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, 05-31-2006 - 12:21am
The Weekly Standard is not mainstream press. It is a propaganda outlet. Propaganda can contain interesting information, but when that information is not picked up by more mainstream outlets, it is usually because something either can't be checked or doesn't hold. So, until I see more reporting on this, I can't very well form any opinion.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 12:41am

Then you do not know your sources very well. Weekly Standard is as far from neutral as you can get. Fox is also far from neutral. CNN has various slants, but does usually try to report somewhat straight news, in its own bumbling way. I do not use MSN. The point is though, that even if I read something in the Wall Street Journal or some other credible (not neutral, credible) source, I go and check it against a couple of other sources to identify what is spin and what is the actual story. If it is something important, I then check it over time, again in a selection of sources. To check the basic info, it is usually best to check a plain source, like Reuters or Bloomberg (surprisingly reliable).

The problem with an outfit like the Weekly Standard is that its editors will inflate stories, publish things that are not really covered by the facts etc, as long as it serves the agenda. That is the definition of a non-credible source. Fox and the Sun are similar.

Then you have sources with a POV, like the WSJ, NYT, and even CNN. There you will find stories selected and reported with a certain POV, but there will be some care taken in not pushing the facts further than they will hold.

There really is a difference, and the differences do matter. I do read the Weekly Standard sometimes, but mainly to check what the neo-cons are up to and which agandas they are pushing. For example, if I want to check how hard they are pushing for war with Iran and how that is working out for them, I pick up the Weekly or go to the PNAC website. OTOH, I do not rely on these people for actual information.

Edit: Since we are discussing, in part, the reasons for going to war, read the following two (short) pieces. They will both take you back a bit, and provide a good illustration of how people put across a distinct POV in writing.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg042302.asp

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-13.htm




Edited 5/31/2006 2:01 am ET by sild
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 1:08am

Then maybe you can help, since stonethrow steadfastly refuses to explain how she has arrived at these beliefs.

Do you have any idea how your sister came to believe this, and more interestingly what causes her to cling to these beliefs? Does she not read newspapers? IOW, how does she manage it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 2:08am
I know at least one person who is far better qualified, but he did not want the job.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 3:25am

<<>>


Image hosted by TinyPic.com
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 3:29am

<<>>


To what are you replying?

Image hosted by TinyPic.com
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 4:01am

I was referring specifically to the article you posted from the Weekly Standard, and responding specifically to your claim that the Weekly Standard was just as reliable as Fox, CNN and MSN. It may be as biased as Fox, but the Weekly Standard can not be said to be a reliable source of anything other than the prevailing opinions of the leading neo-con thinkers.

The story of Saddam offering payments to the families of Palestinian "martyrs" is old and probably credible. The story of Abu Nidal being allowed to live out his last decrepit years in Iraq is also old, and also credible. These two stories were widely circulated before the war. They did not impress me then, and do so even less now. In no way do they add up to a credible case for any kind of state-sponsored terrorism and besides, al-Qaeda does not rely on state sponsors. If anything, the argument can be made that it sponsors states (as in Afghanistan). The paradigm for al-Qaeda is fundamentally different from "traditional" terrorism, such as the red terrorism in Europe that was sponsored, supported and often directed by the Soviets.

If we are to invade and unseat any leader who has allowed a retired terrorist on his soil, or who has expressed public support for the Palestinian cause, we are going to be busy-busy-busy. Meanwhile, our ally Pakistan is harboring bin Laden, the Saudis seem to produce terrorists and terrorist funding aplenty, there are still actual, bona fide terrorist training camps in Lebanon and so on.

Meanwhile, although I dutifully read your articles, it does not appear that you read the links I posted for you.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 5:01am

<<>>


Agreed.

Image hosted by TinyPic.com
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2005
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 6:19am

Osama funded their training, but sadly we actually trained the terrorists on U.S. soil ~ Florida, I believe. These suicide bombers came on temporary Visas to our U.S. flight schools specifically to learn to fly jumbo jet liners and to learn to take off from airstrips.

Sadly, the fact that these suicide bombers did not care to learn how *to land* jetliners is a fact that escaped the interest of our CIA for whatever reason. They intended to use the jetliners as missiles so did not *need* to learn how to land the planes.

I think 9/11 was more a failure of our intelligence capabilities within the US and especially at our airports than anything else. The Timothy McVeighs of the US could have united and easily accomplished the same. Yet, the xenophobia allowed much of the frightened public to initially rally behind Dubya in invading Iraq.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2005
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 6:39am
Al Qaeda never had such training opportunities in Afghanistan under Osama. In Iraq now, they get actual combat experience. Then they can return to at least one of 80 countries al Qaeda is established in. Thus, as a direct result of Dubya's invasion, the US has expanded and trained al Qaeda.

Pages