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, 06-06-2006 - 11:16am

....and just the tip of the iceberg.


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:18am

Specifically how was SH a threat to our soil?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:19am
It's very relevent to the debate since it more or less happened. Except that Osama bin Laden isn't a dictator. Are you aware that Osama bin Laden is the one responsible for 9/11? Because you don't seem aware of that. You seem to think Hussein was responsible and yet it was actually bin Laden.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:20am
There are a lot of idiots that live in our country. So the fact that they don't "reflect" it is inconsequential.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:22am
It was Bush who claimed there was a connection in the first place. He's simply retracting his previous statement. What you are doing is clinging to a wrong statement that he initially made and has since disowned.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:25am

<>


So if someone disagrees with the administration you expect them to move out of the country?

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:26am
In that context I have to say that I have faith in the old saying that you can fool some of the people some of the time etc. It seems to me that your average American may be a bit gullible (not a bad trait, btw) and have access to inadequate information for various reasons, but at heart he/she is neither stupid nor without common sense. My impression is that a whole lotta people are realizing, rapidly, that the argument for invading Iraq was a massive snowjob. Nobody likes to be taken for a ride, least of all an American, IME.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:27am
Americans supported Osama bin Laden (did you know he's a terrorist? I'm guessing you didn't) and that is no secret. There has been much public regret about it. He was supported by the US government back when it was thought that his wrath would never be directed anywhere but at the Soviet Union. Boy did that one ever come back and bite us in the behind.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:33am

"Who did we (US) fund, support and train?"

Ironically, Osama bin Laden. We were laboring under the delusion that the Soviet Union would be his sole target. We bought into the cliche "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". If ever smebody could prove that cliche wrong, it's been him.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-06-2006 - 11:36am

In all fairness, I am pretty sure he never made the statement in the first place. He strongly suggested it, but never actually said it. Even then, he knew that the evidence just wasn't there. Cheney went a bit further, but even he stopped short of a declarative statement. Here is an article from 2003 on this subject:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

Here is a story about Cheney backtracking on the claim/suggestion:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/

"

Pages