(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   British school won't allow boy to grow Movember moustache because other students are incapable: by which they mean females and kids under 13

15 Nov 2012 11:39 PM   |   6115 clicks   |   Sun News Network
Showing 1-46 of 46 comments
Refresh
sno man    [TotalFark]  
I wonder if the school has a track team... and if this all inclusive thing keeps that team from regionals always...

15 Nov 2012 10:19 PM
Tr0mBoNe    [TotalFark]  
I found a pic of their school mascot:

img211.imageshack.usView Full Size

15 Nov 2012 10:25 PM
namatad    [TotalFark]  

sno man: I wonder if the school has a track team... and if this all inclusive thing keeps that team from regionals always...


no competitive sports teams
no chess team
no long hair for girls
no skirts/dresses for girls
no bras for girls
this list gets pretty silly pretty quick

15 Nov 2012 11:03 PM
SapperInTexas     
What will they do come Vajanuary?

15 Nov 2012 11:41 PM
ilikeracecars     
Gus Hooker. With that name you're either going to be shaving your mustache at nine or your legs at 15.

15 Nov 2012 11:42 PM
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  
Facial hair looks ridiculous. Movember is pure, distilled hipsterism at its worst.

This boy's parents ought to teach him better.

15 Nov 2012 11:43 PM
DarkPascual     
Well, I've known women with rather enviable mustaches...

/Shudders at the memory...
//Been able to shave at 9? Im 29 and barely can grow a Cantinflas...

15 Nov 2012 11:45 PM
onestr8     
Family comments in comments are better than the article.

15 Nov 2012 11:47 PM
phalamir     
I thought the point of a British school was to forbid random things. Hell, Eton is Eton because they deny you lube at the opening day rape by the Head Master. Harrow is Harrow because they forbid any meat to be consumed except that of the children of those making less than 50,000 pounds sterling a year

15 Nov 2012 11:48 PM
JasonOfOrillia    [TotalFark]  
Kid is awesome if he can grow good facial hair at that age. Movember is fun.

lh4.googleusercontent.comView Full Size

15 Nov 2012 11:52 PM
Lenny.Bostoch     
Next rule:
Girls will not be allowed to grow breasts because the boys and very young girls (

15 Nov 2012 11:57 PM
HotWingAgenda    [TotalFark]  

namatad: sno man: I wonder if the school has a track team... and if this all inclusive thing keeps that team from regionals always...

no competitive sports teams
no chess team
no long hair for girls
no skirts/dresses for girls
no bras for girls
this list gets pretty silly pretty quick


Puberty itself is pretty much banned, then.

16 Nov 2012 12:00 AM
Lenny.Bostoch     
Next rule:
Girls will not be allowed to grow breasts because the boys and very young girls ( less then 10) can't

(I had a less then sign in the Boobies and all the text after it disappeared)

16 Nov 2012 12:00 AM
turbidum     
Am I the only one who thinks "Movember" sounds like a nickname for Gay Pride Month?

16 Nov 2012 12:04 AM
WhippingBoy     
Moustaches are just another way for the oppressive hegemonic patriarchy to oppress women.

16 Nov 2012 12:15 AM
KrispyKritter     
Britain? of course a 13 yr old schoolboy is forbidden from moostache. If he wants to dance about in ladies garments and have a full bore sex change that's no problem, they'll make the taxpayers pick up the tab. But no facial hair. sorry lad.

16 Nov 2012 12:16 AM
Gyrfalcon    [TotalFark]  

Lenny.Bostoch: Next rule:
Girls will not be allowed to grow breasts because the boys and very young girls ( less then 10) can't

(I had a less then sign in the Boobies and all the text after it disappeared)


And obviously boys may not have penises...same reason?

This could be the dumbest rule ever.

16 Nov 2012 12:16 AM
RatMaster999     

WhippingBoy: Moustaches are just another way for the oppressive

hedgemonic patriarchy to oppress women.

FTFY

16 Nov 2012 12:17 AM
SpaceAgeTomato     
physics.uq.edu.auView Full Size
 

/awesome

16 Nov 2012 12:17 AM
UncleStumpy     
Britain has officially passed the United States in terms of stupid policies.

actually, I think they did this awhile ago, but this story pushes them to lead near impossible to give up

16 Nov 2012 12:20 AM
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  

SpaceAgeTomato:  

/awesome


I guess there's some minor satisfaction in telling off someone in a public forum rather than in private even when it ends up shedding more light on the thing you prefer to keep covered up. A pyrrhic victory in many ways.

16 Nov 2012 12:24 AM
MFAWG    [TotalFark]  

JasonOfOrillia: Kid is awesome if he can grow good facial hair at that age. Movember is fun.

