Earlier we noted an interesting juxtaposition. On one hand feminists claim to be deeply concerned about health care and saving lives. On the other hand they promote policies and behaviors that cause increased numbers of deaths. One such example is the relationship between “Breast Cancer and Abortion.” Over at Sigma Frame, Jack writes in “How the Pill Kills” of another. For context, I strongly encourage you to read it before reading my supplemental commentary here.
In the United States, ~700 woman die each year (out of ~4,000,000) from complications related to pregnancy or delivery.[1] By contrast ~250 women die each year (out of ~13,000,000) from VT associated with oral contraceptives.[2] Similarly, the risk of getting VTE while on the pill is about 5x greater than the general population, while about half the risk of getting it while pregnant.[3]
As with breast cancer and abortion, we found that feminists play games with statistics to make it seem as if their policies and behaviors save lives rather than cost them. The same is true here, since these statistics do show that it is somewhat safer to be on oral contraceptives compared to being pregnant. There are multiple problems with this reasoning.
First, being on oral contraceptives is more dangerous than not being on them. It is significantly more dangerous than other pregnancy preventatives, such as breast feeding, NFP, condom use, abstinence, and sterilization. Indeed, the availability of viable alternatives makes oral contraceptives and their associated increased health risks one of pure convenience and choice. Since they are not required to prevent pregnancy, the proper statistical comparison is against the general population.
Second, the risk break-even for oral contraceptives compared to pregnancy is 2 to 10 years—taking the pill for as little as two years is similar in health risk to having a single pregnancy.[4] Even ignoring the first point, correcting for the average fertility rate of women and the number of years on oral contraceptives suggests that the adjusted lifetime risk to women on the pill is equal to or greater than the lifetime risks from pregnancy. Consider, Abbey Parkes, pictured above, who started on the pill at age 14 and was dead at 20. During that time on the pill she experienced roughly the risk of a pregnancy, without reaping any of the health benefits associated with pregnancy or experiencing the joys of marriage and motherhood.
Third, as we saw with breast cancer and abortion, the risk of harm is significantly greater than merely the risk of death. Surviving a negative health event is still a bad thing. The risk of dying compared to the general population is lower than the overall risk of non-death negative health events. Taking oral contraceptives not only threatens death, but also your quality of life.
In summary, we confirm once again that feminism leads to more unnecessary suffering and death in the name of the almighty orgasm. Being on oral contraceptives unnecessarily increases a woman’s risk of death and other negative health effects.
UPDATE: This post has been corrected to eliminate incorrect/unclear statistical inferences.
[1] Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. February 26, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality.htm
[2] Keenan, L., Kerr, T., Duane, M., & Van Gundy, K. (2018). Systematic Review of Hormonal Contraception and Risk of Venous Thrombosis. The Linacre Quarterly, 85(4), 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0024363918816683
[3] Peter Kovacs. “Oral Contraceptives and the Risk for Venous Thromboembolism.” Medscape. Oct 09, 2009 (referencing: van Hylckama Vlieg A, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JP, Doggen CJ, Rosendaal FR, “The Venous Thrombotic Risk of Oral Contraceptives, Effects of Oestrogen Dose and Progestogen Type: Results of the MEGA Case-Control Study”, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) 2009 339:b2921).
[4] This is an estimate: pill use and pregnancy have different and varied side effects. Age plays a factor as well. It is also for comparison only: as per the first point, all real risk is relative to the general population.
Some excellent arguments against the Pill here. But we’ve only scratched the surface. It’s a lot worse. I have some more posts coming.
And that’s just the physical risks…it also doesn’t describe how it changes a woman’s sense of smell and brain function to choose a man who is closer to her genetically (i.e. a weaker man).
I look forward to that and appreciate the in-depth analysis.
I suspect that the impact of the pill on, say, breast cancer, is higher than feminist-friendly publications claim. I suspect that the number of pill related deaths is also much higher. You will inform us about various ways that it is much worse.
The reason I prefer to cite feminist-friendly statistics is because you can prove that feminism is harmful even before considering the unbiased evidence. Even the hardened skeptic must agree if he wants to keep his intellectual integrity.
I guarentee breast cancer is higher on the pill. The way they market it is…the company sells the pill and also is ‘researching’ for the cure to breast cancer.
