| Type | Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle | Source | Last Checked |  |
 |
Children whose mothers work are less likely to eat healthily or exercise as often as children with stay-at-home mums, according to a British study.
Parents, what do you think of the British study's findings?
#1 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:05 PM EDTI am not a parent, but guess what? Children living in households that rely heavily on two incomes to survive will be even less healthy if "mum" was not working. Within that contextual framework I consider the findings of this study misleading.
WTH!!! Don't the british have anything better to do with their research dollars than conduct these idiotic studies (candy gobbling kids grow up to be convicts - yet another senseless study).
Previous studies from years gone by supposedly indicated that working mothers pyschologically screwed a child's head up and now, working mothers are a detriment to their children, physically. If we are to believe everything these 'studies' report, mothers might as well just give up right now!
My children eat sweets, drink sodas, play video and computer games - they also eat healthy meals, play sports, do hours of homework and ride a big ol' yellow school bus to school. They could care less about TV! They don't feel neglected, or hard done by. It's called balance, people, why does everything good or fun have to be labelled with negative connotations?
So...let's see....video games and rock music cause violent and suicidal thoughts/actions; computers and tv cause fat ass syndrome; sweets cause stupidity and violence; sex causes tremendous guilt, unwanted babies and HIV; smoking causes cancer; drinking causes fun you won't remember; smiling causes wrinkles....etc...
British research dollars cause derogatory, prejudiced, useless crap, disguised as important information.
Great--just one more thing to make moms who have to work feel even more guilty. I do have to disagree though. I take great care to make sure my son gets a well balanced diet and he is a very healthy weight. We are also very active-esp on the weekends.Does he eat "treats"? Of course.....it's balance and moderation........
Would I love to be a stay-at-home mom?? Yes! But circumstances prevent it. Is my son happy and healthy despite this?? You betcha!!!
I'd love to see the actual study instead of what is written in this article. Has anyone picked up on the line that says, ". . .engage in more sedentary activity and be driven to school than children whose mothers had never been employed. . ." What the heck does this mean -- referring to the NEVER been employed part? Do you affect kids health if you've worked before your kids were born, during high school, or college? I guess no woman should work outside the home. I don't get this. It sounds like the author of the article is trying to skew the study findings so that he or she can make the headline sound a certain way - absolutely disgusting!
Not at all surprising.
It just confirms that "babysitters" are not as interested in the welfare of the children they watch as actual moms.Simple solution - make sure proper meals and snacks are prepared for their kids beforehand.
I'll agree with previous posters sentiment, that I am sick unto death of the media trumpeting research that somehow villanizes women for working. Where is the father in this equation? It's not like these women spontaneously combusted these children.
And it's not like a lot of those women wouldn't prefer to be at home with their kids, but simply can't for financial reasons. I'm lucky, I searched for and found three part time and/or seasonal jobs that allow me to work while my kids are at school, on weekends when their father is home, or bring them with me to work. Therefore, I put them on the bus, I'm home when they get home and doing homework, sports, etc.
And guess what? After all of that is done, they still play video games, watch TV and listen to ridiculous music. And I refuse to feel guilty about that. They can't be running laps and reading books every minute of the day.
PragmaticToAFault " Where is the father in this equation?"
And you're blaming the father for exactly what? Throughout history, and throughout the animal kingdom, the mother is the primary caregiver for their offspring. It may seem unfair to some, but it is reality and "human nature".
I do, however, admire you for working your schedule around your children's needs.
Roy,
I agree. As someone who raises dogs, I have noticed the puppies always prefer the mother for nurturing. The puppies cannot stay away from the mother for a second and vice versa. I take the mother out for a walk and she wants to get home as soon as she has done her business. When I keep one of the litter, he or she tend to hang with the mother more, even after growing up. I think this close bond is lost when the working mom is away ten hours a day while the kid is being raised by strangers. And no working mom has the time or the desire to cook a three hour dinner.
Very nice to see two men deciding to further castigate working women.
We are not animals. Your comparison with a female dog and her puppies is insulting.
