway, those are really shitty odds.
I'm sorry, but with those odds? Take my fucking tits. I'd rather live without them then deal with the years of chemo and radiation it's going to take to even try to fight it. It's an easy out, a shitty out, but an easy one that's probably cheaper in the long run. I've seen what chemo does to people. No thank you. Take my tits. Thanks. And if my boyfriend or any other man lamented the loss of my chest pillows, fuck them for existing.
She's done some good stuff. When I read that article this morning, I was impressed that someone in the "Hollywood System" would be rational enough to go for a preventative masectomy. I also thought, "douchebags are gonna talk shit about her tits."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 14, 2013, 07:38:29 PM
She's done some good stuff. When I read that article this morning, I was impressed that someone in the "Hollywood System" would be rational enough to go for a preventative masectomy. I also thought, "douchebags are gonna talk shit about her tits."
Precisely. I'm no fan of the woman, but for fuck's sake, she elected to remove her breasts as a preventative measure, when she probably could have afforded the best care if she did end up with cancer. For that, she wins a gold star. Like her or hate her.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 14, 2013, 07:38:29 PM
She's done some good stuff. When I read that article this morning, I was impressed that someone in the "Hollywood System" would be rational enough to go for a preventative masectomy. I also thought, "douchebags are gonna talk shit about her tits."
This. Hat off to her.
She was brilliant in Girl, Interrupted.
At risk of pointing out the obvious...
what boobs?
Image search "Jolie Gia"
I've seen the movie.
I've also met her IRL when "Life or Something Like It" was being filmed across the parking lot from the pizzeria I worked in at the time.
Not that her boobs were big in Gia (they're not, but they ARE strangely lopsided), but even that looks like it must have been FX because IRL she appeared to be no bigger than a b-cup.
Mind you, I'm not a "boob guy". Nor do I think the size of her boobs has any bearing on her merits as a person. But given that she seems to have neither boobs nor merit these days I'm just wondering why anyone cares about this.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 14, 2013, 08:05:58 PM
At risk of pointing out the obvious...
what boobs?
At risk of countering with obvious...
Small boobs don't stop the cancers.
It's a shitty thing to have happen, but I don't see her as courageous or any of that.
She was presented with two shitty options. She took the one that gave her a better chance of survival.
There is one interesting question to be asked here:
If she were still an up-and-coming actress whose career was largely dependent on her looks, would she have made the same choice?
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 14, 2013, 08:29:52 PM
There is one interesting question to be asked here:
If she were still an up-and-coming actress whose career was largely dependent on her looks, would she have made the same choice?
It's hard to say. The woman was batshit when she was younger, so probably.
The real question to ask, is if all the fucktards bitching about this on the internet had this choice presented to a loved one, how would they actually react to their wife or girlfriend opting to get a mastectomy rather than fight to save the tissue with expensive, damaging treatments?
Is it just because she's a celebrity they've jacked off to that matters? Or are they that attached to breasticles to understand that "Saving the ta-tas" isn't the answer, it's "saving the woman?" I mean, I had a douchebag ditch me because I had to have a piece of my cervix cut out, and he wasn't going to be able to have sex with me for a month. No, fuck the fact that I had cancer, he can't get laid, so that's more important.
THAT is the point of this thread, not bitching about Angelina Jolie, her 52 Kenyan babies, and the vial of Billy Bob Thornton's blood she used to wear around her neck. The reactions that people are having to news that her tits are gone.
The people saying that shit don't know her personally anyway. They're talking about a commodity, which is FUCKED UP, yes, but it's the way she's always been presented.
Good point, Stelz.
If you make the conscious choice to market yourself as a commodity based on your physical attractiveness at the expense of presenting yourself as someone with even a shred of depth, you shouldn't expect any other reaction when you tell your fans that part of what made you attractive to them is gone.
Fucked up and indicative of much deeper problems in our society? of course. But hardly a surprise.
I get that, totally. But it's that deeper problem thats bothering me so much, I think.