Susan Komen…I’m looking at you.
https://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/CurrentorRecentUseofBirthControlPills.html
@earl
As per usual, feminists misuse statistics. This is the classic misuse of the relative vs absolute distinction in statistics. They are arguing that because the breast cancer risk is still relatively low that the absolute risk is unimportant. Or put another way, it’s okay if greater numbers of young women die (in absolute terms), so long as they don’t die in greater quantities than older women (in relative terms). This really is insidiously evil.
Basically even in the feminist home field advantage of Susan Komen shows you increase your chance of cancer by 20-30 % that should be enough to show that either the figure is much higher…or why would you knowingly take something that increases your risk of cancer by that much.
I mean a 20-30% jump in cancer risk would be enough for me to say…no thanks.
As I’ve been formally made unwelcome there, I’d prefer not to. This is a handicap of sorts, because it’s entirely possible that this article might be justified by some references offsite.
250 out of 7.6 billion people on planet earth? 250 out of 330 million Americans? Either way, that paints hormonal birth control as an incredibly safe regimen. Compare how many people die by auto accident, drinking alcohol, or taking ibuprofen, and you’ll see what I mean.
I agree that feminists are annoying when they try to slant research. It annoys me even more when you play games with statistics, as you’re doing here, because I am footing the bill for it.
Crossing the street is much more dangerous than staying indoors all day. The statistics bear this out, despite the fact that my risks approach zero in either scenario.
Don’t take this as a personal attack. I’m just laying out the fact that this entire article is a series of weak and unsound arguments. You’ve basically plagiarized from the Catholic ideologues, who have stolen all their points from those anti-vaccination people. In a world where all sorts of filthy people can hop on a plane and be within breathing distance from me, I’m grateful that my parents accepted the real-but-tiny risk and saved me the trouble of cholera and whooping cough.
I realize this may be accurate, but this isn’t the Dalrock or Heartiste blog. We post peer-reviewed journal articles to back up such points.
Vaccinations are meant to stop diseases that affect the body negatively…oral contraception is meant to stop a natural function healthy women have.
I got them from the Susan Komen website.
Basic common sense would tell you pumping a healthy body full of artificial hormones isn’t going to do the body or health a lot of good. Exhibit A…guys on artificial steroids.
I realize that.
A giant part of what irks me is the background knowledge that both of you characters (including Derek) know better than to do this stuff. I expect this nonsense from the losers in Roissy’s comment section, but you have a far different standing, and my expectations are far higher.
I just went over to the databases and did your homework for you. You’re probably right, in that there’s some vanishingly tiny increase in breast cancer risk for users of oral contraceptives. Interestingly, there appears to be a much more significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk for the same users. By your logic (and Derek’s), hormonal birth control could easily be painted as something that is beneficial and good for you.
While on my June 2017 Adirondack Mountain “Northville-Placid Trail” hike (10 days / nine nights) I started smoking cigarettes again. I had dropped them for almost eight years. According to the experts I am going to die early anyway because I am not married, don’t have children and don’t have robust, healthy, frequent sex life. I am going to die early because I don’t have authentic, real male friendships like everyone evidently does. I am going to die earlier because I live in California. I am going to die before others because I am not overweight, but I am not a “healthy enough weight” according to them. I am going to die earlier because of past drug abuse. I am going to die earlier because my ego isn’t the size of god and I evidently have “low self esteem” and finally I am going to die earlier than other men because I came from a home and was exposed to cigarette smoke as a child (dad smoked until he was about 65). I remember pop reading to me in his chair, while I sat on his lap…cigarette always burning in the ashtray….
They taste good, they kept the vicious mosquitoes down and more at bay……and it fits my pre 1966 lifestyle.
My contrarian self asks this question about all the “risks” of The Pill, and I agree there are many…..and many more than have not even been brought up .. is this
So……all the players and amazing christian men out there who had lots of premarital sex before meeting their saintly, and virginal wife……..was every girl they were ever with NOT on The Pill. Condoms only used? Never going “bareback” or if they did was it because because she was at her safe time of the month? Do these men regret this? If their own daughter went on The Pill would it suddenly be “well, she needs to be safe….and not have an accident….” and justify it through “god loves her despite her choices we disagree with”? Why is it that so many deeply religious, and christian families (be them catholic, protestant or orthodox only have two children?). All these manly men getting the snip at 35?
Not being an ass here, but getting up in the morning is deadly and has some risk…..and doctors (rolls eyes)……they tell you a lot of things
Here’s what fembots think is healthy ..