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 480x640]


I haven't done the stache only for 20 or so years. Going old school, just past the corners and no lower than the bottom of the lower lip.

static.movember.comView Full Size

16 Nov 2012 12:39 AM
HotWingAgenda    [TotalFark]  

SpaceAgeTomato: [physics.uq.edu.au image 438x805] 

/awesome


Wait... so Paul comments approving of the article, and Harrie (another son?) decides to publicly biatch about the article for mentioning Paul? Harrie is a twat.

16 Nov 2012 12:39 AM
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  

HotWingAgenda: SpaceAgeTomato: [physics.uq.edu.au image 438x805] 

/awesome

Wait... so Paul comments approving of the article, and Harrie (another son?) decides to publicly biatch about the article for mentioning Paul? Harrie is a twat.


I have the feeling that Harrie is Paul's ex wife. Paul Sr Is Harrie's father. Gus is the chIld of Paul Jr and Harrie.

16 Nov 2012 12:47 AM
Someothermonkey     
www.contentmediacorp.comView Full Size


Does not approve.

16 Nov 2012 12:53 AM
snailbarf     
www.freeimagehosting.netView Full Size


I'm keeping it sleazy with mine this Movember.

Someone even called it a "molestache"

16 Nov 2012 01:05 AM
Mock26     
Somehow I do not think that the school has the same attitude about money. I mean, I bet that they do not ban iPhones from school property because some kids cannot afford them.

16 Nov 2012 01:34 AM
Sum Dum Gai     

AverageAmericanGuy: Facial hair looks ridiculous. Movember is pure, distilled hipsterism at its worst.


Facial hair is awesome (and I'm no hipster).

On the other hand, Movember is just dumb. Nobody should be encouraging prostate cancer screening. It has been demonstrated to have no benefit, and in fact causes harm.

Know the symptoms, go to the doctor when you have them, but unless that happens, don't worry about prostate cancer.

16 Nov 2012 01:42 AM
iheartscotch    [TotalFark]  

AverageAmericanGuy: SpaceAgeTomato:  

/awesome

I guess there's some minor satisfaction in telling off someone in a public forum rather than in private even when it ends up shedding more light on the thing you prefer to keep covered up. A pyrrhic victory in many ways.


Hey now ; sometimes, a Pyrrhic victory is the best result you can get.

16 Nov 2012 02:08 AM
Kid the Universe     

Sum Dum Gai: AverageAmericanGuy: Facial hair looks ridiculous. Movember is pure, distilled hipsterism at its worst.

Facial hair is awesome (and I'm no hipster).

On the other hand, Movember is just dumb. Nobody should be encouraging prostate cancer screening. It has been demonstrated to have no benefit, and in fact causes harm.

Know the symptoms, go to the doctor when you have them, but unless that happens, don't worry about prostate cancer.


Sum Dum Gai: AverageAmericanGuy: Facial hair looks ridiculous. Movember is pure, distilled hipsterism at its worst.

Facial hair is awesome (and I'm no hipster).

On the other hand, Movember is just dumb. Nobody should be encouraging prostate cancer screening. It has been demonstrated to have no benefit, and in fact causes harm.

Know the symptoms, go to the doctor when you have them, but unless that happens, don't worry about prostate cancer.


Jesus, seriously? Raising awareness about one of the most viscious killers of men is "ridiculous"? Do you feel the same way when every baseball team swings pink bats on Mother's Day or when football teams wear pink sweatbands and socks during the month of October to raise awareness for breast cancer? Are you pro-cancer or just a huge, wet, flopping, douchebag?

Since nobody is pro-cancer, I'm thinking douchebag

16 Nov 2012 02:30 AM
Spaced Lion     
My theory is that the Vikings forever instilled a fear of facial hair in the collective English consciousness.

AverageAmericanGuy: Facial hair looks ridiculous..


Filthy beardist.

16 Nov 2012 03:28 AM
Shadowtag     

AverageAmericanGuy: Facial hair looks ridiculous. Movember is pure, distilled hipsterism at its worst.


So with a name like that, am I to assume you're being ironic, or are you doing something I wouldn't get because my glasses have lenses in them and I actually like the thing on my t-shirt?

/Or are you just a c**t?

16 Nov 2012 04:01 AM
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  

Shadowtag: AverageAmericanGuy: Facial hair looks ridiculous. Movember is pure, distilled hipsterism at its worst.

So with a name like that, am I to assume you're being ironic, or are you doing something I wouldn't get because my glasses have lenses in them and I actually like the thing on my t-shirt?

/Or are you just a c**t?


Sorry, hipster. It looks terrible.

