Movember
As there seems to be a large number of us blokes posting on this site, this may be of interest. I seem to remember a certain former Assistant Green Party Campaign Manager who grew quite a beautiful example of a mo last Movember.
Movember - Changing the face of Men’s Health
Movember (the month formally known as November) is a charity event held during November each year.
At the start of Movember guys register with a clean shaven face. The Movember participants known as Mo Bros then have the remainder of the month to grow and groom their moustache and along the way raise as much money and awareness about male health issues as possible.
But it’s not all fun and games, so why the extreme behaviour?
Which ever way we look at it, men are far less healthy than women. The average life expectancy of a man in New Zealand is 4 years less than a woman.Â
The obvious question is why?
The answer is because men lack awareness about the very real health issue they face, have an attitude of “she’ll be right” and are reluctant to see a doctor about an illness or to go for regular medical checks.
The aim of Movember is to change these attitudes, make male health fun by putting the Mo back on the face of New Zealand men and in the process raise some serious funds for the number one male health issue, prostate cancer.
Every year in New Zealand 2,656 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 600 die of the disease, making prostate cancer the second largest cause of male cancer deaths, after lung cancer.
Movember is very proud to be partnering with the Prostate Cancer Foundation of New Zealand [ www.prostate.org.nz ].
October 25th, 2007 at 11:29 am
The ‘why’ answer is one of reasons, but not the whole story. Males (of numerous species) have to bear a biological cost when competing for mates.
Of course, the competition is probably that little bit harder when sporting moustaches.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
This coming form a party much more intrested in feminism then anything to do with mens rights. This coming from a party who considers white males to be the most lucky beings on earth, and therefore they much be punished!
I seem to remember when the national party donated a large sum of money to the womans refuge they got attacked by the left (mainly labour tho)! If then greens do anything to celebrate Movember i will reach a bucket to vomit in.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Vomiting with a mo is a rather messy activity, but if that’s your thing, Nick, over to you.
Russel, will any of the greens be mo-ing it up over the next month? Any other non-green MPs?
October 25th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
But of course molly, Pol Pots right hand man Kieth Locke
October 25th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Nick C, if any current MP could be called Pol Pot’s right hand man, it would have to be Winston Peters. I think he’s the only survivor from the National Government of 1975-84 that persisited in recognising the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate Government of Cambodia throughout those years, despite their horrific genocidal policies.
Keith, by contrast, after initially supporting the overthrow of the former corrupt Cambodian regime by the Khmer Rouge, then campaigned against New Zealand’s recognition of the Khmer Rouge once the horror of their genocidal policies was revealed to the world.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Oh, come on Toad, this is really pathetic spin. Not to recognise a government when they are clearly ruling over a country is denial. We recognise the military government in Burma not because we support them but because know that they are in fact the government. Locke on the other hand wrote articles supporting the military takeover, even though it was not through democracy. He also supported the soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, but condemned the American invasion in 2001. But of course its ok when the communists are doing it (the greater good)! someone make him an honarary citizen of the peoples republic of communism immediatly. Oh i forgot, other then North Korea communism has been destroyed, too bad.
October 25th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Keith also admitted he was wrong. What somebody believes in 1980 when they were young and naive really can’t be used against them in 2007. People do change their views. If they didn’t there would be no point in having debates at all, and we have all been wasting our time writing on this blog.
October 25th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Eh? No point in having debate? What about those of us who dont change their views so radically over time (from supporting military takeover to condemning stun guns). Well i suppose one could say he still supports violence to achieve goals. He didnt want to go after Bin Laden in afghanastan after 9/11, and he is clearly more interested in the rights of terrorists then of terrorism victims.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Um, Nick, isn’t “going after bin Laden in afghanistan after 9/11″ violence? The US-led campaign was to kill him, rather than to arrest and try him before a competent Court.
The non-violence Green principle cuts both ways - it is not just violence of dissident groups against state power that should be condemned - we also need to be just as vigilant against state violence against individuals or dissident groups, be their actions violent or non-violent.
Lets get past the “glory of war” mentality, and try to negotiate some solutions. If there had been a genuine effort by the major powers to achieve a consensus solution to Middle-Eastern conflicts, rather than to expolit those conflicts in their own economic interests, Osama bin Laden would be an isolated nobody today, rather than someone who, in the eyes of many around the world, commands the only hope of resistance of ordinary people to Bush’s “War against Terror” (which is really just a euphemism for a campaign to entrench US military and economic domination over the rest of the world).
October 26th, 2007 at 11:01 am
This is a typical left wing response. Blame men for everything. Where is the public campaign for men to take a PSA test? We here about the government funded study which shows that 1 in 4 women have been sexually abused before they were 16. No comparable study for men. I believe there is only one organisation in Christchurch that catered for men who had been sexually abused as boys. That nearly was forced to close down through lack of government funding. Compare that with all the funding for women’s refuges.
If female suicide was four times as high as men’s we would hear about. Instead we hear the reason is because men are more violent. In other words – it is men’s fault.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:47 am
The non-violence Green principle cuts both ways - it is not just violence of dissident groups against state power that should be condemned - we also need to be just as vigilant against state violence against individuals-Toad
No it doesnt, the greens seem to care more about terrorists rights then those of terrorist victims. The U.S. didn’t provoke 9/11, the terrorists were attacking the American ideology of freedom. So America, or more spesifically George Bush decided to find Bin Laden and his cronies in Afghanistan. Using the doctrine of ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’ the left backed the terrorists rights ahead of America’s right to fight back. I wont defend the Iraq war, but Locke was against the invasion of afghanistan in 2001, and seems to condem the U.S. much more then he has ever spoken out against Bin Laden.