Fifty years ago, you could get away with this kind of sexist "what does the father have to do with it?" nonsense. In the intervening fifty years, fortunately, more enlightened thinking has emerged and we humans tend to want, and in a majority of cases, DEMAND a greater level of involvement from fathers in the parenting process than was the case a half century ago.
This has become virtually inescapable in an era where it is necessary, in more cases than not, for a woman to work to provide for the economic needs of the family.
Conversely, I could turn this around and point to the failure of too many men to meet the requirements of bread-winner. Many, many women would NOT work, would prefer to raise their children, if their husbands would/could earn more money. So who's actually failing? Both.
You make a lot of assumptions, up there on your high horse, don't you?
I'm home with my kids, I work when they're in school or their father is home. But I DO work, not so we can have a 52" flat screen or a fancy car, but so they can attend a private school to get them away from the lowest common denominator crap in the public schools.
Of course children need their mothers. And their fathers. And the holier-than-thou attitude you project is offensive.
Yea...we have two "men" in this discussion? And thank you for the dog analogy-that really clears things up for me (are you kidding?????)....disgusting!
"
Babies and children of all species need their mothers. You can choose to believe any self-serving thing you want to believe in order to feel good about handing your baby over to strangers to raise. But your child pays the price.
Not that you care in the least."
Wow... first up this weekend with Phyliis Schlafly, then this study, and then Leigh way up there on the high horse.
Here's a thought... what if women get PAID to be stay at home moms? No, too socialist a thought for you? Then how about you get off the backs of the women that work not because they choose to, not because they want to, but because they HAVE to.
As a married pregnant woman whose husband and she make just over 50K per year combined income with two degrees between them, how about we back off the judgement a touch this morning, hmmmmm?
How 'bout we pay moms to conduct these ridiculous studies from home? Honestly, can you believe people are being paid for such a study? Good work if you can get it, where do I sign up?
Technically we are animals.
Dave- after viewing the murder with a 2x4 in Chicago, some more than others.
wth does "some more than others" have to do with the FACT that we all are animals? i think the females in the above posts are wrongly jumping on the men as if they dont have valid points. the article was not meant to villianize anyone, it was a comparison btwn 2 groups. dont be so defensive....u act as if someone called u out ur name and said u were a horrible mother!!!!
Regarding paying mothers to stay home with their children, it would be nice if the US offered SOME real assistance to working mothers, single or not. In other countries, a new mother is guaranteed (as in, employers can't get out of it because doing so would be illegal) several months PAID leave to care for her child after the birth. It's not a nice-to-have thing, it's required across the board. Other countries also provide daycare to preschool age children at a reduced rate or free to working parents. In the US, the mom and baby are sent home after less than a day in the hospital with no assistance whatsoever, and no training in childcare for first time mothers aside from a cursory few minutes with a nurse. It's ridiculous that we consider ourselves to be an enlightened and progressive nation, and is indicative of the belief system that condemns for ending a pregnancy, but doesn't care one iota for the mother or baby once the baby is born. It is truly shameful.
and why should the government, the taxpayer and employers all be forced to bend over backwards for people who CHOOSE to have children, if you not emotionally or financially ready to look after your own children you shouldnt having kids.
Leigh--Working mothers does not equal bad mothers and it certainly does not mean we don't care. You are obviously a stay-at-home mom with a one-dimensional view of working moms. We working moms have some pretty ugly stereotypes that you could fit into as well.
Stay-at-home moms are just as capable of feeding "junk" to their kids and letting them veg-out in front of games/TV.
The only valid point the article offers is this: If you're doing your best by your kids, great! If not, try harder.
"BLAME THE MOTHER!" - Piper Laurie as Margaret Kinsey in "Love, Lies and Lullabies"
Interesting how nothing was mentioned about the fathers' role in all this....
#2 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:03 PM EDTChildren are strange. They tend to prefer the mother for food and comfort. Maybe that's why judges usually award the mother custody of the kids in divorces.