If you're so caught up in the ideals of idol worship that when someone loses a piece of their physical beauty, so to speak, to a disease, you lash out against them for being less beautiful and less of that idol you worshiped. It's almost like saying you'd rather that person die so that you can have your eye candy, rather than have anything taken away that gives you pleasure. For some reason, I can't wrap my head around this level of stupidity. I can feel my brain facepalming, I guess. :?
Yeah, we're a particularly self-centered tribe of a particularly self-centered species. That's the single biggest reason I don't like us all that much.
On one hand, this places Angelina Jolie, actress, model, mother, activist, icon in the precarious position of undergoing a personally traumatic and career-risking medical procedure.
On the other hand, it must be nice to have good coverage. Or any coverage. Or people who care about their medical procedures.
That's part of what galls me about the inevitable "Isn't it awful / X is soooo Brave press coverage.
I'll be clear now - It's a shitty, shitty disease. Making the choice that maximises your life expectancy would be the correct thing to do in most cases.
The coverage however, inevitably will focus on what she has lost, if it is a meaningful loss and the relationships of breast to femininity. The access to medical care side is fairly neglected.
Now consider this:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/05/population-map.jpg)
How many people in that circle see a doctor regularly, let alone have access to advanced preventative medical procedures?
I really hate that number.
But no, we must focus on the Icons with access to the finest of care.
Quote from: Alty on May 14, 2013, 09:25:41 PM
On one hand, this places Angelina Jolie, actress, model, mother, activist, icon in the precarious position of undergoing a personally traumatic and career-risking medical procedure.
On the other hand, it must be nice to have good coverage. Or any coverage. Or people who care about their medical procedures.
I have shitty coverage, it is NOT better than no coverage. Why? Because with no coverage, I had access to organizations that would subsidize my care and I still had to shell out almost $300 every time I walked into the clinic to get my cervix poked at. With the coverage I paid $1200 for, that same care cost me $415, because then you get in the bills from every fucking lab that looks at your shit, from $15 to $360. Only the pap is covered 100%, because it's required to be by law. Biopsies are not.
Don't get me wrong, I will pay my bills, I will ensure that the money I give to Planned Parenthood goes back into the non-profit that helped me, but I basically paid for coverage to pay more money. That tells me the system is fucking broken. That tells me the idea of even having insurance is a fucking scam. It saved me nothing, it just alerted more companies into asking me for money, because I'm not on that level of being unable to afford care. I'm no longer a charity case, now I'm some bourgeoisie that can be shaken upside down for cash, and they won't feel bad about it.
Sure, she
can afford the best, and all the copays that come with it, but she still elected to take the preventative measure, instead of the "what if," probably getting cancer, and probably surviving it because of the best care. Just because you can afford things, doesn't make living with cancer easier, it probably just makes it more expensive for her, too. Why? Because people know she can afford it, so they're gonna shake her down for coins, too.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 14, 2013, 08:29:52 PM
There is one interesting question to be asked here:
If she were still an up-and-coming actress whose career was largely dependent on her looks, would she have made the same choice?
Like the young Miss America contestant who recently went the same route in her early 20's?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57563485/miss-america-contestant-allyn-rose-to-get-double-mastectomy/
Who knows.
Quote from: Suu on May 14, 2013, 09:17:54 PM
I get that, totally. But it's that deeper problem thats bothering me so much, I think.
If you're so caught up in the ideals of idol worship that when someone loses a piece of their physical beauty, so to speak, to a disease, you lash out against them for being less beautiful and less of that idol you worshiped. It's almost like saying you'd rather that person die so that you can have your eye candy, rather than have anything taken away that gives you pleasure. For some reason, I can't wrap my head around this level of stupidity. I can feel my brain facepalming, I guess. :?
Pretty much this.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 15, 2013, 12:35:53 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 14, 2013, 08:29:52 PM
There is one interesting question to be asked here:
If she were still an up-and-coming actress whose career was largely dependent on her looks, would she have made the same choice?
Like the young Miss America contestant who recently went the same route in her early 20's?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57563485/miss-america-contestant-allyn-rose-to-get-double-mastectomy/
Who knows.