We have a word for that, traitor. If this was WW2 Locke would have been sent to jail for treason.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Nick C Says:
October 27th, 2007 at 11:47 am
>No it doesnt, the greens seem to care more about terrorists rights then those of terrorist victims. The U.S. didn’t provoke 9/11, the terrorists were attacking the American ideology of freedom.
Funny, Al Qaeda have never said that in any of their broadcast statements - they’ve always talked about their hatred of US policies with regard to the middle-east. Also, it’s worth noting that they attacked the Pentagon, a symbol of military might, and the world trade centre, a symbol of economic influence. If they were attacking an ideology of freedom, you’d think they’d have crashed those planes into symbols of freedom, such as the Statue of Liberty, Hollywood or the Capitol.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
# Nick C Says:
October 25th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
> He didnt want to go after Bin Laden in afghanastan after 9/11, and he is clearly more interested in the rights of terrorists then of terrorism victims.
You may not have noticed, but ‘going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan’ didn’t actually work. They haven’t caught him. A better first step would have been to try negotiating with the Taleban to get them to hand him over for trial. The Taleban said they were willing to hand him over for trial in ‘a neutral muslim country’ and it would have been worth negotiating with them to at least see of they meant it. But no, not only did the US not try talking to the Taleban, they also threatened to treat Pakistan as an enemy if the Pakistani government tried talking to the Taleban. As a result, Bin Laden is still out there, and his followers are still following him.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Chuck, the Greens didn’t do that research. I think it was an international comparison, which is why it only studied women, which is unfortunate, though other research has studied men and women.
And Sue Bradford was the MP who campaigned to change the law to put sexual assault of men (by men or women) on the same serious level as sexual assault of women. That’s a piece of information that may not fit with your prejudices, but it’s true nonetheless.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Nick C said: … the terrorists were attacking the American ideology of freedom
Are you serious, Nick? The highest imprisonment rate in the world, the USA Patriot Act, indefinite detention without trial, Guantanamo Bay, the best elections that money can buy (and sufficient corruption in the electoral system to steal the election when money doesn’t do the trick), public confidence in the electoral system such that less than 60% of the voting age population have bothered to vote in every Presidential or Congressional election since 1968, a Vice-President who lies to Congress to embark on an illegal war and refuses to be accountable to either the Congress or the Courts and gets away with it all, a President who authorises an illegal phone tapping programme and gets away with it…
I’d like to think you were being sarcastic Nick, but somehow I fear you were actually serious. The last time the USA espoused an “ideology of freedom” was when Franklin D Rooseveldt was President.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I think the difference between us is that I (for example) see the US as having gotten into its present position through pursuing a blinkered self interest , but there is enough divergence in thought from the top down to eventually take a step back (ie even the craziest neocon can only go so far). The left seem to see more of a dark force (capitalism?).
October 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
So who’s the next FDR who will rescue the US for its blinkered self interest, jh? I can’t see Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton taking your “step back”, any more than Hillary’s husband did.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Not a democrat anyway toad. First of all Hillary is more interested in playing identity politics (vote for me, im a woman). Obama wants to invade Pakistan (seriously). I would say that we need a real conservative to sort out America’s problems, Bush is too tarnished by the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina etc. Guliani or Romney will do the job nicely.
And speaking of rampant social engineering by the green party we have had the first home invasion by CYF for smacking by a normal parent in a normal family. Apparently she smacked her son on the hand and the school dobbed her in. Her family will be torn to pieces by the media
And so it begins. Now off to watch CSI.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
It’s just like the climate change debate Toad. We must act but not at the moment. The difficulty is selling the message to the people… The US (and NZ) has painted itself into a corner as Knustler says in End of Suburia : “the greatest missallocation of resources in the history of the world”… people need fuel to go to work etc… there’s no sinister plot, [no I’ll revise that] …there is a sinister plot from vested interests but there is a counter acting force and we can thank the institution of free speech and democracy for that..
October 28th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Nick C said: we have had the first home invasion by CYF for smacking by a normal parent in a normal family
Now, Nick, that’s a bit over the top. It has all worked out as I predicted it would. The Police & CYFS were informed of two incidents relating to the same child, in each case they invesigated by interviewing the parent responsible and considered the assault to be inconsequential, no further action was taken, no charges laid, no-one criminalised, no-one’s children removed.
Good to see the Police doing their job properly BTW, given some of their other activities that have been highlighted in recent months. No “home invasion”, no warrant, just a run of the mill interview conducted with consent of the interviewee. This whole story is a beat-up (pardon the pun), instigated by McCroskie and his fundy Christian brethren (small “b”).
October 28th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
jh said: We must act but not at the moment. … “the greatest missallocation of resources in the history of the worldâ€?… people need fuel to go to work etc…
I agree with the second part, jh , but not the first. We must act now to rectify the misallocation. Let’s start with public transport, public transport and public transport!
October 28th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
jh said: We must act but not at the moment….
I meant that as a typical response as governments don’t want to bite the bullet.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Toad, public transport is a waste of time when government’s have legislated for densities of less than 10 dwellings per acre. You must start with infill housing, infill housing, infill housing. Then apertments, apartments, apartments everywhere. Then, and only then, will you have solid foundations for effective and efficient public transport.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Yes, Kevin, we do need greater housing density, especially on major public transport routes like the Auckland and Wellington rail networks. We also need greater housing density to avoid the ever-expanding city syndrome that results in people having to live further and furher away from where they work.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:58 am
Toad, If only local architects and property developers would spend their holidays in European cites or villages we might see urban densification done with enough style and panache to overcome the “shoebox” objections. And why do we insist on living in sprawling single story houses? So energy inefficient, so land inefficient. The backyard on “Men Behaving Badly” is probably as big as anything in most Kiwi suburbs. Terraced housing is a fantastic way of minimising infrastucture costs per household and shrinking travel distances to shops and schools.