Yup, and then the deadbeat dads wash their hands of the situation, don't pay the child support, and the mother ends up working. Or the judge orders funds insufficient to meet the needs, and the mother ends up working.
So again, it's the mother's fault?
I don't disagree with most of what you said, but until women spontaneously combust children, it isn't just the mother's job to "care for her babies". We're not dogs.
We're not dogs.
That is very true. I find my golden retrievers are much more intelligent than most people. The mother sure take better care of her young.
I disagree that it is the woman's job to be primary caretaker of children. Stop giving men a pass. They aren't forced to become fathers and they are as responsible for their kids as the mothers are. We guilt-trip women into believing that they, and only they, should stay home to raise the kids. Men can do this, too. Everything is always the woman's fault in this child-obsessed society. What the he** does NOW have to do with it?
Poor parenting has nothing to do with having a job, or being a single parent. Allowing children to eat large amounts of junk food, and plopping them in front of the TV, says to me that you are a weak and lazy individual, regardless of your circumstances. Not all single mother's are like this, so it must be you, right? Work is never done, child rearing is never done. You act this way because you want to. No one, or nothing on this planet owes you a thing. You owe your children.
#3 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:23 PM EDTI agree.
Exactly. When I used to work in peoples homes there were a bundle of moms and dads who didn't work vegged out on the couch watching TV eating a bag of chips. Their kids were following the example. Maybe they should do a study on the multiple offspring of deadbeat parents feeding at the public trough.
What does the study say about the kids of working DADS?
The fact that they labeled it kids of "working moms' rather than "working parents" indicates a clear bias in the study.
#4 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:53 PM EDTMaybe because they only studied women? They cant use a study about working moms to make conclusions about working dads also...
Because men tend to be the bread winners (I'm NOT saying that women are never the bread winners, I'm just that men usually make more money than women.)
Maybe it's because no one expects men to provide for the children.
Society telling parents and kids that being fat is ok is the problem. If being fat still had a bad social connotation there would be a lot less fat people.
The "being comfortable in your own skin" campaign is the problem.
#5 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:54 PM EDTAs someone who grew up with a working mother, not too long ago I might add. (I'm 20) I can tell you that when she worked I ate horribly, simply because I could. When she was between jobs I was not allowed to have root beer floats after school and mountain dew with breakfast.
As for the fathers role? I don't know how it usually works but around my house my father never really cared what I ate. Also, men are still not as likely to be stay at home parents and women are.
All in all, it's no wonder that I had a weight issue until I was 16 and took control of my own health.
#6 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:00 PM EDTSo, long term, who will be better off? You, who learned from sad experience to take control of your health at age 16 or the kids who had "mommy" hovering over them their entire childhood and never learned to take responsibility for themselves. Some of these "mommy hovered" "home schooled" etc. kids will still be living with their parents (and reliant on them for food, health advice, etc. ) when they are 50.
It's a matter of how a child is raised.
Once my kid spent the night at a friend's house. I had to go pick her up at 9:am because they ate junk food all night and then handed her a "Pop Tart" for breakfast.
My kid was hungry....she needed food...
My daugher is stay-at-home mom and her children (12 and 13) are VERY immature. She does everything for them; they have no responsibilities. They eat tons of junk food, which is mostly purchased by their dad. Just because you don't work outside the home does not mean you do everything right as a parent.
when sociologists/psychologists do correlational studies like these, they arent one size fits all. there will always be exceptions to the rule (like ur daughter). the study means "more often than not (put ur theory here)." in the data collected with moms that work and their kids' v. moms that dont work and their kids' health, the study is just basically saying the outcomes are related...not necessarily that one causes the other.
As a stay at home dad - I understand the study. Children with two working parents spend their days with hired care givers. They take the path of least resistance when taking care of kids. Day-care or preschool - the kids will spend some time watching TV or playing on computers and while they may be offered healthy snacks and drinks, who is going to fight with the kids over eating fresh veggies versus graham crackers or sugary beverages versus water. I work hard to provide my kids health snacks. I have no idea why my kids prefer broccoli, pea pods and pears to cookies and gummy snacks. It is more expensive by far to buy fresh fruits and vegetables, but as long as they are eating them I will buy them.
