Girls: Do more housework 2 B thin!

[TheMason]

SOURCE

So this is an interesting read. Seems that there was a study on women's activity levels since the 1960s and how our more sedintary culture is contributing to women's expanding bellies. According to the study this is because they do on average less housework than their mothers and grandmothers. Even amongst stay-at-home wives, the amount of physical activity is falling.

The New York Times ran an aticle about the study titled What Housework Has to Do With Waistlines.

The response was swift and severe. The article was tweeted and retweeted. It was decried as sexist. And why didn't they study men's guts! Those sexist pigs!

The funny thing is people were reacting without reading the article and judging it on the headline...not its scientific merits. For example:

* The study was in response to a 2011 study that studied how work patterns have resulted in less active lives and more health risks...the study underrepresented women so the study's authors wanted to focus on women since patterns with females were not examined.

* The study was not about whether or not women should do housework, but how their activity level has dropped whether working in or outside the home.

* Working women actually burn more calories than housewives since the deficit for housewives is -360 calories/day from 1960s levels, and working women's deficit is -132 calories/day.

So I wonder if the knee-jerk reaction by the NYT's readership (which 'cmon...when was the last time a conservative/Republican/Libertarian read the NYT? I mean we're still painting on cave walls and bashing women over the head with clubs!) means that Liberals are anti-science?

:p

[Korriken]

SEXISM AT ITS BEST GRRAAAUUURRRR DONT YOU KNOW ITS MCDONALDS, BURGER KING, AND THE GOP THATS MAKING WOMEN FAT?!?!

[Camarohusky]

Right conclusion, wrong wording.

It is true that housewomen are gaining weight because of less activity. However, the way the study words it makes it seem as it that's the fault of the women, when it is not. It;s the fault of technology. Part of the reason the amount of housework has been cut in half, even while home size has increased, is because technology has taken a great deal of time and manual labor out of the same activities.

The washer and the dryer remove the need for extensive drying, and a lot of extra wash work (like ironing in many cases).
Better kitchen appliances (and the advent and expansion of instant meals) has significantly reduced the amount of time need for cooking.
Vacuum cleaners no longer weigh 60 pounds and they work better, thus removing the need for as much vacuuming and making that which remains a lighter activity.
Full on mopping is rarely needed with swiffer and such instant mops.

So unless the modren homemaker is replacing that work time with some sort of activity (light exercising or such) the current homemaker does 1/2 the activity. Such time is often replaced by sedentary acts, namely the television.

Let's also not forget the general reduction in acivity in scoiety over the past 50 years, as well as the explosion in unhelthy eating habits and massive amounts of cola drinking.

In short, the study does itself a major disservice by wording its conclusion to say that homemakers work less than before (as if they're worth less than before) and by implying that the reduction inhousework related activity is the primary cause for the weight gain, whcih we all know it is not. It is just another factor among many. But hey, if they hadn't worded it so controversilly, none of us would know it ever took place.

[Lenda]

u have my support

[Warforger]

Hahahaha. Obesity is viewed incorrectly in America. Part of the problem is that more women are working and on top of that take of children. Part of the problem is the long work hours and short work leaves. Whereas the US at most gives 3 months of maternity leave for women (that's in CA, it varies state to state) other countries like Denmark give around a year. Another factor for obesity actually the strongest indicator of obesity is income. It's the only statistic that predicts obesity the best. Simply put the poorer you are the more likely you are to be obese because you simply can't afford healthy food and have to eat fast food. So I think it's a lot more complicated than "do more housework and you're fine" because its more likely they can't.

Besides it goes both ways. Income inequality is heavily correlated with rate of mental illness, happiness, trust, crime etc. and in the video's comments right wingers were raging about how it was all bullshit ( countries with higher inequality scored poorly, in particular the US ranked poorly and had one of the highest income inequalities).

[BumFodder]

poor link between correlation and causation

[RydiaLockheart]

Camaro already said what I was going to, but there's another point: if you just keep doing the same thing over and over again, your body gets used to it and stops reacting. That's why people trying to lose weight need to change their exercise routines, because after awhile your body catches on and you won't lose any more weight. So if you're just running the vacuum the same way over and over again, you'll stop losing weight.

Also, technology has become more efficient. With a modern Dyson, it probably takes about 45 minutes to do the whole house, not five hours. Of course, a sedentary lifestyle is the biggest problem.

