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: 03-03-2006
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 10:41am

"So again, why would I move to Canada?"

If you find this administration not to your liking and you are doing nothing more than voting, it might be better for you to find somewhere else to live to compare this nation to.

"Me: Here it is again: Is it better for some reason that we were a democracy instead of a dictatorship when we supported, funded and trained terrorists?

You: Support your claim."

I'm getting right to your point. Who did we (US) support, fund and train? Is this what you're getting at?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2006
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 10:44am

"It should be added that US marines salute the PKK fighters when they return to basecamp in Northern Iraq after making raids into Turkey."

And you saw this on your last tour over there, right?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2006
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 10:47am

Did I ever say that I believe that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11?

Did I say that he was harboring and funding and supporting and cheering on terrorists?

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:03am
When did the law change?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:12am

How about the School of Americas (SOA)?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas


We trained how many Latin American soldiers on US soil?


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:13am
Why would it be so strange that I might know something like that? You knew about al-Qaeda, though, I take it?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2006
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:13am
I don't need a law for my own personal opinion. I don't consider 20 an adult yet. Some of you may and some of you may not. Just my opinion.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:15am

No, I simply disagreed with your judgement that we were debating.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:16am
Yes, you said that he supported terrorists. When asked which terrorists, you answered the ones who had already attacked us. That can only logically mean al-Qaeda on 9/11. If you do not believe in such a connection, the question becomes why you think having Abu Nidal living out his last decrepit years in Iraq, for example, posed some sort of direct threat to the US.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:16am

I know somebody who wants to hurt us and he did. Osama bin Laden. For a short while after 9/11, he was Public Enemy Number 1. Finding him was top priority for the US. As well it should be since he actually caused the attack on the US and has since sent some threatening videos hinting that he'll do it again if he sees fit. He's the man we should pour ALL our military resources into catching. And for a little while we were.

And then suddenly he got back burnered for Hussein. How Hussein suddenly became more of a threat than the man who actually did attack us is a mystery to me. If all the resources that got poured into Iraq had instead been used in Afghanistan, we'd have Bin Laden in custody by now. And that alone is good enough reason why we never should have gone into Iraq and need to get out as soon as possible. Going into Iraq spread us too thin and diverted focus from catching America's REAL enemy. We don't have infinite resources and they need to be used wisely. Making the capture of Bin Laden and the rebuilding of Afghanistan our top priority would be the best use. Instead, catching the man who really did attack the US became an afterthought to the mysteriously more urgent cause of catching the man who has never attacked us. Why is catching somebody who DID attack us less important than catching somebody who never got closer to attacking us than fantasizing about it? And bin Laden has since sent threatening videos. So it's not like he's closing up shop after 9/11 and saying "my work here is done". He attacked us twice (remember '93) and has made it clear that doing it again could be in the works. And yet catching him is not important enough to use our full military resources. That mission seems to get whatever is left over from Iraq.

It's like being shot in the guts and then saying "I'll attend to the shotgun wound as soon as this more important papercut is fully healed."

Pages