Posted on 05/15/2006 8:48:55 AM PDT by Blue Turtle
Women who juggle career and family tend to be thinner and healthier as they approach midlife than long-term stay-at-home moms, a new study suggests.
Researchers tracked the health of a group of British women from their mid-20s to their mid-50s and found that full-time homemakers were the most likely to be obese in their sixth decade.
Women in long-term relationships who had raised kids while they held jobs outside the home were least likely to be overweight, and they also reported being in better overall health.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I'd be curious to know the incidence of substance abuse among working moms.
Well, hell, I guess my mother wasted 87 years and her mother wasted 99.4 years being stay at home mothers all their adult lives!
That's bull! I sit all day at my job where if I was at home I know I would be more active! I didn't get my nickname because I worked at home - - nope, it's the result of working in an office for 30+ years - -
Pat
Well, they know what's best for all of us. Come the Revolution, the chickens will be hanging from the chandeliers and we'll be grateful for their consideration of our feelings. (grin)
I didn't forget. They don't stay at home much. They're out at the club, at lunch, having dressage lessons, playing golf, shopping, having their nails done, having meetings to plan the next charity fundraiser. They're actually busy and for the most part it wouldn't occur to them to raise their own kids. The nanny does it. They're certainly not stay-at-home moms.
Show me where I wrote that ONLY stay-at-home moms can be good mothers. I work myself.
You cannot justly accuse me of having that view. I have to work myself, and I do love my children very much and take excellent care of them.
You know... I was just going to let everything slide and basically "agree to disagree," and then you post this. What was the point of this? Did you not listen to anything I said at all? Apparently not. Apparently you were just typing to read your own words. What it sounds like you're saying is that my sister is going to die because she's trying to "have it all." Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's not what it sounds like. I am so insulted on so many levels by this.
By your own admittance you are not in the same position that many mothers who would love to stay at home full-time with their children but have no choice but to work. There are circumstances you don't know and cannot possibly understand, and now you're LAUGHING at them??? My God.
Right, was P. Schlafly and other conservative women bad mothers because they had careers while they were raising kids?
Sadly, apparently so according to a good chunk of this crowd.
She was just parodying something I wrote, that's all.
I'm trying to find what you wrote that she was parodying, and I'm not finding it in the post she responded to. And unfortunately, the parody (if it was one) sounds too in-line with other things she's said on this thread.
If it was a parody then I apologize for going off like that. If it wasn't then it still stands. But a lot of what I said does still stand, IMO, regardless of whether or not it was a joke (just at a much lower volume). People are passing judgment on working mothers, trying to pigeon hole them into all being either plastic trophy wives, or career-obscessed who only have kids is because they feel it's expected, while not looking at the circumstances surrounding their decision to remain at work. Blanket statements and pigeon-holing are supposed to be what the libs are about, not us.
My post 182, I think.
And unfortunately, the parody (if it was one) sounds too in-line with other things she's said on this thread.
Suit yourself. I too have a good laugh now & then at the expense of people who think they can have it all.
People are passing judgment on working mothers, trying to pigeon hole them into all being either plastic trophy wives, or career-obscessed who only have kids is because they feel it's expected, while not looking at the circumstances surrounding their decision to remain at work. Blanket statements and pigeon-holing are supposed to be what the libs are about, not us.
If you say so. I don't think anybody's being pigeon holed inexorably in any one of the roles you cite. Certainly those types are being discussed, but there are a variety of options and I never got the impression anyone here limited the range of options to just the ones you list.
People are free to pursue careers or their families, or combine the two, or do something else entirely. No harm in commentating on that. Not at all.
No, not at all. And that's what's gotten me so p*ssed off, frankly. If her attitude was like yours I would've been content to continue debating her in a civilized manner, or simply drop it and agree to disagree. But she's basically said that my sister:
a) should never have gotten pregnant
b) should have quit her job and left my father high-and-dry
c) should have moved to another state
d) had a husband who had "another source of income" or something to that effect
She gave none of the circumstances I revealed any thought, just put the blinders on and said "this is how it is, and that's it" and then basically passed judgment on my sister (the one about "blaming financial problems on the child" was pretty rich). If it wasn't her intention to insult my family, she should've taken the circumstances into consideration and posted accordingly. Because when my family is insulted I am going to come out swinging every time.
I didn't follow your posts, sorry. Sounds like sis had a bad hand dealt to her. I wish her the best in any event.
It's not that she had a bad hand dealt to her (and I'm not trying to go for the sympathy vote), just that it's next-to impossible to raise a family in any kind of good environment in New England (specifically, Mass) without two incomes.
People have talked about sacrifices one has to make in order to have a family, in all of this those on the "sacrifice" side seem to have forgotten one of the biggest - the time a mother has to spend with her children. Both of them work not out of lifestyle thing, they both work so that my nephew can have the same kind of childhood we did, complete with the picket fence. If she could stay home full-time and provide that she (and many many other working moms I've met) would in a heartbeat. But you can't, not and stay close to the rest of the family. Maybe they could if they moved to another state, but then they'd be taking their son away from his grandparents, cousins, aunts, and uncles. And is that fair for the child? Because that is what this whole discussion is about, isn't it?
Yhe child is the most important thing, I agree.
Doggone it! I said absolutely nothing about your sister. That is exactly why I said I don't want to address personal situations. My statement to Hitman was within the context of our interaction. It wasn't about you.
My position is reaffirmed. I will not talk about any individual's sister/brother/mother/father/boss or kids.
If you choose to take my comments personally, I know there's nothing I can do about it and I'm not going to turn myself inside out, trying to squirm out of a perceived personal attack. That's an internet techniqueI simply do not engage. The "when did you stop beating your wife" method of response won't work. It's untenable - and one no one can win. It's like trying to prove a negative.
I'd suggest we agree to disagree and I'm sorry you chose to take my parody as a personal affront to yourself. That must be painful.
That was completely uncalled for.
Being judgemental about people without knowing their circumstances makes you ugly on the inside.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.