Kids are fat because women have jobs

mmbt0ne · #1 06-10-2005, 05:49 AM

I was reading this article called 'European kids follow U.S. lead ... to obesity.' Basically, it just talks about how 20% of British kids are overweight or obese now, >30% of Italian, Spanish and Portuguese kids, etc.

What really interested me was this quote:

<blockquote>En réponse à:<hr />
Health economist John Komlos, a professor at the University of Munich in Germany, said that an increase in mothers who work outside the home means that children "eat more frozen foods which are a mixture of chemicals."

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, while this makes sense, is it really a fair thing to say? What would be the backlash if someone made this claim in the US? Be honest, some of you were ready to call me an idiot when you openned this thread. Some of you still are. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

iraise50 · #2 06-10-2005, 06:09 AM

I don't think women working is the reason our kids are fat. Additives in food, and over-indulgence in foods such as soda, and very large portions are together with reduced activity some of the more root causes. Case in point, myself. I gained 80 pounds after leaving the US Army. Granted I weighed 155 (at 6 foot 2) after Basic Training, but that's an insane amount to gain. Over 50% of my previous bodyweight. I worked it off, well, most of it. I can tell you that most of the gain came from inactivity. Running up/down subway steps to/from work and never eating ONE meal at my apartment (I didn't own a fork, spoon or drinking glass and the only food/beverages in my kitchen were beer, wine and vodka) was why I gained weight. I don't think any fancy thinking is to blame here. Kids today are allowed to eat all the candy, drink all the soda they want, and instead of playing tag they play PS2. Bad food, low/no activity = portly backsides. I know, I had one lol.

Cyrus · #3 06-10-2005, 10:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"The Atlanta Journal-Constitution" : Health economist John Komlos, a professor at the University of Munich in Germany, said that an increase in mothers who work outside the home means that children "eat more frozen foods which are a mixture of chemicals."

[/ QUOTE ]Unfailingly, the conservative minds will keep us amused when there's nothing on TV. I mean, what will they think of next ?

[ QUOTE ]
This makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ] It does? Why?

Kids --and adults-- have a radically different diet now than they did fifty years ago, and even more radical than a hundred years ago. We are all eating more lousy, chemically burdened, tasteless food than ever before.

Singling out kids by singling out single mothers is stupid. This could be one of the reasons and under specific circumstances too, mostly prevalent in some western democracies. There are tons of women in those democracies or the Third World who are breaking their backs working twelve hours a day -- without child care centers to mind their little 'uns. And you can bet your bottom dollar those women's kids are NOT suffering from obesity...

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

That's right : mincemeat.

superleeds · #4 06-10-2005, 10:41 AM

Thanks

Yesterday I put down some cat food, Chicken feast, and she woofed it down, this morning, same flavor, she didn't want to know. Read this, checked my genitalia and had my mind eased

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

mmbt0ne · #5 06-10-2005, 11:35 AM

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

However, as logical as that arguement may seem it's obviously flawed. A more correct assumption would be that laziness is what leads to the increased consumption of fattening pre-prepared meals. The same laziness is what keeps the kids indoors and in front of the computer all day both here and in other industrialized countries.

<blockquote>En réponse à:<hr />
What does that make of the preposterous neo-con argument about "women working --> kids fattening" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

That was the point of the thread.

iraise50 · #6 06-10-2005, 11:47 AM

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

That was the point of the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a conservative, just not an idiot.

(They're in both parties, I think we can both agree)

My wife is a teacher. We had her two-year old niece with us throughout the summer. My wife taught all summer long, so guess who made lunch? No Little Debbies and coca-cola at our house either. I didn't just play poker and have her watch Barney either, we played in the park, went swimming, lots of tag and many insanely loud days at Chuckie Cheese. Ok I liked taking her there. Shhh, I pretend to not like it. Point is I wasn't doing anything I won't do as a parent to my own kids, or that mothers and fathers around the world aren't doing now. In my first response I tried showing alternative reasons to blaming the problem on women having the new-fangled idea to go to work (I hear they're going to wear pants now, too). Now, I'll be blunt. That's a stupid idea. STUPID.

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

I don't know how to do multiple quotes, so...you can figure out where I'm quoting in the above thread form the second post of the OP.

Are you serious? My grandfather grew up in WWII and yeah, grandmother cooked a lot of meals, but he cooked several too. My mother was a single mother. She worked full time, attended college full time and had three children. I ate, damned good food, too. We didn't just get twinkies and and bonbons and maple syrup to wash it down with. Seriously, I find the whole notion idiotic. For the record, mmbt0ne, I don't tihnk you're an idiot, I think that article is and you need to be more critical in your thinking, becasue the article is so incredibly misguided it makes me wonder if our government didn't pay a $25,000 subsidy for its completion.

JackWhite · #7 06-10-2005, 11:52 AM

[ 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?

langley11 · #8 06-10-2005, 12:06 PM

What ever happened to equality between sexes - why the hell should the woman be at home preparing the dinner...

mmbt0ne · #9 06-10-2005, 04:05 PM

<blockquote>En réponse à:<hr />
Are you serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's been rather clear throughout this thread that I'm not.

JackWhite · #10 06-10-2005, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What ever happened to equality between sexes - why the hell should the woman be at home preparing the dinner...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am all for equality. However, shouldn't that go both ways? If the ship is sinking, why should women get the lifeboats? Why do women win child custody cases the vast majority of the time? That is not equality. Has to cut both ways if we truly want equality.