Women are fat and lazy. Science!
Because no intrepid reporter at the
New York Times was able to track down Generic Successful Career Woman
TM to share her personal anecdote of woe about how hard it is to find a man, in order to meet the newspaper of record's monthly lady-bashing quota, we get
this:
One reason so many American women are overweight may be that we are vacuuming and doing laundry less often, according to a new study that, while scrupulously even-handed, is likely to stir controversy and emotions.
Well, of
course telling women they've really packed on the pounds since they stopped doing the housework with that good old-fashioned 1950s vigor is going to stir emotions. Everyone knows how hysterical ladies get. Even though it's a
fact, a scientific
fact, from a
study. A
published study.
The study, published this month in PLoS One, is a follow-up to an influential 2011 report which used data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to determine that, during the past 50 years, most American workers began sitting down on the job. Physical activity at work, such as walking or lifting, almost vanished, according to the data, with workers now spending most of their time seated before a computer or talking on the phone. Consequently, the authors found, the average American worker was burning almost 150 fewer calories daily at work than his or her employed parents had, a change that had materially contributed to the rise in obesity during the same time frame, especially among men, the authors concluded.
Right. So Americans have more desk jobs now and burn fewer calories, which is the same thing as women being fat because they don't do the laundry anymore because ... um ... because that's why. Head below the fold for more of this riveting "research."
Women, they found, once had been quite physically active around the house, spending, in 1965, an average of 25.7 hours a week cleaning, cooking and doing laundry. Those activities, whatever their social freight, required the expenditure of considerable energy. (The authors did not include child care time in their calculations, since the women’s diary entries related to child care were inconsistent and often overlapped those of other activities.) In general at that time, working women devoted somewhat fewer hours to housework, while those not employed outside the home spent more. [...]
Well, gosh, that's convenient. The authors left out the tricky stuff that's too hard to calculate, like the time women spend on their children. But, really, how much time could that be anyway, right?
What his study suggests, Dr. Archer continued, is that “we need to start finding ways to incorporate movement back into” the hours spent at home.
This does not mean, he said, that women — or men — should be doing more housework. or one thing, the effort involved is such activities today is less than it once was. Using modern, gliding vacuum cleaners is less taxing than struggling with the clunky, heavy machines once available, and thank goodness for that.
That's big of Dr. Archer, isn't it? Just because all Americans have chunked it up doesn't mean women—or men!—need to spend more quality time with a vacuum. Just, you know, be aware, ladies, that those love handles are because modern technology has made your household chores easier, enabling you to just sit around on your sedentary fat ass. Just, you know, FYI.
But fear not, for the good Dr. Archer has some helpful tips:
“Walk to the mailbox,” he said. Chop vegetables in the kitchen. Play ball with your, or a neighbor’s, dog. Chivvy your spouse into helping you fold sheets.
Thanks for the advice, doc, but what about the spouse-less ladies who have no one to "chivvy"? Guess they'll just have to keep reading the other helpful tips from the
Times about how to stop being independent and successful so they can find a man, any man, to marry them.