Have a nice day.
#7 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:23 PM EDTThis really isnt a surprise. Working mothers dont spend as much time with their children as stay at home parents can. And then when they are home, they are tired, albeit an excuse, they just want to get dinner on the table, and often times that means not the healthiest. I.e whatever they could pick up on the way home. Also, I know when I was a child, when my mom didnt work, she actually went outside and played with us. We ran around went for walks, bicycle rides, skating trips. But when my mom worked she didnt feel like doing those things. Some of these articles are just DUH!
#8 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:24 PM EDTWell, as a Mom myself, I am the exact opposite. When I was home, all I wanted to do was sit & watch soaps. I watched them so much that God forbid if I missed one day. The kids played with their toys & the cat. After I went out into the working world, I not only loved it, but I also was energized to come home & make dinner, go to my son's baseball games in the evening, attend my daughter's concerts, etc. Bottom line, I was happy with myself & what I was doing, and that in itself gave me all the energy I needed. Now, their Dad......uummm welll, huh.... Don't know where he was. But I know he wasn't paying child support.
Your experience does not speak for the whole and it is offensive. I know plenty of "stay-at home" moms who do nothing but get their nails done and watch TV...should I base my opinion of ALL SAHM's based on this? No...many of us "working moms" are VERY involved. Heck, I'm the one out there throwing the baseball (not even his Dad does this)...my son is very well adjusted, happy and healthy. And he has also learned that mommy works not only to make sure we have a good home, but that she helps people (I am a nurse). He will not grow up thinking he is entitled to things he hasn't worked for.
When I grew up (in the late '50's and early '60's) my mom worked, which was unusual at that time. For much of my childhood, she was a single parent. We ate breakfast together before we both went to "work" (school for me). I ate the school lunch and came home and helped her cook dinner (some of which was food prepared by us together over the weekend...there were no microwaves then, so no fast easy way to prepare things). Occasionally, I would be "babysat" by my friends' stay at home moms (something for which my mom would pay them to do on school holidays that were not holidays for her). These women would lock us kids out of the house, tell us to drink water from the hose if thirsty and then themselves sit in the house together playing cards and drinking coffee, obviously bored out of their minds. I may well have been the only one of these kids who learned how to cook healthy food. The other moms were certainly not teaching their kids to cook. As a working adult, I came to appreciate things such as microwave ovens. Not to "zap" junk food, but to adapt the "from scratch" recipes that I learned growing up to be prepared more quickly. BTW, I think the kids of these "ignore the brats" moms probably grew up better adjusted than the hovered over, pampered little darlings of today's stay at home moms. At least my friends learned how to take care or themselves and that they were not the center of the world.
Freedom writer - I was thinking along the same lines. Duh - I take better care of my kids when I'm around them and have some energy left for important things, and not exhausted from work. I hate working outside the home. But I have no choice. I hope by the time I have grandkids I can be home all day.
Sorry sometimes the fathers walk out and we have to raise our kids alone, which means WORKING....and when I'm not at work I am not a lazy parent, but yes, I am tired. Maybe I should just quit my job and go on welfare so I can stay home and police everything that goes in my child's mouth...oh wait, you probably wouldn't want me to do that....Let's face it; it's a lose-lose situation for a working parent.
#9 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:47 PM EDTAmen! I couldn't agree with you more!
Well said.
Amen! I'm so sick of these studies blaming moms. I can't afford to stay home. My mom stayed home and was so neurotic about everything we put in our mouths that we all have food problems as adults. My husband and I both work, yet we both find time to teach our kids about nutrition, and they eat healthier than I did as a child. Maybe the point of this study is that dads whose spouses/partners have to work to make ends meet should take on more of the parenting responsibilities.
Exactly!!!
Well... it's not just about EATING is it?