[Korriken]

At 3/1/13 07:34 PM, Warforger wrote: Another factor for obesity actually the strongest indicator of obesity is income. It's the only statistic that predicts obesity the best. Simply put the poorer you are the more likely you are to be obese because you simply can't afford healthy food and have to eat fast food.

I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on this. There is plenty of healthy foods that are very affordable. Problem is we live in an entitled society. if you take what it would cost a family of 4 to go eat at mcdonalds and used it to cook a healhy meal, you could feed the 4 people very well and have some change left over. It's not that they can't eat healthy, it's that people refuse to eat healthy. eating healthy and eating well are not luxuries only the rich can afford.

one of the biggest problem is people's reliance on meat meat and more meat in their diets. some meat is good. problem is, people insist on making meat the biggest portion of their meals and doing so 3 times a day. you can buy frozen vegetables fairly cheap.

I've lost a good bit of weight by eating healthier. an extra value meal at McDonalds is about $7-ish where I live. for $7, the price of 1 meal, I can cook a pot of beans and cook some rice on the side, which is a healthy meal, and feed 4 people with it. If i cooked a cabbage on the side (about 55 cents a pound) I can feed even more.

it's not that people CAN'T eat healthy. They refuse to eat healthy, then blame being poor for it. I'm poor and I eat healthy.

[Ericho]

Oh, I thought you said "homework" at first. I was about to say that this was something I could associate with, but I really can't anymore, except for using the vacuum cleaner. Do they say anything about if men who do housework are in shape as well? I doubt it would matter that much, we're more known for working out.

[Warforger]

At 3/1/13 11:17 PM, Korriken wrote: I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on this. There is plenty of healthy foods that are very affordable.

You can get a cheeseburger for one dollar, you can't get an equivalent meal prepared at the same price that's healthy.

Problem is we live in an entitled society. if you take what it would cost a family of 4 to go eat at mcdonalds and used it to cook a healhy meal, you could feed the 4 people very well and have some change left over. It's not that they can't eat healthy, it's that people refuse to eat healthy. eating healthy and eating well are not luxuries only the rich can afford.

That would be great had poverty not been the best correlation for obesity.

one of the biggest problem is people's reliance on meat meat and more meat in their diets. some meat is good. problem is, people insist on making meat the biggest portion of their meals and doing so 3 times a day. you can buy frozen vegetables fairly cheap.

The problem is not enough and many of these poor families don't have the time to cook anyway.

it's not that people CAN'T eat healthy. They refuse to eat healthy, then blame being poor for it. I'm poor and I eat healthy.

They don't; statistics do.

[Korriken]

At 3/2/13 01:18 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 3/1/13 11:17 PM, Korriken wrote: I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on this. There is plenty of healthy foods that are very affordable.

You can get a cheeseburger for one dollar, you can't get an equivalent meal prepared at the same price that's healthy.

cheeseburger $1. value fries $1, value drink $1. for a family of 4 that's $12. you can fix some VERY good healthy meals for $12. In fact, I got half a mind to figure out a way to get my hands on a camera and do a youtube cooking show about making good family sized meals for under $15. How do I know? easy. I do it! I can take my 6 quart stock pot, for $12 fill it with a little meat and other goodies, cook up some rice to add to it and stretch the food out and I can eat for days on it. for $12! If I can eat for 3 days on a 6 quart pot of soup/stew/etc and 3 cups of rice, a family can make at least 1 or 2 meals of it.

sometimes I don't even add meat. I did a vegetarian cabbage stew one time that was dynamite! It was also cheap.

That would be great had poverty not been the best correlation for obesity.

correlation is not causation. In many parts of the world those in poverty are so emaciated that it's a wonder they can breed at all. Why is it that only in the "developed" nations that the poor are fat?

The problem is not enough and many of these poor families don't have the time to cook anyway.

If you don't have time to cook, you're doing some very wrong. with all of our modern and affordable conveniences, like slow cookers, there's no excuse as to why at least 1 person can't prepare a meal. Also, it might just be where I've been, but it seems to be a lot of the 'poor' can afford tobacco and alcohol, which are very expensive, so I see no reason why they couldn't afford a rice cooker and slow cooker and prepare meals. It's not because they can't afford it. it's because they lack the discipline to do what they need to do, instead they eat out all the time, which is expensive, they smoke and drink, which are expensive, and they cry about not having money.

In case you were wondering, I have little sympathy for those who don't want to do what it takes to get ahead in life. Am I rich? hell no. I've worked and worked and worked, I haven't had a proper vacation in god knows how long (aside from being unemployed) Right now I'm studying to get my CDL, which will keep me employed. I've saved to get the few nice things I have.