Hell yeah. Good on her for not letting all that stuff fuck her perspective up and warp her priorities.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 15, 2013, 10:38:28 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 15, 2013, 12:35:53 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 14, 2013, 08:29:52 PM
There is one interesting question to be asked here:
If she were still an up-and-coming actress whose career was largely dependent on her looks, would she have made the same choice?
Like the young Miss America contestant who recently went the same route in her early 20's?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57563485/miss-america-contestant-allyn-rose-to-get-double-mastectomy/
Who knows.
Hell yeah. Good on her for not letting all that stuff fuck her perspective up and warp her priorities.
Apparently, she's received thousands of letters begging her not to do it and reviling her for her decision. People are pretty awful about this issue, and a lot of them seem to view a woman having a mastectomy like someone's taking their toys away. It's gross.
I mean, I would be sad if I had to make a decision like that, but to have people literally saying they would rather I was dead than not have nice tits is insane.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 15, 2013, 05:18:22 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 15, 2013, 10:38:28 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 15, 2013, 12:35:53 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 14, 2013, 08:29:52 PM
There is one interesting question to be asked here:
If she were still an up-and-coming actress whose career was largely dependent on her looks, would she have made the same choice?
Like the young Miss America contestant who recently went the same route in her early 20's?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57563485/miss-america-contestant-allyn-rose-to-get-double-mastectomy/
Who knows.
Hell yeah. Good on her for not letting all that stuff fuck her perspective up and warp her priorities.
Apparently, she's received thousands of letters begging her not to do it and reviling her for her decision. People are pretty awful about this issue, and a lot of them seem to view a woman having a mastectomy like someone's taking their toys away. It's gross.
Again, brain facepalm.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 15, 2013, 05:18:22 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 15, 2013, 10:38:28 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 15, 2013, 12:35:53 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 14, 2013, 08:29:52 PM
There is one interesting question to be asked here:
If she were still an up-and-coming actress whose career was largely dependent on her looks, would she have made the same choice?
Like the young Miss America contestant who recently went the same route in her early 20's?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57563485/miss-america-contestant-allyn-rose-to-get-double-mastectomy/
Who knows.
Hell yeah. Good on her for not letting all that stuff fuck her perspective up and warp her priorities.
Apparently, she's received thousands of letters begging her not to do it and reviling her for her decision. People are pretty awful about this issue, and a lot of them seem to view a woman having a mastectomy like someone's taking their toys away. It's gross.
You know what, if she's not willing to fight and even die for her tits, she doesn't really deserve them. May as well just cut them off...
(going to go shoot my face off now, kthx)
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 15, 2013, 05:35:10 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 15, 2013, 05:18:22 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 15, 2013, 10:38:28 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 15, 2013, 12:35:53 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on May 14, 2013, 08:29:52 PM
There is one interesting question to be asked here:
If she were still an up-and-coming actress whose career was largely dependent on her looks, would she have made the same choice?
Like the young Miss America contestant who recently went the same route in her early 20's?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57563485/miss-america-contestant-allyn-rose-to-get-double-mastectomy/
Who knows.
Hell yeah. Good on her for not letting all that stuff fuck her perspective up and warp her priorities.
Apparently, she's received thousands of letters begging her not to do it and reviling her for her decision. People are pretty awful about this issue, and a lot of them seem to view a woman having a mastectomy like someone's taking their toys away. It's gross.
You know what, if she's not willing to fight and even die for her tits, she doesn't really deserve them. May as well just cut them off...
(going to go shoot my face off now, kthx)
:lol:
Relevant:
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3424/chest1v.jpg)
(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3473/chest2p.jpg)
Quote from: Hoopla on May 16, 2013, 02:18:39 AM
Relevant:
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3424/chest1v.jpg)
(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3473/chest2p.jpg)
Fucking PERFECT.
Fucking yes.
This is just a weird story. I mean, bravo for her doing what she needs to do to protect her health amd her life but she's not exactly a trailblazer here. And people getting upset at her for her decision is beyond lame.
