advert

New Study Finds: Moms Who Read Studies More Likely To Go Insane

Jul27

by

An article came out this week that is so brilliant that it’s worth quoting at length. Like most science articles, it’s about a new study, and like so many studies, it’s one that blames mothers for more of the world’s ills. This most recent study (from Britain, which makes me feel a little better, but not much) has shown that successful working women are more likely to have fat kids. And guess whose fault it is! Yes, this “astonishing” new study proves without a doubt that “the nation’s higher-paid working mothers bear much of the responsibility for the country’s ticking obesity time bomb, and not the poorer working-class families who are usually blamed.”
It’s a shame when you can’t blame the poor people, isn’t it? But blaming women who have the nerve to get ahead—that’s a bit of a consolation. So, the selfish women who work and excel at their job–the very people who have a hard time abandoning their careers for their children—are guilty of raising a generation of fatties. If you have ambition, moms, you’re killing your family. Congratulations. Enjoy that fancy job title!
Let’s keep reading, shall we?
“More shockingly, the risk of childhood obesity soars in direct correlation with family income.”
I have to say, that is fairly shocking—hold on, Henry wants something from me. Again. What was that you wanted, son? A hug? What’s that? I have a deadline, kid, can we hurry this up? Now you want a king-sized Twix bar? Listen, my career’s not going thatwell–here’s a fun-sized Reese’s I nabbed from the Jiffy Lube.
Where were we?
“‘Long hours of maternal employment, rather than lack of money, may impede young children’s access to healthy foods and physical activity,’ say the researchers from the Institute of Child Health at University College London (UCL) and Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH), writing in the International Journal of Obesity this week.”
I can understand this. Because mothers are responsible for what their child is eating and doing, even when they’re not there. Not the caretakers of said child, oh no. Just this morning I was psychically directing the counselors at Henry’s camp to put away the grapes they were going to feed the children for snacktime, and instead load them up on Oreos and apple juice. Me. I did that.
Perhaps you’ve noticed that the employment status of fathers isn’t being held up for scrutiny. That’s because long hours of paternal employment have no effect on children; after all, men have to work, and the children understand and appreciate that. While women following their little hobbies or whatever build up fat-giving resentment in the systems of their offspring.
“Compounding the misery for working mothers, the study found that children’s weight problems got worse if mothers relied on a nanny to hold the fort while they pursued their careers. Children in childcare are 24 per cent more likely to be overweight or obese than children cared for by their mother or her partner.”
Well, consider my misery compounded. Science sure is useful! Hey, why has no one considered leaving the child with the family pet? If we have learned nothing else from the Carl books, it’s that dogs will keep your child entertained and exercised all day. And because dogs lack opposable thumbs, your child isn’t likely to overeat—or, hell, eat anything at all! Except maybe some nutritious kibble.
Now this story, which I am loving so much I kind of wished I lived in England, but not really, goes on to quote one working mother of four: “‘I don’t think that working mothers feed their kids less well than mums that stay at home. I’m actually better at organising what the kids eat when I’m working. I plan meals rather than just thinking, ‘I’ll sort it out later.'” Despite her best endeavours, one of her four children, Zoe, 16, is overweight…”
Good lord, woman, you have to be at high school with your daughter, making sure she’s not filling up on chips! Is it the school’s fault that that all the lunch options are deep-fried? If you had the time and the desire and the love to not only make your teen’s lunches but also spoon-feed them to her in the cafeteria, she wouldn’t be so grotesquely overweight. We all know that children whose mothers care about them enough to sacrifice their own lives never eat junk food. It’s a proven fact. At least, it probably will be, at some point.
Moving on: “Michael Scanlan, speaking for the Family and Parenting Institute, defended mothers’ right to work. “For many parents working is not a choice, it is a necessity. While research like this is very valid it can make parents feel guilty…”
Listen, maybe a little guilt would be good for them. I hear it burns calories.
In conclusion: “Dr Michele Elliott of Kidscape said:”The causative factor here has to be poor parenting regardless of whether you are working or not working.” To which the article’s author wrote, “Yeah, but the study proved that the causative factor is being a working mother, so I guess that means that working moms are lousy parents! Suck on that, Mrs. Doctor!” but then the editor circled that part in red and wrote “too much?’ so he had to take it out. Oh, but he wanted to leave it in. You know he did.

About the author

Alice Bradley

http://www.finslippy.com
Alice Bradley was a regular contributor to Alpha Mom, writing about current events as they related to parenting. You can read about her daily life at her personal blog, Finslippy.


Subscribe to posts by Alice Bradley

5 Responses to “New Study Finds: Moms Who Read Studies More Likely To Go Insane”

  1. Gillian Jul 27 at 11:11 am Reply Reply

    Wow. You think you’re making progress in the world, and then ka-blam. It would even have been a little easier to swallow if it spoke of households with two working parents, placing the “blame” for the “cause” of the obesity on the absence of both guardians. But nope. Not at all. The fault lands squarely on the female. Dad has nothing whatever to say about the feeding of the children, as well he shouldn’t, because that’s women’s work of course. OK so it’s just the Independent, and not the BBC, but even so it’s pretty awful.

  2. Procrastamom Jul 27 at 12:22 pm Reply Reply

    See, this explains it! My my middle income job is making my kids average sized. God, I’ve stressed for years over this and now I finally have answers. At least now I can put away those aspirations of earning more money. Why earn enough to buy a boat when your fat kids will just sink it?

  3. Cobwebs Jul 27 at 2:31 pm Reply Reply

    I would have read the rest of this article, but I’m afraid the vein in my forehead exploded at the “defended mothers’ right to work” part.
    I think they’re being a tad disingenuous about their comparisons: The article says that women who make over £33,000 (which is slightly over $66,000) are more likely to have overweight children than “families with the lowest incomes,” but never specifies how low that lowest income is. If the children in that group are so poor that they’re generally malnourished, then a higher percentage of obese children in the group which has access to plenty of food is hardly surprising.

  4. Gillian Jul 30 at 12:32 pm Reply Reply

    Just quickly again – the New York Times just printed an article in the Sunday 7/29 issue about how the mothers of out of control young female Hollywood stars – you know the names – are always faulted for the girls’ bad decisions. Most people don’t know the names of these girls’ fathers, but the mothers are crucified by the media and the public. Finally, of course, they’re all girls being vilified by the media at the moment, though many young men are making similar stupid mistakes. Anyway, this article made me think of your post. Maybe being overweight, or out of control, are both bad things – but why blame only the females for the trouble??

  5. edj Aug 26 at 7:03 pm Reply Reply

    Obviously my kids are too short because I’m not earning enough money! Yes! I need to work on this, obviously.
    Or wasn’t that the point?
    Guilt–I love it, I thrive on it, I embrace it. Bring it on! Yeah.

Follow us on Pinterest

Close