They don't; statistics do.

statistics don't and can't tell the whole story. According to statistics Chicago and New Orleans are criminal war zones where walking into town is enough to get you shot.

[TheMason]

At 3/1/13 02:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Right conclusion, wrong wording.

It is true that housewomen are gaining weight because of less activity. However, the way the study words it makes it seem as it that's the fault of the women, when it is not. It;s the fault of technology. Part of the reason the amount of housework has been cut in half, even while home size has increased, is because technology has taken a great deal of time and manual labor out of the same activities.

Actually, technology is what the article is blaming...not the women.

The washer and the dryer remove the need for extensive drying, and a lot of extra wash work (like ironing in many cases).

They actually point this out. Especially in the case of clothes dryers. It is a time and energy saver putting clothes in the dryer next to the washer instead of hauling it outside to hang on the line.

Better kitchen appliances (and the advent and expansion of instant meals) has significantly reduced the amount of time need for cooking.

I'm not sure if the full study mentioned this.

Vacuum cleaners no longer weigh 60 pounds and they work better, thus removing the need for as much vacuuming and making that which remains a lighter activity.

This is something else that they pointed to.

Full on mopping is rarely needed with swiffer and such instant mops.

Again...not sure if they specifically point to this in the study. However, the main point is not that women have gotten lazy...just that technology has changed how we work (in and out of the home).

So unless the modren homemaker is replacing that work time with some sort of activity (light exercising or such) the current homemaker does 1/2 the activity. Such time is often replaced by sedentary acts, namely the television.

In 1965 women who stayed at home spent about 8+hrs a week watching TV. No they spend 16+hrs a week. And not just the TV...the internet too.

Let's also not forget the general reduction in acivity in scoiety over the past 50 years, as well as the explosion in unhelthy eating habits and massive amounts of cola drinking.

Diet was not in the study's scope, it was analyzing exercise patterns...which is what you're saying. Furthermore, like I said in the OP: the original 2011 study only looked at 'workers' which left out to a large extent women. This study is actually rectifying those who were marginalized by the general study.

In short, the study does itself a major disservice by wording its conclusion to say that homemakers work less than before (as if they're worth less than before) and by implying that the reduction inhousework related activity is the primary cause for the weight gain, whcih we all know it is not. It is just another factor among many. But hey, if they hadn't worded it so controversilly, none of us would know it ever took place.

Actually, the study probably is not worded all that controversially at all. What was worded controversially is the New York Times' headline (as well as mine). And that was actually my point in posting it was to see if I could duplicate the NYT's controversy here. You know...people getting all upset over just the provacative headline. I honestly wasn't expecting to catch you and some of the others who responded. I mean...many of your points pointing out what the study should've looked at (ie: vacuum cleaners, dryers, and TV).

In the end, the study is not really that flawed nor is it all that controversial. Instead, it shows how we as a country seem to want to make controversy over nothing.

[TheMason]

At 3/1/13 09:59 PM, BumFodder wrote: poor link between correlation and causation

Yeah...I'm guessing you didn't read the article (or the original New York Times article)...just read the headlines. Probably didn't even pay attention to the OP. :)

[TheMason]

At 3/1/13 07:34 PM, Warforger wrote: Hahahaha. Obesity is viewed incorrectly in America. Part of the problem is that more women are working and on top of that take of children.

Actually, the study found that women who work outside of the house burn more calories a week than those who stay home.

Part of the problem is the long work hours and short work leaves. Whereas the US at most gives 3 months of maternity leave for women (that's in CA, it varies state to state) other countries like Denmark give around a year.

This is pretty much irrelevent...and as the study found...counterproductive. Remember: working women burn only 132 fewer calories today than women did in 1965. Women who stay at home burn 360 less calories than women did in 1965. So having them spend a year at home will only lead to more sedintary lives.d

Another factor for obesity actually the strongest indicator of obesity is income. It's the only statistic that predicts obesity the best. Simply put the poorer you are the more likely you are to be obese because you simply can't afford healthy food and have to eat fast food.

Again...bullshit. Eating fast food is horribly expensive compared to eating healthy. While you point out the stuff on McDonald's dollar menu...you forget that chicken often costs less than a dollar a pound (a 5lbs whole roaster chicken around here costs about $4.60) and a can of veggies cost about $.50-.75 depending on whether or not you buy the store or name brand. There are also discount grocery stores such as Aldi's and Save-A-Lot where you can shop for cheap. The whole 'fast food' argument is highly specious.

