But it's not the working father's fault... no no, of course not. We'll just keep criticizing the working mothers until they get the point that they need to stay home again.

i'm waiting to hear one of these days about how working will make our kids blow up, literally explode.

Hmm. So while Mom is out working, you mean Dad is just letting the kids sit on their asses and eat junk food? How irresponsible of him!

Oh wait... the dads are working too? Well, why aren't they mentioned? Seems to me it takes two to tango...

alright. i'll agree with what they're saying in that yes, kids shouldn't spend all their time watching tv and eating gross over-packaged, over-processed snacks. what does that have to do with mom working? i'm thinking it might be more accurate to blame the capitalist/patriarchal system that creates the need to work outside of the home for pay, creates over-processed foods so that they can be sold more efficiently, and for tv that dwindles kids' attention spans down to nothing.

Ummm, kids in daycare centers watch MUCH less television than those who stay home and just because a mother stays home does not always mean that she is in the kitchen, happily creating fresh and healthy meals for her hard working husband and little angels, puhlease!

On the plus side, all the overweight babies can go on a fat-baby episode of Maury.

They said working mothers were also less likely to breastfeed for the recommended amount of time.

I wonder if that might have anything to do with discrimination against mothers who take maternity leave or inflexible working conditions that prevent women from pumping/nursing when necessary?

Nah. It's probably just that those working mothers are evil.

Obviously there are a lot of things wrong with the logic in this article. But while we're on the topic of junk food making us fat, I thought I'd plug the effort to revise the Farm Bill. It's a bill that gets voted on every five years, this being one of them. It has lots of stuff in it, and a lot of it is good, but one section is on commodities subsidies - the US gov't pays farmers (pretty much only the big corporate ones) to grow certain types of food, which hurts other American farmers and farmers around the world, because they can't compete with the artificially low prices. Not only is it a big global poverty problem, but two of the subsidized commodities are corn and soy, which are used to make a lot of sugary and fatty processed foods, which could be the reason why processed junk food is cheaper than healthy stuff like produce. And that could explain why poor people (whose families probably have working mothers) are more likely to be obese than rich people in the US. So if you're looking for someone to blame for our kids being fat, there's an idea. The One Campaign is working on doing something about the Farm Bill, in case you want to find out more.

I swear to god we are thisclose to an honest article that just states what they really want to say: BITCH GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN. Right now they're just dipping their toes in the water to see how much they can get away with, cause you know that's what they want to say but logic and common sense get in the way. I know it's anecdotal evidence but I come from a working class family, as do a lot of my friends, where both my parents worked and none of my parents kids, or my friends, were obese (highly different from "fat").

They really are scraping the bottom to find out what they can blame working mothers for.

This article is nice. Bashing working mothers while offering no real explanation as to why their kids are at a higher risk for obesity. Just that it might be because they didn't breastfeed long enough or because they may be filling their children with fast food and sitting them in front of the TV? Give me a break.

yeah, wonderful that they dont mention working fathers.
i dont understand...rather than teach your kid not to sit in front of the TV all day eating ring-dings, just quit your job and stay home?
and really, going by their bizarro logic...if the mom is out working, she is therefore earning more money than if she, you know, weren't working...and in that case would be better able (though not necessarily) to purchase the more expensive healthy foods as opposed to spending $5 at mcdonalds and makin a fat baby.
and really though...its lower income ppl/families who constitute the majority of mcdonalds customers...how is quitting your job (& therefore making less money, and being less able to afford healthy foods) gonna help your kids not be fat?

BLEHH. i dunno if any of that made sense but u see what im getting at.

I'd like to chime in about how lack of breastfeeding could = "fat" kids.
Old fashioned high protein baby formula has this effect. It really messes up a baby's body. Babies fed this kind of formula tend to grow way faster than other babies and can be somehow "set up" for obesity.
However, some newer formulas have been adjusted to lower the protein content. I hope that this means babies fed this type of formula will be healthier.

So, question: When they did this "study" that allegedly proves that having a working mother makes kids fat, did they include in the study any homes with stay at home dads? Or gay households? Because I want to know if kids were more likely to be overweight if Mom works even if Dad stays home. Maybe it's just a matter of having one parent staying home to spend more time and attention on shopping and cooking rather than a woman specific phenomena.

