Work is good for your health?
Find a Conversation
| 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
Nobody is bashing you. Several people are challenging your opinion that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. So far, you have offered no coherent or convincing argument for why it was a good idea. I have asked you several times why it was a good idea and you have failed to explain. You have offered:
1. Saddam trained terrorists (presumably making him "very dangerous"). We all know that he did not, so try something else.
2. Saddam was bad to his people. Yes, he was, but why is that the problem of the US?
"Nobody is bashing you. Several people are challenging your opinion that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. So far, you have offered no coherent or convincing argument for why it was a good idea. I have asked you several times why it was a good idea and you have failed to explain. You have offered:
1. Saddam trained terrorists (presumably making him "very dangerous"). We all know that he did not, so try something else.
2. Saddam was bad to his people. Yes, he was, but why is that the problem of the US?"
So, I have given you reasons, but not good enough for you. You don't think Saddam trained terrorists and gave them the means to do it?
Would you like all the countries of the world to be ruled by a dictator like him?
According to polls put out by the liberal media.
I dislike the "hand-wringing, what can I do" mentality of some US citizens. What I can do is simple, easy, and doesn't take much time. I can write letters/e-mail, sign petitions, and vote. My voice does get heard. And one vote does make a difference. I just can't remember which elections (and don't have the time right now to do a search) that were decided on one or just a few votes. It is a sad commentary on us that more naturalized immigrants vote in our elections than native-born citizens.
Chris
The truth may be out there but lies are in your head. Terry Pratchett
if you want to see bashing, perhaps you should look in the mirror, as you are doing plenty of it yourself.
as to who may or may not believe the invasion of iraq was a good thing, i really cant speak for anyone but myself - and i think it was a huge mistake and history will bear that out, and that gwb will go down in history as the corrupt, incompetent, warmonger that he is - but only time will tell. as to wether or not others have been driven away - why would they be. if you believe in the war and the president why would you let others sway your opinion or be silenced because others disagree with you.
Jennie
"Should we wait until the world is filled with the likes of Hussein or should we stop it now before more of our people get blown to bits?"
But now you are back to arguing that invading Iraq was about stopping terrorism (which Hussein wasn't involved with on an international level and which he didn't have the capability of executing). That is rather different than arguing that we did a good thing because he was an evil dictator.
If one is going to argue that getting rid of Hussein was necessary because he was an evil dictator then why aren't we in North Korea (mass starvation for many years), or Sudan (genocide on a scale that is frightening). Where were we when hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were being slaughtered?
If one is going to argue that it was critical to our national security to invade Iraq, one has to ask why. Hussein was not a major supporter of international terrorism, he had no weapons of mass destruction, and (ironically enough) by diverting forces from Afganistan at the wrong time, we lost a huge opportunity to get Bin Laden and wipe out the terrorist cells dotted all over the country....terrorist cells that now have a brilliant opportunity to survive and develop because large parts of the middle east (e.g. Iraq) are in turmoil at this time.
Pages