Bronx Zoo lion: Woman who taunted Bronx Zoo lion inside enclosure has been identified as Myah Autry – CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/myah-autry-bronx-zoo-woman-who-taunted-lion-inside-enclosure-has-been-identified-by-nypd/
Study here tweet and tell me what you think ..
I’m not shocked to see Earl backing this drivel, as he basis his perception of reality solely on the RCC and rejects outright anything that may conflict on those grounds alone.
But Derek surprises me, and I suspect that unlike Earl, he actually understands just how intellectually dishonest this post is but is hoping no one else will so that his point will stand.
When compared to decisions we make every day, even “unnecessary” ones, birth control comes up very safe – think transportation, outdoor hobbies, dietary choices, etc.
You can look it up…studies have shown oral contraception affect a woman’s mind, smell, and mate choices. Has nothing to do with what the church says about it. Many women have told me the had various bad side effects from taking it…that has nothing to do with the church.
What the church said about it is in Humanae Vitae…and basically all the consequences have occurred. Lower moral standards, objectification, and government intervention between a husband and wife.
‘Consequences of Artificial Methods
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings.and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation.need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.’
Well I don’t know why that irks you…all I did was research those things…and I didn’t really have to because I’m a guy. Basically the function of them is to pump hormones into a woman’s body and trick it into thinking it’s pregnant.
I feel the same way about anti-depression medication…those things mess with your hormones too.
The RCC position on birth control (which isn’t limited to oral hormones, mind you) is shockingly well thought out and pretty easily defensible. That’s why I find the whole “birth control causes rabies, autism and AIDS” arguments (which I often see by Catholic believers on the internet) are so ironic. They are unnecessary.
Sex is a regulated ritual in most religions. Catholics should just say “we have these rules and we follow them.” End of.
Irrelevant to your original point re: breast cancer. That would be a far more interesting article, by the way. I’d love to see someone explore it.
I spent about 10 minutes (that I’ll never get back) perusing that woman’s instagram feed. She’s one of those tragic cases of wimminz who would be attractive if they weren’t all full of “attitude”. She’s about 6 feet tall and is only slightly overweight (by my standards.) If she lost the weave, ditched the fake blue contact lenses, lasered off the distgusting skank-ho tatt, and adopted an attractive air of modesty, I’d be one of the first in line to ask her out. As it is, I think she looks and talks like a disgusting bull dyke. I doubt I’m the only one.
Edit: Note also how her man is forced to apologize for her to what I assume to be the zoo security people. “I’m sorry… I told her not to go over and she doesn’t listen to me…” Someone get that fella an account here, huh? I’ll set him straight.
@Boxer and Mich
I’m not surprised that others noticed, although it does bother me that I disappointed. I wrote this too quickly and made a few mistakes in the process. That’s on me, and I’ll have to own up to it. As a result, I will need to make some corrections to the OP.
My “First” point in the article is correct and needs no retraction or correction. The pill is more dangerous than not taking the pill and the risks are non-trivial. I suppose I could have gone into more detail other than linking to the source material.
The incidence numbers listed are for the U.S. The pregnancy death risk is ~750/4,000,000 per year (“CDC”) and the risk of death from various forms of VT is ~250/13,000,000 per year (see: “Systematic Review of Hormonal Contraception and Risk of Venous Thrombosis”). This does not include all causes of death related to the pill, so the wording in the OP is incorrect. Of note is that the absolute incident rates are not equivalent, which is misleading. Thus, my “Second” point partially incorrect. The overall conclusion is correct, but not how I stated it. I will need to reformulate this section.
As Boxer correctly pointed out, dying from either pregnancy or the pill is quite rare. From a relative standpoint, there are many more dangerous things that we can do, like drive a car. My retort is that deaths due to pill use are preventable without any significant tradeoffs. By contrast, it is almost impossible to further reduce the death rate due to pregnancy because there is no single cause. As I pointed out in the article on breast cancer, the death rate is essentially statistical noise.
There is a reason I mentioned both death and non-death health impacts of pill use. As I stated in my “Third” point, death is not the only negative effect. The other problems relating to the pill are considerably less negligible and non-trivial. The 5x increase in VTE risk (5 in 10,000) is just one of many negative side effects. Death is not the most significant problem with pill use.
Yes. The Sigma Frame post is referenced with peer reviewed articles and some credentialed commentary. It covers the topic in a more detailed manner than I did. It provides the context for my post, which is merely a supplement. Incidentally, he touches on some of the topics that earl has mentioned.