But of course, that doesn't get our silly little baby-making selves out of the office and into the kitchen. So, we'll probably never know.

yeah, wonderful that they dont mention working fathers.
i dont understand...rather than teach your kid not to sit in front of the TV all day eating ring-dings, just quit your job and stay home?
and really, going by their bizarro logic...if the mom is out working, she is therefore earning more money than if she, you know, weren't working...and in that case would be better able (though not necessarily) to purchase the more expensive healthy foods as opposed to spending $5 at mcdonalds and makin a fat baby.
and really though...its lower income ppl/families who constitute the majority of mcdonalds customers...how is quitting your job (& therefore making less money, and being less able to afford healthy foods) gonna help your kids not be fat?

BLEHH. i dunno if any of that made sense but u see what im getting at.

The term working mother is a rather interesting study in and of itself.

For one thing, there is the lack of a masculine counterpart. One never hears of "working fathers"; they're just called "fathers" (or, if they remember their kids' birthdays and actually get away from the office to see them on Christmas: hometown heroes). "Working father" would be considered redundant, since it is assumed that fathers work (used here in its technical sense of "to participate directly in the profit-making system").

Additionally, there are the dual implications in the term "working mother" itself. For one thing, it assumes that the fact that a mother 'works' (again, in the technical sense) is somehow an additional piece of information beyond the fact that she is a mother. "Working" is not implied, as it is with the male equivalent. Furthermore, there is the other implication: the things involved in being a mother (taking care of kids) do not constitute actual work. Thus, she is only "working" if she does something other than the things included in the definition of "mother", which do not generally make a direct contribution to short-term profit.

Seems kind of silly, if you think about it. We have working moms, and we have stay at home moms. Both groups have kids. So there are only two possibilities - either working moms’ kids are more overweight, or the stay at home moms’ kids are more overweight (on average). So somebody with too much grant money and too much time on their hands does a study to determine which is true. Then somebody publishes an article about that study. Now if the study says that working moms have more overweight children, then we have feminist bloggers writing about conspiracy to shame working women. If the study would have came out with the opposite results, then we would see exactly the same reaction on conservatives sites, bemoaning liberal agenda to demean stay at home moms.

The real problem here, I think, is framing. Why study on working mothers only and not working fathers as well? That sets up the results and subsequent debate to be about women only.

http://freedom-minds.blogspot.com/

The real problem here, I think, is framing. Why study on working mothers only and not working fathers as well? That sets up the results and subsequent debate to be about women only.

I think that's the point we've all been making.

I must have a fat ass since my mom is and was a workaholic when I was growing up. Oh wait, I don't. Hmm. I must be anomaly.

Thanks, Elise. The term "working mother" has always bothered me and you describe the problems with it very clearly.

There's no way this is scientific or correct. The "researcher's" editorial is obviously biassed. Plus, the most recent research indicates that breastfeeding does not prevent childhood obesity. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19509646/

Also, it strains credibility and reason that there's not a reverse correlation between income and obesity. That is, I can't believe that obesity doesn't decrease as income increases. Whole Foods is expensive. And Mickey Ds is cheap. So are we to believe that Mickey Ds eating public is at a lesser risk of obesity than the Whole Foods eating public? Like I said, it's not credible.

Rather than blaming working mothers, why not point the finger at all parents. Obesity is a real problem, and scapegoating one group doesn't serve a constructive purpose.

Or perhaps, not point the finger just at parents at all. Yes, the parents who themselves sit in front of the tv with junk food all evening are certainly modeling behavior that can lead to obesity in their children, but there are other contributing factors in our society. How about the farm bill that was mentioned above (the key ingredients in junk food are HIGHLY subsidized by the government and thus cheap). Or the culture of consumption that the media plays a large role in? Or the fact that recess and PE time is decreasing in elementary schools? Or the fact that our government invests money in car infrastructure rather than public transit, such that people go from door to door in their car rather than walking a bit between public transit links?

My point is, not only is it ridiculous to point the finger at mothers or parents who work outside the home, it is ridiculous to place all the blame directly on the parents without looking at the wider context.

The most recent credible research points to parenting as the single most important factor in combatting childhood obesity. I'm not going to defend high fructose corn syrup (and the related govt subsidies). But, I mean, seriously - do you think the government or any public policy can fix the obesity epidemic at this point?

Some one proposed the idea of fining parents of obese children. And maybe my conservative colors are showing, but I support that 100%. Parents control what children eat, and they should be held accountable. Think of all the health problems these kids will have. Letting that happen is negligence.

I agree that parents are ultimately the ones responsible for their children's health and thus should be held accountable in some way (I'm not sure what I think of the idea of fining, but some sort of accountability, yes). I just don't think that we are going to solve the problem without looking at the wider context of *why* it is a growing problem, and taking actions to change those other causes as well. I guess in my previous post I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't blame parents at all, but that we shouldn't blame just one thing. There are many intersecting causes of increasing obesity in children, and thus many intersecting actions that may help counteract it.

I'm not familiar with what may already occur in doctor's offices and health clinics, but I think it is critical that parents receive good information about healthy eating and the importance of exercise. And not just a flyer that the parent will throw in the trash without reading, but actually giving the information to the parent in person. Fines wouldn't do any good if the parents aren't educated about the behaviors that lead to obesity and what they can do instead.

Parents CAN take responsibility for their children's health even in the current unconducive cultural climate, but many parents lack the information (and possibly resources) they need to make the responsible choices.

Yes, people who are forced to buy the cheapest (and thus least healthy) foods should definitely be fined. That will help the situation immensely.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. You can't police what people are feeding their children. Nor can you force kids to get off the Xbox and be more active, if that's their problem. People are always looking for the "quick fix" simple solution, but there just isn't one. Fining parents is insane.

Some one proposed the idea of fining parents of obese children. And maybe my conservative colors are showing, but I support that 100%. Parents control what children eat, and they should be held accountable. Think of all the health problems these kids will have. Letting that happen is negligence.

Oh, yay! Fat kids aren't stigmatized enough as it is -- let's make sure they know that they're responsible for the family getting fined!

Brilliant!

July 12th in the news: a study done by Yale and the University of Hawaii suggest the quality of life scores for obese children are similar to that of children with cancer.

Shaming doesn't help, affordable healthy food and safe places to play might. There are indifferent parents out there but I suspect most try to do the best they can with what they have.

On behalf of my three week old daughter, who just spent half an hour fussing while we stressed over offering her what she so plainly wanted (more formula) because the paranoia over childhood obesity has been drummed into our heads, I'd like to offer a hearty expression I can't say in front of the baby to your "accountability." On behalf of my own lingering guilt over being physically unable to breastfeed, and worry over the genetic predisposition to fat I have passed to her, double it.

Fines? Yes, by all means lets put the government in charge of whether and individual parent is following good nutritional principles. Because lord knows they're always right about everything else.

Frankly, in addition to the farm bill we need to look at crime rates as contributing to obesity too. Low income neighborhoods are more likely to be crime ridden neighborhoods, and the combination of cheap fatty food and not feeling safe enough to play outside is literally deadly. When parents have a choice between risking their child's quality of life because of weight or risking their child to gang and/or drug related violence, I'm almost positive that obesity would win every time. It's not something a lot of people want to think about, but it's there.

Cutting the farm bill (or overhauling it) would be a start, fining parents wouldn't be. I'd more readily suggest setting up "healthy eating" clinics where parents of young children could learn about nutrition and how to prepare healthy food for their families. The real study of nutrition is fairly recent, so classes dedicated to applying current knowledge about nutrition to everyday cooking would be very useful to families of all demographics.

"Low income neighborhoods are more likely to be crime ridden neighborhoods, and the combination of cheap fatty food and not feeling safe enough to play outside is literally deadly."

Don't forget being less able to play *inside*. I don't complain when I hear the kid upstairs running around and stomping on the floor, but what if some other downstairs neighbors do?

On a micro-level, parents make choices all the time. Healthy cereal versus sugar cereal. Apple slices versus chips. Yes people of modest means are handicapped because the bountiful aisles of Whole Foods are not an affordable option, but you CAN make healthy choices at a regular supermarket. Buy apples. Buy healthy cereal.

Yeah I know my view is harsh, but I think that a parent who feeds his or her kids sugar cereals and sugar Coke is committing a form of negligence. That's my point. Can public policy reasonably get this stuff off the shelves? No. It's up to parents to guide their children.

As far as fat acceptance goes, I think this is the best counterpoint. I would never want to shame children who become obese, or even overweight. At the end of the day, the self-esteem issue is at odds with the public health issue. And people, including parents and medical professionals, are grappling with it. For example, in the past, doctors have shied away from the term "obese" in reference to children because of self-esteem concerns. But the epidemic has gotten worse. So doctors are now proposing that the self-esteem issues be subordinated to the public health issue. They want to use the word "obese." I think it's a dilemna. I just feel badly for the kids. There's no easy answer.

As for the issue of crime, please, if you live in a neighborhood that is so dangerous that you can't go outside, obesity is the least of your concerns. The fact is that obesity isn't limited to impovershed families in dangerous neighborhoods. It's all over middle america. It's everywhere.

To the new mom, there is no such thing as an obese infant. You've got plenty of things to worry about - this isn't one of them.

Yes people of modest means are handicapped because the bountiful aisles of Whole Foods are not an affordable option, but you CAN make healthy choices at a regular supermarket. Buy apples. Buy healthy cereal.

Sweetie, you need to have a regular supermarket available to you in order to make those choices.

Perhaps you should do some reading on the grocery gap -- not to mention what's available to people on food stamps -- before you start airily prescribing apple slices and healthy cereal.

Did you know, for instance, that many public food assistance programs will allow you to buy only dairy, and lots of it, and certain types of cereals? Did you know that until recently, you couldn't buy fruits and vegetables with food-assistance programs, because those farmers don't have the same relationship with the USDA that the dairy, corn and soy farmers do?

Of course you didn't. But I suspect that even if you did, you'd still be chiding those poor fat folks to get off their lazy asses and go to the nonexistent supermarket and buy nonexistent healthy food.

As far as fat acceptance goes, I think this is the best counterpoint. I would never want to shame children who become obese, or even overweight.

And yet you're proposing that their parents be fined for letting them get fat. That's not shaming?

At the end of the day, the self-esteem issue is at odds with the public health issue.

Maybe if you let the poor fat kids alone, and stopped trying to hector, fine, punish, shame and monitor their weight, their quality of life might rise above cancer-level, and they might just have fewer stress-related health issues. They might not feel ashamed to go to gym class, or be active, or what have you. Ever thought of that?

You also seem to be buying into the idea that fat, by itself, is unhealthy. And that's simply not true. No reliable study has shown that. All of this obesity-crisis moral panic is based on aesthetics and the belief that fat people are opting out of some kind of Calvinist moral framework -- that merely being thin is a sign of virtue and good health and righteousness.

wow, you know everything. So who's buying sugar cereals? And coke? A priviledged few? *snicker*

Look, you want to piss away your life (or in your case, delude yourself into thinking that obesity isn't unhealthy), go for it. I could care less if an adult chooses to make dumb choices. But when a parent is charged with making decisions on behalf of a child, there's a moral obligation to exercise judgement in a responsible manner.

Jane, you keep saying "public policy" won't fix this, and then you turn around and support fines. What in the world do you think fines are? Who do you think will be imposing them? You are proposing public policy, only instead of looking at policy that will help, like making information and access to healthy foods easier for all families, you want to impose a punitive policy.

Oh, and before you casually tell me not to worry, try reading even a little of what's thrown at new parents about the choices they make in the first few years.

Lucy, you're right. I overgeneralized. I totally support cutting the corn subsidies that have propped up the insidious high fructose corn syrup trade. But I don't think that doing so will "fix" the problem. Cheap corn syrup has contributed to the problem, but we're way past that now. So while I support reallocating govt subsidies, I don't think that's the answer. That was my point.

As I stated above, I think parents have a moral obligation to be vigilant about nutrition. And I don't think it would hurt if there were a legal penalty (i.e. a fine) attached to the moral obligation.

LOL oh and I know well the new parent stuff that turns even the most chill type B personality into a neurotic loon. Trust me, I've read it all and have a straight jacket to prove it. If you read a One Step Ahead catalogue, you'd think that danger lurks everywhere. Child safety is an industry, and where there's a way to make money, companies will go down the low road to make it. So I'm not casually telling you to chill. I say "chill" from the bleary eyed perspective of a veteran parent.

Both of my parents worked, and whenever a scrap of junk/fast food crossed the front door of our house, it was because my father brought it home, not my mother.

And the idea that healthy food is more expensive is entirely false. When my mom was finishing college, she kept my sister and I fed on a diet comprised almost entirely of fruits, vegetables, and every once in awhile grilled chicken or fish. I used to ask her for Taco Bell every once and awhile and she would tell me that she couldn't afford it, and that vegetables were cheaper.

If you don't work and your family has less money, how are you going to afford healthy food? Last time I checked, fresh produce costs a lot more than Twinkies.