Quote: (05-14-2013 12:43 PM)The Patriarch Wrote:That's why I quoted the "empowered" statement. For most women, having a double mastectomy is more devastating than the cancer diagnosis itself. For most women, you don't get to pick and choose what to keep and what to discard. "Oh, let me see, I'll keep the nipple, and just scoop out and throw away the filling inside." For most women, they hack it off and carve away some of the pectoral muscle as well. The only thing they get to keep is a 6"-10" scar that can run from their sternum to their armpit. For most women, insurance won't cover what I imagine is a rather expensive reconstructive procedure.
She used the word "empowered" in that NYT statement,, so don't think for a second that her decision wasn't partially ego-driven. Her sick soul gets off on setting new trends and creating meaningful legacy for herself while cementing her position as a modern feminist icon in the process. Except larger hoopla not warranted coz w/the implants it's nothing Hollywood hasn't seen before. Much ado about nothing in the Matrix.
I'm not sure. Maybe it was a smart thing to do. I don't know enough about cancer and genetics to make a decision. What I do know is that her experience is highly atypical when compared to that of common folk, and women would be foolish to think she's somehow a role model for doing this.