So sick of this crap. Look, most mothers have to work. A fact of life. When was this study done anyway? I think it just shows the importance of the father's involvement in the whole process. Cooking can be done by either parent.
#10 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:57 PM EDToh god please dont ask my husband to cook for the kids or it will be hotdogs, pasta or toast lol.
It's all about personal choice and parenting behavior. I went back to work when my son was 8 weeks old - his father had a different schedule so there were at most a few hours a day when one of us wasn't with him, but at a year old, he was in daycare full time and loved it! He is happy, very healthy in every way, well adjusted, socialized, gets good grades, loves sports and hanging out with friends, respects animals and nature, and as a young teen is infinitely more mature than a lot of kids his senior (never mind some adults). Oh, and let me add he has an incredible work ethic that will serve him well in life - he plans on college and has already taken on neighborhood side jobs until he can legally be gainfully employed. He wants to do this while he's in school. Oh, and one of his favorite things is a green salad, he loves asparagus and lean meat turkey burgers on whole grain bread. He has eaten fast food probably twice in the last five years (during times of travel). Soda is special treat for special occasions and sometimes on the weekend.
So again, this is a personal choice and parenting behavior issue - period, doesn't matter whether they work or stay at home!
For some of us having a career/working life gives us balance and makes us better parents! WHERE's that study?
#11 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:14 PM EDTOh, for crying out loud! Yet ANOTHER anti-working mom article/study? For goodness sakes! I am almost 40 years old, and am a stay-at-home mom (3 children). The last thing working mothers need is another "study" telling them that by working, they're harming their children. Give it a rest! Working moms need our support, not our derision.
#12 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:33 PM EDTKids in general are unhealthy! Just about all kids spend to much time on the computer, texting, television, etc.
#13 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:43 PM EDTI love the people on here who think that both parents HAVE to work. Yes, in some cases it is true that both parents need to work to make ends meet and yes single parents need to work full time to support their kids and that's fine, but most families have both parents working so that they can afford cell phones, tv's, computers, internet, cable, overprices cars and other mindless, useless junk that we dont need, we want. We are shallow, mass consumers and our children are suffering because of it. Learn to limit your luxuries. Our family has the internet, but no cable or cell phones and we're still happy. My kids and I go to the library and spend time reading, talking and making healthy dinners together and our family is closer and happier than it was when both parents were working.
i agree with everything u just stated!! ^5 not coveting the materials things is something that i constantly have to remind my husband of, but we get by just fine without watching The First 48 on A&E (he'll watch CSI instead) and Discovery Science (i'll just catch a good episode of Nova on PBS)!!!
"I love the people on here who think that both parents HAVE to work. Yes, in some cases it is true that both parents need to work to make ends meet and yes single parents need to work full time to support their kids and that's fine, but most families have both parents working so that they can afford cell phones, tv's, computers, internet, cable, overprices cars and other mindless, useless junk that we dont need, we want."
I would change this around as my experience is the reverse... SOME two income families are by choice whereas MOST two income families are by necessity. Unless you consider food, clothing, utilities, and shelter to be luxuries.
I would like nothing more than for either my husband or I to be home full time with our son once he is born, but that just is not going to be fiscally possible. And not because we have a lot of unnecessary things... but because the price of the necessities has increased faster than the income. Almost all of the working moms I deal with are in the exact same situation. I'm happy (and slightly jealous) for anyone who isn't in that situation.
Your twisting my words around. I never said clothing, shelter or food was a luxury. Obviously you and your husband both work low income jobs so you both must work to provide and thats fine. Most low income households do need both parents to work.
I cannot say enough times how ridiculous this study is. Single dads don't raise their children, they rely on their mom or their girlfriend to take care of them. They only get their children on the weekends - that's not fatherhood. Single women are raising their children alone because men don't step up! They make the babies and walk away. How about a study on how much nurturing and care single fathers give their children. That would be an interesting study!
I am a single mom and my son is very healthy. His dad walked away before he was born. I am raising him COMPLETELY alone. He eats healthy meals, swims 4 days a week, rides his skateboard and is seldom sick or misses school.
