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 - 8:51am
I totally disagree.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 9:16am

Your sis expected national health care from Bush? That is pretty funny. How does she maintain her belief in Saddam as master of 9/11 though? I am really puzzled by that one.

I love the Daily Show and I think it is an excellent source for the anti-Fox view of things. Agree as well on the internet as a news source. I use google news a lot. It is very useful being able to see how many hits there are for a story, and who is picking up the story. I would hope that most people get their international and political news from sources other than Fox and the local paper, since access is no longer a problem for most people.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 9:27am
I wish I could go back in a time machine and slap some sense into Reagan. He really bought into that cliche that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I'm pretty sure he was the one who pioneered the policy of supporting and helping fledgling Al Queda (don't know if they had that name yet) for no other reason than their anti-Soviet cause.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 9:43am
Tragically true. I was visualizing training with the goal of making them more effective terrorists. But they actually recieved training in the US from people who merely meant to make them more effective pilots and never suspected they were training terrorists. Except that one or two of them did suspect. I remember reading about a heartbroken flight instructor who did find it suspicious that a student found safe-landing instruction irrelevent. And he did share his concern. With his boss? With the FBI? I can't remember. But in any case his concern was duly noted in somebody's file and promptly forgotten. Definately one of the saddest cases of "I told you so".
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2005
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 9:45am
Of course they do.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 10:07am
the quote came from the article you posted from the weekly standard - i just found it interesting that while the writer was discussing the foundation of the iraqi regime, i didnt see much difference between that and the foundation of the bush administration
Jennie
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 10:12am

Not quite:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs , that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 10:34am

<<Well that is your opinion and freedom

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 10:36am

Read that question again.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2003
Wed, 05-31-2006 - 11:20am

<<<Use your common sense. We have Sadam Hussein in jail right now and in fact he is on trial right now....Why has Dubya NOT charged him with orchestrating 9/11???


You do realize that even Dubya has come out and said that Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.>>>


What does common sense have to do with this?

Image hosted by TinyPic.com

Pages