Children of working mothers are more likely to be obese, apparently. They sit at home, entirely alone but for a designated care-giver, thinking “Where’s my mummy? Doesn’t she love me at all? Oh, for the selfless care of my biological mater! Instead I’ll have to make do with these sweets and bars of chocolate”.
According to a recent study by the Institute of Child Health at University College London (UCL) and Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London, families with an income between £22, 000 and £33, 000 were 10 percent more likely than poorer families to turn out overweight children; those with an income above £33, 000 were 15 percent more likely.
An increase in obesity was registered where mothers reported long hours at work, where no connection was found with the fathers’ hours.
It’s a funny old business, being a mother. A survey comes out with the clear suggestion that, even with a job, women still have to take care of all the cooking, yet nobody says: “Why doesn’t a father’s decision to work or not have more nutritional impact on their households? It is because they are lazy bleeders any ways?” Nobody says: “It ought to be possible to do a job and still get home for teatime. Why aren’t employers more flexible?” They say instead: “A lot on her plate: A child’s diet can suffer when the mother works.”
There are probably a few lobby-type individuals who think these sort of headlines are a boon for children. Take Susan Jebb, head of nutrition at the UK’s Medical Research Council. “This is a wakeup call for middle-class families,” she says. Well, no it isn’t. Nobody bases their family life on a survey.
When you look at your kid, and he or she is fat, there is your wake-up call. But the people who disseminate this stuff do so notion’s tidy waists. No, they do it to make women feel inadequate.
There’s such a lot of it about, this vindictive behavior. What kind of warped individual would take enjoyment form it? I wonder if it’s because their father went out to work.