So there!!!!!!!!!
#14 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:46 PM EDTI have to agree with you that all of these different "studies" seem to focus on the mom quite a bit more often than the dad. Quite a bit more often. Regardless though, I found this article to be so completely stupid that I stopped reading about half way through it and just jumped to the comments section to see what others thought.
I agree. My kids dad has very little to do with them. In his defense he does live out of state and pays his child support, which he has to because he's military, but he doesn't even bother to pick up the phone. And even when we were married and he was here he never lifted a finger to help with them. I work full time and cook all the time, nothing fancy but always involving fresh food. I am a competitive distance runner and my boys watch me eating healthy so they do also. I also explain to them why good food is better and that their bodies are not trash dumps for whatever garbage they can get. We have more respect for ourselves then that. It is not as expensive as people think to eat healthy; I don't buy much meat and when I do I use it sparingly. That's where a lot of money goes; meat and poultry is expensive. I probably spend around $250/mo on food and we pretty much never go out, sometimes on friday night for a treat. They also help me pick out dinner and cook which is big help. My boys are 8 and 6 and already starting to do fun runs with me, and they know that mom's running time is to be interrupted under penalty of death (not literally). Someone better be in danger to get me off the treadmill! On another note, I know several stay at home moms and they are all on Prozac and eat crap all day, as do their kids so I'm not sure this study is valid.
Sexist Bull S$%#... Single dads don't raise their kids? WTF???? So bitter.... Just because your guy left doesn't mean all men are like that... I know lots of happy couples with kids where both parents raise the kids... explain that.
Well, I myself know lots of couples myself, but not too many that are happy. Sure, there are dads out there who take part, but in not being willing to admit that a LOT of dads just don't is plain delusional on your part.
I'm offended by this so-called study and the assumptions that working mothers don't care about their children because they're too busy with their own lives. I am a single mother of 4 boys. My boys ride their bikes to school...even in bad weather. I don't buy junk food so they eat healthy snacks at home. I have a password-protected computer so they can't get on the internet whenever they want. They play soccer almost year-round. We eat dinners together every night. My kids are definitely not overweight and rarely miss a day from school due to illness. A family is what you make it. It doesn't matter if the mother works or if both parents work. It's all about prioritizing and providing guidance.
#15 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:44 PM EDTWell said! See my comment above. Kids pick up parents habits.
As a parent and grand parent, it seems obvious that children are better off when both parents don't have to work, whether it is mom or dad that stays home to take care of them. Unfortunately, children will have to be home alone while both parents work as long as the greedy top 5% of the population continues to hoard the majority of the wealth in the country which makes it is impossible for most families to raise children on one income.
#16 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:47 PM EDTMore like less than top 1% but otherwise you hit the nail on the head.
So sick of the inflammatory headlines. A simple change to "Kids of working parents less healthy" would have been far less offensive. Why does the staying home always fall on the mother? What if Dad is more equipped mentally to stay home? What if Mom makes more than Dad, or loves her career while Dad simply tolerates his?
I get so enraged by the sexist assumption that the kids' psychological and physical well-being lies squarely on Mom's decisions, when Dad is 50% of this equation too.
#17 - Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:34 PM EDTI'm very surprised it took experts to reveal something most of us already knew. Maybe the experts would like to hear some of the things the rest of us non experts can already tell them without us having to do research or studies. In the majority of most households it now requires more than two paychecks just to make ends meet. Which in turn also means kids are brought up in day cares until they reach an age where the law says it is okay to leave them home alone without guidance. In time, it will take 3-4 paychecks to make the household work. Which also means there is going to be even more dramatic changes in the makeup of households and how children are raised. The experts haven't seen anything yet.
#18 - Thu Oct 1, 2009 12:23 AM EDTDon't just settle for 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 ok Gosselins have.
or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 Octomom (Single mother invetro specialist) has.
or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 and 19's on the way or here the Dugger household. (Very busy Parents (:
I wonder if British subjects have harnessed the newest concepts of fertilization like the U.S. but I know of a few single Mothers with State Assistance which is not necessarily healthy for the children either.
