Kids are fat because women have jobs

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
It makes sense in that:

Women work -> less time to cook
less time to cook -> pre-prepared meals
pre-prepared meals = more fattening
more fattening -> fatter

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a very valid point in this that you guys in this thread are overlooking.

On a related, but side note:

National geographic had a rather troubling series on our planet and diet linky

[Benal]

I think a lot of childhood obesity issues come down to laziness and convenience. For instance, my mother worked outside the home throughout my childhood and adolecence, yet she still found the time to cook everyday. We also sat down at the kitchen table as a family for dinner everyday. And we didnt have a TV in the kitchen.. imagine that!

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any neo-cons involved in this. Do you?


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, I do.

The argument that women entering the work force (which is another way of saying women's emancipation, although the equivalence is false) is a major cause of our "liberal society's" ills has been a conservative staple for years. Now, it's also an argument of the neo-conservatives.

[johnc]

Obesity is so prevalent in America primarily due to, put simply, laziness. Not that Americans can't work or hold a job, it's the lack of motivation we observe as a "convenience mentality" that the fast food industry caters to. European countries such as Italy and France have nowhere near the obesity problems Americans have due primarily the lack of overwhelming availablity (of fast food choices) AND societal acceptance but times they are a changin'. Articles like this I would speculate are a backlash to what is percieved as American intrusion into European society and all the ills that go along with it.
However, the theme of working women as causing obesity lends itself more to humorous outcomes than to plausible claims but, then again, my cat is picky about his food as well, hmmmm.

[Warchant88]

Anyone see "Super Size Me"?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What does that make of the preposterous neo-con argument about "women working --> kids fattening" ?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this a "neo-con" argument. Can you please tell me the difference between the conservative and the neo-conservative position on obesity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jack, you have to understand that Cyrus has a specialized form of M.U.B.S. (Monsters Under the Bed Synodrom) known as N.U.B.S. Neo-cons, the term which he bandies about so lightly, are responsible for every ill imaginable. You'll get used his particular form of inanity if you keep reading this forum long enough.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Jack, you have to understand that Cyrus has a specialized form of M.U.B.S. (Monsters Under the Bed Synodrom) known as N.U.B.S. Neo-cons, the term which he bandies about so lightly, are responsible for every ill imaginable. You'll get used his particular form of inanity if you keep reading this forum long enough.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have noticed this here, and in many other forums. Everyone is focused on "neo-conservatives." I think a lot of people have no idea where the term comes from and what it means. There are certainly differences on many foreign policy questions between neo-cons and more tradition cons, (sometimes referred to as paleo-cons) but when talking about obesity, I had a hard time seeing the revelance of talking about neo-cons.

So your answer makes a lot of sense. Did you happen to read Jim Lampley's ranting about Ohio on the HuffingtonPost? He went on and on about how there was a massive neo-conservative conspiracy to steal the election in Ohio. Byron York of the National Review responded by saying, "Can you explain the difference between the conservative and the neo-conservative position on Ohio?" So that is now my response when I hear people misuse the term. I just substitute the issue at hand for the word "Ohio."

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jack, you have to understand that Cyrus has a specialized form of M.U.B.S. (Monsters Under the Bed Synodrom) known as N.U.B.S. Neo-cons, the term which he bandies about so lightly, are responsible for every ill imaginable. You'll get used his particular form of inanity if you keep reading this forum long enough.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have noticed this here, and in many other forums. Everyone is focused on "neo-conservatives." I think a lot of people have no idea where the term comes from and what it means. There are certainly differences on many foreign policy questions between neo-cons and more tradition cons, (sometimes referred to as paleo-cons) but when talking about obesity, I had a hard time seeing the revelance of talking about neo-cons.

So your answer makes a lot of sense. Did you happen to read Jim Lampley's ranting about Ohio on the HuffingtonPost? He went on and on about how there was a massive neo-conservative conspiracy to steal the election in Ohio. Byron York of the National Review responded by saying, "Can you explain the difference between the conservative and the neo-conservative position on Ohio?" So that is now my response when I hear people misuse the term. I just substitute the issue at hand for the word "Ohio."

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically view it as a form of intellectual laziness. Neo-conservatism now is much different from when it was first envisioned. Most people think that neo-conservatives are united on foreign policy issues but this isnt even the case. Its basically become a slur, much like the term liberal is used among the right. I myself have been guilty of this from time to time but I do try to avoid it. Also, generalizing is sometimes a useful tool in debate. However the consistency in which the term is misused is somewhat maddening to me.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus ... he bandies about the term Neo-cons ... lightly. [He considers them] responsible for every ill imaginable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Not for every ill. Just some choice ones.

Why bring neo-cons into this ?