Maybe you could add more wax. LOL

16 Nov 2012 04:04 AM
spawn73     

Mock26: Somehow I do not think that the school has the same attitude about money. I mean, I bet that they do not ban iPhones from school property because some kids cannot afford them.


You have to be pretty poor to not afford a phone.

But they might be banned, or mist be turned off, because they disturb education.

16 Nov 2012 04:46 AM
dready zim     
People, just realize averageamericanguy is a parody of a cliche of somebodies idea of an average american guy...

16 Nov 2012 04:52 AM
Teknowaffle     

turbidum: Am I the only one who thinks "Movember" sounds like a nickname for Gay Pride Month?


I think "novembeard" is a catchier name, and easier to grow.

16 Nov 2012 06:33 AM
itsfullofstars     
If your 9 year old is shaving, you might want to take them to the doctor. Just to be on the safe side. Hormone imbalances aren't necessarily a good thing.

16 Nov 2012 07:27 AM
JackalRabbit     

Kid the Universe: Raising awareness about one of the most viscious killers of men is "ridiculous"?


what, the black widow?

16 Nov 2012 07:32 AM
edmo    [TotalFark]  
So no one may earn a 'A'?

16 Nov 2012 08:29 AM
parityanimal     
So masturbation has to be an inclusive activity too? No one can do it unless EVERYONE can.

16 Nov 2012 08:49 AM
ultrachronic     
Shaving since he was 9?!

There's gotta be something wrong there.

16 Nov 2012 08:58 AM
BraveNewCheneyWorld     
"In a coeducational school with young children, growing facial hair would not be an activity that many children would be able to join in with," the statement said.

Is growing hair now considered an "activity"? And what's with teaching kids that everyone is equal to the point of restricting someone's body from growing hair that comes naturally? Not only that, but how the fark is it that people so concerned with providing children with the same bland childhood experience, do not realize that they're doing exactly the opposite for this kid. If they want to be fair, everyone in the school should have to shave something now, right?

16 Nov 2012 09:02 AM
DirkTheDaring     
Oy! No ovulating in class, you!

16 Nov 2012 09:21 AM
Sum Dum Gai     

Kid the Universe: Jesus, seriously? Raising awareness about one of the most viscious killers of men is "ridiculous"?


Awareness is fine, screening is another. Mainly because the math doesn't work out. If you took two groups of men, one who has regular screenings for prostate cancer and one who have none, there is no difference between the two groups in terms of how many of them will die of prostate cancer. The chance to catch it earlier doesn't help improve the odds of survival.

Further, most prostate cancers are slow growing and don't actually require any medical intervention at all - but tests can't tell the difference between those that don't need treatment and those that do.

Screening an asymptomatic population for a rare illness is also not usually a good idea; even a very good screening test will be rendered less effective by the false positive paradox.

Here's a real example with actual numbers for PSA antigen screening (this is why health organizations don't recommend doing it):

* Incidence of cancer in the general male population is around 150 per 100,000 individuals
* PSA screening has a sensitivity (odds of a positive test result given you have cancer) of 20% and a specificity (odds of a negative test result given you do not have cancer) of 94%

So, to consider an 'average' group of 100,000 men:

* 93,859 would be cancer negative and receive a negative test result (true negative)
* 5,991 would be cancer negative but receive a positive test result (false positive)
* 120 would be cancer positive but receive a negative test result (false negative)
* 30 would be cancer positive and receive a positive test result (true positive)
- Of these 30, only between 3 and 15 need any form of immediate treatment.

What this means:

* 6021 people would test positive. Of those, 5991 (99.5%) actually do not have cancer. Only one out of every 200 people with positive test results actually have cancer. The entire group of six thousand, however, is now going to be subject to follow-up tests which are not only costly, painful, but carry complications including impotence and incontinence. There's also possibly harm done to the 120 false negatives, because they might ignore or delay reporting symptoms because they don't think it could be cancer.

And the worst part - even those three to fifteen people who were true positives and do need intervention don't have better odds of survival than if they had waited until they experienced symptoms to have testing done. Their situation isn't statistically any different one way or the other.

16 Nov 2012 09:28 AM
DaCaptain19     
...it was the 13th hour of the 13th day of the 13th month...

/not obscure

16 Nov 2012 01:32 PM
Mock26     

spawn73: Mock26: Somehow I do not think that the school has the same attitude about money. I mean, I bet that they do not ban iPhones from school property because some kids cannot afford them.

You have to be pretty poor to not afford a phone.

But they might be banned, or mist be turned off, because they disturb education.


I am not talking about phones in general, but iPhones specifically. Imagine how horrible some kid will feel if he only has a cheap Nokia but Charles has an iPhone.

17 Nov 2012 01:04 AM
Showing 1-46 of 46 comments
Refresh
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined