I think we should start writing the alternate headlines for everything. How about,
A. "When Dads are Lazy, Kids Get Fat." Or
B. "Unskilled Fathers Lead to Obesity."
C. "Irresponsible So-Called Sperm Donors Are Killing Their Offspring, Research Says."
D. "Researchers Fail to Determine Which is Worse: No Father, Lazy Father, or Ignorant Father."
E. "Dads Contribute: Honey, I'm Killing the Kids."

What about the schools that don't allow kids to run on the playground for fear of liability and serve crap on a plate for lunch? I believe the article fails to mention that. Personally, my mother and father both held full-time jobs and I wasn't an obese child. Just because there is a hint of a correlation between the two, doesn't mean that one causes the other.

Why is it all the Mom's fault? I mean, okay, so kids who are less supervised, blah blah blah...fine. Why does that automatically have to translate to "Mom's who work are bad"?

Couldn't possibly be that daycares, etc. are giving out crap food...but of course, that's the fault of the evil Mommy for putting her kid there in the first place. Somehow, it always links back to being Mom's fault.

And I bet if the family was too poor to afford much more than crap food, it would still be Mom's fault for (presumably) buying it and feeding it to the family. Couldn't have anything to do with simple lack of availability of anything else. Nope, let's blame the women!

I like how the alternative to having both parents work is having just dad work. Since dad has to work, it must be mom's fault for choosing to work. Selfish thing.

Charming. Another news story by someone that doesn't understand causality. These are just stupid, and offensive, too.

The weirdest thing about the headline is that the article spends no more than 1/3 of the space discussing this (totally BS) theory. So why the headline then? Why not the headline "changing job technology makes people fatter" (another theory mentioned towards the end). Or "fast food advertising is bad for kids" (which is actually given more space than the working moms thing). I hate when publications use headlines just for the sake of controversy.

I'm not surprised in the least that the headline isn't something like, "When Dad Leaves, Kids Get Fat" or even "When Parents Make Poor Decisions, Kids Get Fat", or "When Schools Serve Crap For Lunch, Kids Get Fat".

The worst part about it, is that I don't think they even realize the message that they're giving by slanting it that way.

I am so fuckingtired of ANYONE talking about this American society we live in as though it is an actual option for mothers NOT to work.

78% of mothers work outside the home because the family NEEDS THE MONEY to SURVIVE.

You know what? All you folks who wish mothers didn't work on anything except raising their children? Commit right now to paying their partners twice as much money, and paying money into social security and medicare on the woman's behalf.

Don't want to? Then SHUT the FUCK UP.

The article does direct you to a study on the issue, and it does contextualize the problem.

Sure, it's out there to be a catchy headline (with the even catchier subhead "An incendiary new explanation for childhood obesity.") but isn't that, um, journalism?

It's kind of like saying "Lesbians have better sex" when the study doesn't even mention that fact, isn't it?

kmtberry, You tell 'em. Your economy would go down the plug hole if every woman stayed at home. Lay off mums, at work or at home.

What makes kids and adults fat is too much "fast" food, empty calories. Pure and simple.

A more accurate assessment would be "fat kids watch more TV." Did anyone read the recent interview with Dr. Susan Okie, author of "Fed Up! Winning the War Against Childhood Obesity," at salon.com? As a country, we have a huge problem (no pun intended) with overweight children. The companies advertising snacks and sodas on "Family Guy" and "South Park" are not looking out for our children's best interests.

Q. One researcher you quote says that you don't have to try to get your kids to exercise more, you just have to try to get them to watch less TV, and then they'll naturally get more exercise.

A. Right, they'll find other things to do. And almost anything else they do
will be more active.

http://xrl.us/r35b (Link to dir.salon.com)
http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2005/04/16/kids_obesity/index1.html?pn=1

Well, they can either put their family into poverty or GET THE NEW HP PHOTO SYSTEM WITH SLIMMING EFFECT!

kmtberry -
Amen, sister. You rock.

Other headlines that would not work, for economic reasons:

"When kids watch enough TV to see THIRTY FREAKING MINUTES OF FOOD ADS, they get fat"
"When Madden '06 is more fun than real football with neighborhood friends, kids get fat"
"When food companies advertise nasty sugary fat filled fake food to children, the kids get fat"

But we don't want to lose advertising dollars, do we? So we go blame the one group that is NOT advertising with us - working moms, who are probably too tired to get upset about it anyway.

JohnPkc, Not entirely true.

A sedentary lifestyle will impact on one's general health/fitness but ...

Growing up in a generation that was obsessed by TV (it was new), we didn't get fat and certainly not morbidly obese ... prepacked, heavily processed, quick-fix, drive-thru fast food makes one fat. Our brains fail switch off from hunger mode. As a consequence, we consume more and mores calories etc. Just one bag of chip/crips, or whatever you call them, is just one too many. Interestingly, you will probably find that these children, for all their fat, are in fact malnourished.

Picture your skinny nerdy kid of days gone by ... spent his/her life with their nose in a book - TV, book, board-games, studying, what's the difference, we didn't get fat.

PS I maybe wrong on this ... but in a country (sadly becoming a pandemic), where one considers opening a box of crap constitutes breakfast, how can anyone blame lack of activity. They could run around all day and never burn off that energy ... conversely, they have no energy, because of the garbage packaged as "food".