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/high-cost-angelina-jolies-cancer-testing
QuoteAngelina Jolie wrote an Op-Ed in today's New York Times about her decision to have a double mastectomy. The actress didn't have breast cancer, but tests showed she had almost a 90 percent chance of developing it. The key was finding a mutation in a gene known as BRCA-1, and Jolie appealed for the test to be made more accessible to women around the world.
At the moment, if you want to get tested for a mutation on your BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 genes, you will have to turn to Myriad Genetics. That's the company that discovered the link between those mutations and an elevated risk cancer -- and it patented the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes.
The price tag on a BRCA-1 and BRCA -2 test? More than $4,000.
"Because Myriad has a monopoly on the genetic testing, they determine the cost of that test," says Sandra Park, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Women's Rights Project. Park argued before the Supreme Court last month that Myriad shouldn't be able to patent a gene and control research.
One of the main arguments against gene patents is that they hamper scientific progress.
Now this seems like a conversation worth having. I doubt change is likely but it has always pissed me off that you can patent genes like this.
Quote from: Junkenstein on May 16, 2013, 04:29:48 PM
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/high-cost-angelina-jolies-cancer-testing
QuoteAngelina Jolie wrote an Op-Ed in today's New York Times about her decision to have a double mastectomy. The actress didn't have breast cancer, but tests showed she had almost a 90 percent chance of developing it. The key was finding a mutation in a gene known as BRCA-1, and Jolie appealed for the test to be made more accessible to women around the world.
At the moment, if you want to get tested for a mutation on your BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 genes, you will have to turn to Myriad Genetics. That's the company that discovered the link between those mutations and an elevated risk cancer -- and it patented the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes.
The price tag on a BRCA-1 and BRCA -2 test? More than $4,000.
"Because Myriad has a monopoly on the genetic testing, they determine the cost of that test," says Sandra Park, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Women's Rights Project. Park argued before the Supreme Court last month that Myriad shouldn't be able to patent a gene and control research.
One of the main arguments against gene patents is that they hamper scientific progress.
Now this seems like a conversation worth having. I doubt change is likely but it has always pissed me off that you can patent genes like this.
It's bullshit, and apparently she thinks so too. Sure, she has the 4k to shell out for a test, but the monopoly isn't fair to anyone, really. Not even celebs. Breast cancer is life or death, people, not a cash cow...never mind. America.
Quote from: Suu on May 16, 2013, 04:46:30 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on May 16, 2013, 04:29:48 PM
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/high-cost-angelina-jolies-cancer-testing
QuoteAngelina Jolie wrote an Op-Ed in today's New York Times about her decision to have a double mastectomy. The actress didn't have breast cancer, but tests showed she had almost a 90 percent chance of developing it. The key was finding a mutation in a gene known as BRCA-1, and Jolie appealed for the test to be made more accessible to women around the world.
At the moment, if you want to get tested for a mutation on your BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 genes, you will have to turn to Myriad Genetics. That's the company that discovered the link between those mutations and an elevated risk cancer -- and it patented the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes.
The price tag on a BRCA-1 and BRCA -2 test? More than $4,000.
"Because Myriad has a monopoly on the genetic testing, they determine the cost of that test," says Sandra Park, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Women's Rights Project. Park argued before the Supreme Court last month that Myriad shouldn't be able to patent a gene and control research.
One of the main arguments against gene patents is that they hamper scientific progress.
Now this seems like a conversation worth having. I doubt change is likely but it has always pissed me off that you can patent genes like this.
It's bullshit, and apparently she thinks so too. Sure, she has the 4k to shell out for a test, but the monopoly isn't fair to anyone, really. Not even celebs. Breast cancer is life or death, people, not a cash cow...never mind. America.
Yeah. Monty Burns-like life extension for a few people and the rest of us can die with boobs full of cancer. WE'RE NUMBER #1!!!!!
It's just a little glimpse of the future. The biggest company yet to be created is probably "Legit Cancer Cure Inc" or something similar. Regulation in biotech seems crazy as fuck to me. Between the shit Monsanto and co get away with and now this name becoming substantially more public, it becomes clearer to me that the laws are broken as fuck here.