So I think it's a lot more complicated than "do more housework and you're fine" because its more likely they can't.

I don't think it's near as complicated as you think. This study dovetails with a 2011 study that overemphasized men (because all they did was look at people who worked outside the home), the studies find that we as a society are expending a great deal less energy than we did in 1965. I mean this ain't rocket science.

Besides it goes both ways. Income inequality is heavily correlated with rate of mental illness, happiness, trust, crime etc. and in the video's comments right wingers were raging about how it was all bullshit ( countries with higher inequality scored poorly, in particular the US ranked poorly and had one of the highest income inequalities).

Huh? What video? On the Yahoo source there was a 1:30 video that had 10 tips for cleaning house. But nowhere did I see anything with 'right wingers' or the stuff you're talking about here.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/3/13 09:33 AM, TheMason wrote: Actually, technology is what the article is blaming...not the women.

I know this, but the many bylines and titles they put on the story strongly imply that it's the less work in stead of clearly pinning the blame on technology's lazing effect.

[Camarohusky]

Oh, and I'm just waiting for poniboi to comeon here and say women are fat because they aren't raped enough.

[TheMason]

At 3/3/13 11:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/3/13 09:33 AM, TheMason wrote: Actually, technology is what the article is blaming...not the women.

I know this, but the many bylines and titles they put on the story strongly imply that it's the less work in stead of clearly pinning the blame on technology's lazing effect.

It's an interesting study in media & politics/science. The study itself is most likely dry and boring. But the coverage is designed to sensationalize. The headline is specifically written to create interest in the story...and if it creates a little controversy...all the better!

Now yellow journalism has always existed. I wonder if in the info-entertainment age things are getting worse.

[Warforger]

At 3/3/13 09:53 AM, TheMason wrote: Huh? What video? On the Yahoo source there was a 1:30 video that had 10 tips for cleaning house. But nowhere did I see anything with 'right wingers' or the stuff you're talking about here.

I was merely putting anecdotal evidence mostly this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

The comments are flooded with Conservatives crying about how it's bullshit.

[Memorize]

At 3/3/13 10:42 PM, Warforger wrote:

The comments are flooded with Conservatives crying about how it's bullshit.

The Irony being that it's Liberal economic policy that causes a greater gap between rich and poor.

How's that Dodd-Frank regulatory bill doing?

Oh right, now the banks (most heavily regulated industry in the US) have even more money than ever.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/4/13 02:54 AM, Memorize wrote: How's that Dodd-Frank regulatory bill doing?

You don't even know what's in Dodd Frank.

[TheMason]

At 3/4/13 11:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/4/13 02:54 AM, Memorize wrote: How's that Dodd-Frank regulatory bill doing?

You don't even know what's in Dodd Frank.

It's passed now...so we can read it and know what's in it...right? ;)

[Warforger]

At 3/4/13 02:54 AM, Memorize wrote: The Irony being that it's Liberal economic policy that causes a greater gap between rich and poor.

How's that Dodd-Frank regulatory bill doing?

Oh right, now the banks (most heavily regulated industry in the US) have even more money than ever.

So you want Socialism? Because Libertarian economics can't possibly close any gap between rich and poor......

[T3XT]

Women can still do whatever the fuck they want with their lives.

Just because the "traditional modern family" works doesn't mean it's the only way to go.

[Korriken]

At 3/5/13 06:19 PM, T3XT wrote: Women can still do whatever the fuck they want with their lives.

Just because the "traditional modern family" works doesn't mean it's the only way to go.

Many things work and work well. Problem is our 'modern society' demonizes what works and glorifies what doesn't.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/5/13 06:31 PM, Korriken wrote: Many things work and work well. Problem is our 'modern society' demonizes what works and glorifies what doesn't.

Like what?

[T3XT]

At 3/5/13 06:31 PM, Korriken wrote:
Many things work and work well. Problem is our 'modern society' demonizes what works and glorifies what doesn't.

I know from experience that it's quite the opposite.

[Ceratisa]

At 3/5/13 06:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/5/13 06:31 PM, Korriken wrote: Many things work and work well. Problem is our 'modern society' demonizes what works and glorifies what doesn't.

Like what?

I dunno what he is referring to specifically but I can point to some things that just doesn't make sense
Like the drastically different views on a single father rising a child vs single mother. (in society)