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
"Yes, with his funding of the terrorists who want to do harm to our country."
Which terrorists were those?
"What terrorists has he funded who have done harm to our country? (Not who WANT to. Who HAVE.)"
They already have. And that's a scary thought that you would "want" people running around who "want" to harm us and have the means, funding and support to do it.
I think it is quite safe to include "want to" in the question. The only evidence so far is that Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Those guys want to harm Israel, not the US. In addition, there is some sketchy, possible evidence that maybe the Iraqis helped out a terrorist group in the Philippines. Certainly not a very nice thing to do (if it is true), but nor exactly anything likely to threaten US security.
People continually seem to forget that Osama bin Laden does not need or look for states to sponsor him in any way. If anything, he sponsors states, like Afghanistan.
"Certainly not a very nice thing to do (if it is true), but nor exactly anything likely to threaten US security."
You make it sound as if he's a 5 year old in a playground sticking his tongue out at another child.
Hello?
PumpkinAngel
Pages