A 20-30% increase (as reported by a biased source) is not a vanishingly thin difference. Further, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi disputes your claim regarding breast vs ovarian cancer: “6 times more breast cancer in women than uterine and ovarian cancers combined.”
As I’ve stated, I deliberately choose statistics that make my claims appear weaker to help shield them from accusations of bias. IMO, the real situation is much worse than I am portraying. When you factor in strokes, heart attacks, VT, cancer, etc., the all-cause death from the pill may be much more significant.
The bottom line is that the pill increases your health risks compared to not taking the pill (first point), it gives you similar or worse health risks to pregnancy with none of the benefits (second point), and the health risks of harm includes much more than death (third point).
This is largely a strawman. I care about the millions of babies killed by abortion as well as the hundreds of women killed by the pill. Life is life. Still, should we care about negative, but rare, things? I think easily avoidable negative consequences are relevant, no matter how small and ‘unimportant’. If you could, for example, identify a single cause of mass school shootings and a corresponding trivial, low-impact solution, it would be as equally worthy of discussion.
I care if 700 women die due to pregnancy related issues. Debate feminists about abortion and they’ll cite this risk to the mother. But this is logically just as (ir)relevant as pill risk, yet they only cite the former. Unlike feminists, I also care if a few hundred women a year die because they chose to be on the pill. Those are real people with real families and real relationships. Feminist hypocrisy is one reason why I wrote this piece.
You can pay no attention to low probability events. That doesn’t make those who do intellectually dishonest.
Dear Derek:
Please see inside text.
You titled your article: Feminism Will Kill You, which entails two claims:
1. Feminists are the people prescribing birth control.
2. Birth control (at least the hormones-by-mouth you name in your thesis) will kill those who take it.
These are very strong claims. Neither of these claims are true.
I made no claim, and I wrote carefully. If you read my reply, you’ll note: “By your logic (and Derek.s).”
What that means is that if I were as prone to attempt rhetoric with unsound arguments and appeals to emotion as you guys are, I could make such a claim. I wouldn’t do this, for obvious reasons.
I will also note, just for the benefit of any readers, that Derek is a photographer and a computer scientist. I’m a freakin’ math teacher. Neither of us have the authority to tell anyone anything in re: medicine or biology. Anyone who has questions about the safety of their prescription needs to seek the advice of a qualified professional (and not on an internet message board).
Best,
Boxer
The last time I went to Sigma Frame, I followed a backlink to an article talking about how some asshole named Boxer was encouraging people to use their real names, and plotting to gather information on his commenters for real-world harassment. Naturally, this pulitzer-worthy article lacked any screenshots, quotes, or other evidence at all to support such fanciful theories.
Aside from you, I noticed a whopping three other people had commented on the Boxer expos?, two of whom were banned (long ago) from this blog for being low-quality poasters and troublemakers.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t blindly accept the Sigma Frame blog as an unimpeachable source for anything.
My understanding of the doctrine of the church suggests that intent is part of the equation. The supplements used for birth control are also prescribed for a wide variety of female medical problems. Isn’t it the church’s position to hold such patients harmless?
Whelp .. seems one of the herd is trying to steer th’ herd harder off course ..
‘You don’t have to settle’: the joy of living (and dying) alone | Keli Goff | Opinion | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/13/you-dont-have-to-settle-the-joy-of-living-and-dying-alone
and
Well fella’s .. th wimminz are copy-cats and it seems that they know a good thing when they see it .. MGTOW
Okay you got us .. we’re so screwed now .. but I’ll warn ya’ .. you wimminz can threaten me with a good time all you want .. HEH
If there was ever a “great male conspiracy” against women. I certainly wasn’t invited as were just about all men. Why? Because most of us were working. Women seem to think everything was just handed to men, and that was it. There was a flood at my property last night. AC unit on the roof………supply line broke. Water everywhere.
I was up on the roof with the crew at 10PM last night. I was calling affected tenants immediately. I had our insurance agent on standby. I was reassuring my clients that we’re on it. I had restoration work / company in immediately.
Similar thing happened at another property in San Francisco a few months back. Managed by a woman through “equal opportunity” and the water ran all night. She wasn’t “on the clock” and it wasn’t “in her contract” to handle such things off business hours. The damage was extensive. Not her fault. She was quoting “my contract! my contract!”
Being a “leader” or the “boss” means sometimes that you will have to be the one to indeed lead. That is your job. You will need to make do, think, and handle it. Your customers are looking to you. Not your contract. You need to use your skills that you were hired to use to keep the customer satisfied, and protect the asset you indeed were hired to protect (in my case, this property that was built in 1986).