The research, however, said it was not implying that mothers should not work, but highlighting the need for policies and programs to support parents.
With the goods and services becoming more expensive and wages decreasing, why not youth camps? Less junk food, no t.v. or internet and constant athletics and supervision so the parents can achieve an education and better occupation...oh wait this has been tried before ha ha ha what was I thinkin!
#19 - Thu Oct 1, 2009 12:23 AM EDTWhat about the DAD'S
#20 - Thu Oct 1, 2009 12:29 AM EDTthis is such an insult. i am a working mother and my daughter does not watch tv, eats fresh cooked food every night, as well as fruit. I never buy juice boxes either! living in southern Cal we are outside everyday!!!! Yes working moms are busy but we LOVE our children just as much as everybody else. When i am home with her it is quality time all the time!
#21 - Thu Oct 1, 2009 1:21 AM EDTToday's kids may well be physically "healthier" kids than other generations. The kids with stay at home moms may even be more physically "healthy" than other kids. The problem is, no one is teaching these kids how to be adults. The more parents hover, the worse the problem!
#22 - Thu Oct 1, 2009 1:25 AM EDTI don't have a boxer in this fight because I never had kids, but observation reveals that's it's foolish to make blanket statements or believe every "study" one reads. Some kids with stay-at-home mothers behave like they are being raised by wolves, perhaps they are treated like small royalty thus exaggerating their own sense of importance. Then there are the raised-by-wolves kids whose mothers work and are too tired, stressed or pressed for time to teach manners and proper decorum. Some kids whose mothers stay at home eat freshly prepared foods while others whose mothers are regularly engaged with siblings, housework, volunteer work or simply don't like to cook, eat a lot of packaged foods. Working moms often feel misguided guilt so many feel they must make up for their hours away from home by preparing fresh, wholesome food. The point is, raising kids is not an exact science and no formula works for each family. Every mother does the best she can and even the "perfect" mothers of the fifties didn't have all the answers. As long as a mom does her very best to raise a healthy, mannerly, respectful, thoughtful, kind, bright, productive child, whether she stays home, or works away from it, should not really be an issue.
#23 - Thu Oct 1, 2009 2:38 AM EDTMy opinions will be boiled down to this:
This study makes one important statement; employee wages are too low, and it is affecting the quality of our families. This isn't new information to me.
#24 - Thu Oct 1, 2009 3:16 AM EDTGoggled it. Apparently, the Millennium Cohort Study examines many aspects of family life, not just this one, and different reports are generated at different times. The news article at the following link for this particular aspect reports a whole different twist than MSNBC did. Not that the conclusions were any more palatable. http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/09/29/working-mothers-health-children.html
Mothers are doing the best they can whether opting to stay home or work outside the home. There's only 24 hours in a day; we're human, and until the burdens of paying bills, parenting, and housework are equally distributed, something, somewhere will slip from time to time. No one can do it all, 100%, all the time. There's a reason we're supposed to have 2 parents - so responsibilities can be shared, whether through the traditional 'division of labor' concept or more modern expectations. Accommodation policies and attitudes are still very much works in progress. In the current recession, it's a darn good think so many women are working outside the home, or many more families would be on the brink of total financial collapse. With either choice, we make sacrifices. Everyone has to decide for herself which set of sacrifices are easier to live with.
#25 - Thu Oct 1, 2009 4:05 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Follow msnbc.com health to get e-mail or watchlist alerts whenever new content is published, or subscribe via RSS:
Popular Articles & Seeds 
Obama wants school vending machines bannedOne bowl = 2 servings. F.D.A. may fix thatNewborn blood used in research angers parents9/11 health lawsuits raise credibility concernsGoodbye swine flu! Epidemic seems to be overThird-hand smoke a danger to babies, toddlersMan charged with operating on his own dogFirst lady begins fight against childhood obesity
Log In | Register
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
