Work is good for your health?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Work is good for your health?
1599
Mon, 05-15-2006 - 5:25am

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=43421
Working Mothers Healthier Than Full-time Housewives

Main Category: Women's Health / OBGYN News
Article Date: 15 May 2006 - 1:00am (PDT)

According to new research carried out in Britain, working mothers enjoy better health than full-time housewives. Despite the stress working mothers face by holding down a job, dealing with childcare, housework and striving to keep the family happy.

It appears that working mothers, when compared to full-time housewives, are less likely to become overweight, have a better level of health and a healthier relationship. The study also found that single mothers experience worse health than working mothers who have a partner and children.

You can read about this study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Team leader, Dr. Anne McMunn, University College London, said that women who combine work with children and marriage do seem to have better health than full-time housewives. Even though they may experience high levels of stress sometimes.

It is not a question of chicken-and-egg either. Dr. McMunn said it is the experience of work plus having a family that brings on the better health, not the fact that only healthier mothers decide to carry on working.

The researchers examined data on women born in 1946 from the Medical Research Council's National Study of Health and Development. The data registers their health from 1946 until they are 54. Women's health was examined, with the help of a questionnaire at the ages of 26 through to 54. Every decade, the questionnaire collects data on each woman's work history, whether she is/was married, has children, her height and weight.

The healthiest women were the ones who had all three of the following:

-- A Partner
-- Children
-- A job

Those reporting the worst health were stay-at-home mothers, followed by childless women and single mothers.

38% of stay-at-home mothers were obese when they reached their 50s, for working mothers the percentage was 23%.

Written by: Christian Nordqvist
Editor: Medical News Today

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 06-07-2006 - 2:18am
We tried that (getting an answer) already to no avail. Apparently, she is basing it on the Weekly Standard story about the purported Iraqi funding of a Muslim group in the Philippines. That story was bandied about before the war as well. Also, as far as I can make out, the way Stonethrow sees it, all terrorists are the same and interconnected, so giving a piece of bread to a terrorist in Malaysia, for example, makes you guilty by association of complicity in 9/11, and therefore a direct threat to US security.


Edited 6/7/2006 3:41 am ET by sild
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 06-07-2006 - 2:33am
Well, judging from the "answer" about Fidel, that may be a reasonable approach. The thing is that I am genuinely curious how the thought process works in a person who makes such claims. IOW, I would really like to know which specific terrorists Stonethrow thinks Saddam funded and trained and exactly how that made it necessary for us to invade Iraq. I would equally like to know how she arrives at the conclusion that Fidel is a threat to the US. It obviously can't simply be because Stonethrow would not like to go to Cuba for a vacation.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 06-07-2006 - 3:10am
I think she somehow thinks that the travel ban was imposed because Cuba was considered very dangerous. That still would not explain how Castro would be a threat to the US, but at least that makes it come a little closer to some kind of sense-making.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 06-07-2006 - 3:23am

Apparently Stonethrow is OK with the government snooping in her business, since she is doing nothing wrong. Presumably, she would be OK with some kind of permanent, ongoing surveillance, like security cameras and the like as well, as long as it helped keep us safe. She also seems to have no problem with her own government telling her where she can and can not travel. I imagine she is also in favor of the PATRIOT act, which allows the government to detain people without cause and without habeas corpus protections for indefinite periods of time. I imagine that is OK, because they are probably bad people and the government knows better after all.

But Castro is an evil dictator and a threat to the US.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 06-07-2006 - 3:33am

LOL, maybe only the places where Stonethrow does not feel comfortable going are threats. That is the thing I did not understand about the argument. If one American feels uncomfortable going to Cuba, then Fidel is a threat to every American, or do we need some critical mass of vacation-strikers before a country becomes a threat to us?

We are talking about going to Syria before it is too late. I am a chicken though, I won't go to Egypt or Israel.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2003
Wed, 06-07-2006 - 7:17am

WTF?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2003
Wed, 06-07-2006 - 7:22am

Awwwwww now, shame on you.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2003
Wed, 06-07-2006 - 7:39am

Try to keep up, sild.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 06-07-2006 - 8:28am
LOL, some cows (the kind that eat grass, I mean) would probably improve Long Guyland no end.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 06-07-2006 - 8:32am
Interesting! I had never heard of this approach to international relations. Thanks for giving me a clue here. Not to nitpick or nuttin', but it looks to me as if even the "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo" theory STILL does not splain how Castro is a danger to Murricans. Odious, unwanted etc perhaps, but dangerous?

Pages