She wasn’t fired or reprimanded. She in fact was “given more staff” to handle ‘on call’ situations like this. So, we’re going to give “part time people” who don’t have the skills evidently the responsibility of what she is supposed to be handling. I am sure at her review she followed the “cosmo magazine” lines of “I deserve a big merit increase. I look sexy in an office all day. I am a top performer!!!”
There are ugly rumors that she has had “inappropriate relationships” with customers (good looking male clients who rent there) on her property. If these rumors are filtering 50 miles north to my property……there may be truth in some of them.
I got into bed at 3AM, up at 5AM so I can be at my desk shaven, shirt and tie and to start a very long day. I am also “on salary” which means, I am the one who is responsible.
Women here in California anyway in any leadership position or one with some authority like the title. Like to virtue signal how they are “standing up” to this imaginary patriarchy, but “don’t make it tooooooooo hard” and when difficulties come out comes the “I’m just a girl……….” and deflection again to some strange mindset that incels, and men like me are responsible for her failure.
Same in the man-o-sphere ironically. I am a beta, a low status male, have no power, average intelligence, never had sexual prowness, no influence, not a dad…….not articulate….and yet…I’m the guy who is “messing things up” for the whole movement and all these other men who supposedly are the “big monkeys” and are “leaders”
As if
I read this as a nod to the “great feminist conspiracy” that often gets worked in the androsphere generally, and I assume that Sigma Frame (with help from Derek) is constructing just such a theory now.
Positioning feminists as the evil geniuses behind all the wrongs in society serves to drive traffic, but it isn’t historically accurate. Most wimminz who describe themselves as feminists are mental cases. Feminism as a social movement is not coherent, until it’s appreciated as a consequence of late-stage capitalism, where most of the people in such an unfortunate society are hopelessly atomized, living as cogs in a giant machine they neither like nor understand. In context, feminism is a symptom, rather than a cause, of fundamental problems, and the National Organization for Women has more in common with the Heaven’s Gate suicide cult than to any sinister cabal (illuminati, jews, masons) who is supposedly pulling strings behind the scenes.
For what its worth, I almost completely agree with this. Among my main points is that feminism is incoherent, in both logical and organizational senses. But perhaps more importantly, feminism is a symptom. However, any attempt to debate its root cause on this platform of yours is typically met with significant disagreement and division. Frankly, I was not ready to dedicate the time necessary to explore that topic in more depth publicly, but I have been exploring it personally for a number of years. I was not and am not sure if such a topical deviation matches the purpose of your blog.
The purpose of this blog is to serve as a platform for men. Whether I personally agree with the content of your article is fodder for the comments section beneath it.
You should publish whatever you are prepared to argue, my brother. Some will agree, and some won’t, and that’s how it should be.
Reblogged this on Free Matt Podcasts and commented:
***I found this article to be insightful and backed up by statistical reference. I would suggest reading it and its references. It presents a side that is seldom found in the media. And yes; someone aka “ramman 3000″wrote it. Its the weekend and I don’t feel like writing.***
Apparently 18 of the top 21 most wanted in the EU are wimminz ..
https://news.yahoo.com/europol-says-women-equally-capable-161633519.html
But that’s none of my business .. heh
This is interesting .. FemBots demand free speech rights for themselves but have zero tolerance for others same rights .. in fact they call ALL speech that doesn’t agree with their feelz “hate speech”.
Example 8,123,456,789 ..
https://apnews.com/edeed61321fa46e48af94246869cb47b
She’s not a victim and her mom is thrilled. She screamed “fire” in a crowded school and called it free speech.
I bet if an “It’s OKAY to be WHITE” poster had been posted by a boy in that school no-one would think-it to be free speech.
I guess we can chaulk this up to .. “Wimminz will be Wimminz”.
I’m at the point now were we removal ALL rights from th wimminz.
Mom of th’ year material ..
Texas gun control activist shoots her three children dead
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/a-waste-texas-gun-control-activist-shoots-her-three-children-dead-in-murder-suicide
Oh how th’ msm fawn over their own spawn of evil.
Texas mom Ashley Auzenne shot dead three children before killing herself as she was ‘upset’ over terms of divorce | MEAWW
https://meaww.com/ashley-auzenne-shot-children-death-murder-suicide-houston-texas-deer-park-upset-terms-of-divorce