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 - 6:06pm

You are claiming that the Weekly Standard is a neutral publication?


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 6:07pm

Perhaps they teach those skills in law school?

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 6:09pm
there was one section in there that really jumped out at me - "The picture that emerges is that of an Iraqi regime built on a foundation of paranoia and lies and eager to attack its perceived enemies, internal and external." sounds alot like the gwb adminsitration
Jennie
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2003
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 7:08pm

<<

Image hosted by TinyPic.com
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 7:09pm
im sorry but i really dont find alot of the tactics used by the israelis to be any less terroristic than those used by others in the region - however becuase the us is so intertwined with them we cant call there actions terorism.
Jennie
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2003
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 7:11pm

<<>>


They are no more or less neutral than FOX, CNN, MSN and wherever else we get our news from, at least in my humble opinion.

Image hosted by TinyPic.com
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 8:34pm
The world is already filled with the likes of Hussein and has been since urban civilization was invented. And our people were not blown to bits by him or anyone he trained. They were blown to bits by people recruited and trained by Osama Bin Laden. Who is in Afghanistan. Not Iraq.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 8:36pm
The terrorists who attacked the WTC were recruited and trained by Osama bin Lade, not Saddam Hussein. They are completely different people with wildly different and frequently conflicting agendas.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2000
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 8:38pm

>"Really? That's certainly not what I have been reading. But that leads us back to the question I asked before.....Which one of the Kennedy's you listed (Joe, Jack and Teddy) were convicted of murder and/or rape?"

None of them have been convicted but a couple of them should have been.

"Unless you are telling us that you only believe the innocent until proven guilty, what the jury of peers concludes if you happen to also agree with the conclusion handed down? If so, what exactly qualifies you to be judge and jury in these cases?"

Nothing qualifies me to be judge and jury in these cases and I never said that.<

Your responses to pumpkin contradict each other. How do you know that they should of been convicted? Do you have inside data? Or is it just your opinion based on media reports?

Chris

The truth may be out there but lies are in your head. Terry Pratchett

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 05-30-2006 - 8:43pm
There seems to be a pattern that when dictators are not very religious, women get treated better than they do in religious dictatorships. Or at any rate- they get repressed at about the same rate as the men and so you couldn't really call it sexism. Mao is another example. Less sexism. Equal repression for everybody.

Pages