Example: Company justifies 4K pricetag with insurance covering most and YOU just pay 100 dollars. Groovy right?
What's one of the main reason insurance companies use for price hikes? Increased claims (When not bitching about fraud).
To me, this would just create a cycle where new advances justify price hikes. The procedure may not be mandatory, but surely if offered this test for say 1 dollar, how many would refuse? Forcing people to balance their health against their wallet just hits me as morally fucking wrong. Sacrifice a couple of fucking banks and fund the shit out of medical advances and make them as open to all as possible.
I've had a suspicion for a while that if the global arms and medical spending was switched for 10 years, immortality would be a possibility for those born in the next century. I guess immortality isn't worth really having though.
Quote from: Junkenstein on May 16, 2013, 08:28:24 PM
It's just a little glimpse of the future. The biggest company yet to be created is probably "Legit Cancer Cure Inc" or something similar. Regulation in biotech seems crazy as fuck to me. Between the shit Monsanto and co get away with and now this name becoming substantially more public, it becomes clearer to me that the laws are broken as fuck here.
Example: Company justifies 4K pricetag with insurance covering most and YOU just pay 100 dollars. Groovy right?
What's one of the main reason insurance companies use for price hikes? Increased claims (When not bitching about fraud).
To me, this would just create a cycle where new advances justify price hikes. The procedure may not be mandatory, but surely if offered this test for say 1 dollar, how many would refuse? Forcing people to balance their health against their wallet just hits me as morally fucking wrong. Sacrifice a couple of fucking banks and fund the shit out of medical advances and make them as open to all as possible.
I've had a suspicion for a while that if the global arms and medical spending was switched for 10 years, immortality would be a possibility for those born in the next century. I guess immortality isn't worth really having though.
Once again, I am thinking about David Marusek's fictional dystopian future, in a world owned by corporations headed by a functionally immortal elite.
It seems likely.
Bioscience patents seem to serve only to stifle, rather than promote research. Years ago, someone (I think in Switzerland) isolated a prolific enzyme that was highly transferable via saliva, that prevented tooth decay.
There is negative incentive, under the current research-for-profit environment, for anyone to develop that. If someone owned the genetic patent on the enzyme, they could even prevent publicly-funded labs from developing it.
It disappeared and was never heard of again, so that may have happened.
Some Ms America lady did this recently. She was getting death threats for it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 17, 2013, 05:23:59 PM
Some Ms America lady did this recently. She was getting death threats for it.
ALL YR TITS IS BELONG TO US
/
:rush:
People suck.
Quote from: Suu on May 16, 2013, 04:46:30 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on May 16, 2013, 04:29:48 PM
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/high-cost-angelina-jolies-cancer-testing
QuoteAngelina Jolie wrote an Op-Ed in today's New York Times about her decision to have a double mastectomy. The actress didn't have breast cancer, but tests showed she had almost a 90 percent chance of developing it. The key was finding a mutation in a gene known as BRCA-1, and Jolie appealed for the test to be made more accessible to women around the world.
At the moment, if you want to get tested for a mutation on your BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 genes, you will have to turn to Myriad Genetics. That's the company that discovered the link between those mutations and an elevated risk cancer -- and it patented the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes.
The price tag on a BRCA-1 and BRCA -2 test? More than $4,000.
"Because Myriad has a monopoly on the genetic testing, they determine the cost of that test," says Sandra Park, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Women's Rights Project. Park argued before the Supreme Court last month that Myriad shouldn't be able to patent a gene and control research.
One of the main arguments against gene patents is that they hamper scientific progress.
Now this seems like a conversation worth having. I doubt change is likely but it has always pissed me off that you can patent genes like this.
It's bullshit, and apparently she thinks so too. Sure, she has the 4k to shell out for a test, but the monopoly isn't fair to anyone, really. Not even celebs. Breast cancer is life or death, people, not a cash cow...never mind. America.
There's another side to that.
Give the way our system operates, the companies need to patent, to get any sort of return on their research.
Unless we restructure everything. The brits used to offer prizes to people that solved particular problems (the gear-driven clock, for example, for navigation).