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: 06-27-1998
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 3:47pm

Ah huh, despite being asked multiple times for your "claims".

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 3:49pm

That's what I was thinking....why on earth would they need weapons?


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 3:55pm
Then what is he being blamed for unfairly?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 3:58pm
They could also use the real glass glasses and metal forks still used in first and business class. You can be stabbed fatally with a ballpoint pen. Confiscating my tweezers is so silly that it's no longer the police of Homeland Security to do so.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2003
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 4:15pm
Well, for starters, if she or her husband wanted to view porn, and also wanted a political career, the bush/rove team would ensure that could never happen.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 4:45pm

I haven't been able to find anything of substance on this story in the mainstream press.

Here is a response, though, by one of the leftie blogs:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/18/hayes-strikes-out/

Stephen Hayes Strikes Out (Again)
Stephen Hayes has a new article in the Weekly Standard called “Saddam’s Philippines Terror Connection,” the latest installment in his effort to prove that Hussein and al Qaeda had a collaborative relationship. The piece is the current darling of the right-wing blogosphere. John Hinderaker of Powerline calls it “a can’t-miss piece by America’s most important journalist.”

In the article, Hayes claims that “Saddam Hussein’s regime provided financial support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s.” Perhaps that’s true and significant. But nothing in Hayes’ article proves it or is even particularly interesting. Here’s why:

1. Both of the Iraqi documents Hayes cites show that Iraq declined to support Abu Sayyaf, financially or otherwise, because of its terrorist activities.

2. Neither of the documents proves that Iraq ever supported Abu Sayyaf. According to Hayes, this is the key passage, from an Iraqi document describing their response to an Abu Sayyaf kidnapping: “We have all cooperated in the field of intelligence information with some of our friends to encourage the tourists and the investors in the Philippines…The kidnappers were formerly (from the previous year) receiving money and purchasing combat weapons. From now on we (IIS) are not giving them this opportunity and are not on speaking terms with them.” Hayes says this passage “seems to confirm” to that Iraq provided Abu Sayyaf with financial support. But the language (as Hayes implicitly acknowledges) is vague and could refer to financial support from another country.

3. Sporadic contact between Iraq and Abu Sayyaf is old news. As Hayes acknowledges, the State Department’s Matthew Daley publicly testified about some suspected contacts between Iraq and Abu Sayyaf in March 2003.

In short, nothing in Hayes article changes our fundamental understanding Iraq’s “connections” to al-Qaeda established by the 9/11 Commission. Some sporadic contacts? Yes. A collaborative relationship? No.

The bigger mystery is why Hayes bothers with such esoteric topics to try and establish a collaborative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. After all, he’s the author of a book called “The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America” and an article called “Case Closed: The U.S. government’s secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.” Oh yeah, those didn’t hold up to scrutiny either.

UPDATE:

The Hayes article focuses on a couple of documents from a much larger dump of raw intelligence. Even the Bush administration acknowledges there is nothing “surprising” in any of them. From the Boston Globe:

US intelligence officials say nearly all the documents released have been given at least a cursory reading by Arabic experts. Beth Marple, Negroponte’s deputy press secretary, said amateur translators won’t find any major surprises, such as proof Hussein hid stockpiles of chemical weapons.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 4:48pm
I'd go for "mentally ill" perhaps?
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2003
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 4:54pm
That's not what she said nor asked either.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 4:57pm
A pen or pencil could do the trick pretty easily if it got jabbed in the right place. But I'm not an anatomist so I don't know exactly where it would have to hit.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2006
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 4:59pm

Going in undecided is much less of a "waste" then going with a major and then changing your mind later. DD1 went in undecided. In her freshman year she took all basic first year classes that could fill credits for just about any major. When she decided on a major (finance/economics) she had lost no time and was still able to graduate in 4 years.

DD2 went in as a elementary education major. She was given a "map" of her entire 4 years, In your freshman year you take XXX, in your sophomore year YYY etc. If she would have later changed her mind on her major then some of the classes she took that were geared only for education majors would not have carried over to other majors and she would have had to spend more time and money taking classes she needed for the new major.

I would never advice someone to go into college with a declared major unless they are very secure in the fact that they will not change their mind. Better to go in undecided until they truely have decided.

Pages