There is a new study that says women are doing less housework than they were forty-five. Before you start complaining that this is a waste of money because—duh! Well, just wait. This study is also saying that because women are cleaning less—they are fatter.
Using “time use diaries” filled out by women researchers say that American women are only spending half as much time vacuuming, doing laundry etc. but spending twice as much time sitting down and watching a screen. They also found that women not employed outside the home were burning 360 fewer calories in 2010 than in 1965 and women working outside the home were burning 132 fewer calories in 2010 than in 1965. The studies author, who is a doctor, recommends “finding ways to incorporate movement” into time spent at home, again this is another “duh” moment.
I have no problems with this study. It makes sense. In 1965 and earlier women worked at home and they cleaned a lot. When I clean my house I sweat. I move nonstop for about 3.5 hours (when I’m doing a deep clean about an hour if I’m not) so that’s a lot of calories. It’s a workout. I’m guessing that women at home would do this about three times a week. That’s a workout routine. There is nothing offensive in this study to me.
However, the New York Times reported on this with the headline, “What Housework Has to Do With Waistlines:” now that is offensive. It’s not what housework has to do with waistlines it’s what activity has to do with it. I work a full time job and I sit the whole time unless I decided to get up and go for a walk. When I get home I am beat and I usually lie in bed and catch up on my DVR to relax. I am not burning any calories. That has nothing to do with the fact that I’m not a stay at home housewife, it has to do with my decision to not take my butt to the gym. To infer that I’m thicker now than I would’ve been in 1965 because I burned my bra and went to work is ludicrous. Boo, NYT, boo on you!
Women who show too much cleavage at work are sabotaging their careers and could even face the sack, according to a new survey carried out here in the UK. The survey, which was carried out for famous entrepreneur Peter Jones, found that bosses feel that low-cut tops are one of the biggest mistakes a female worker can make, quite contrary to the idea that womanly curves can be an advantage to women in business.
Professor Mark Ritson of Melbourne Business School – a leading business academic and a PhD alumni of Lancaster University, UK, my own alma mater – has declared that women should be the ‘natural choice’ for top marketing positions. The way Professor Ritson sees it, women quite simply have better brains for marketing. Interesting stuff.
Professor Ritson has laid out a genetics-based argument to back up this theory, focusing on the fact that women are more naturally …
Interesting news in the UK’s Guardian this morning. Apparently if you want to be a city warden in Chengdu, China, you need to be female, pretty and under the age of 23.
Authorities in Chengdu, in central China’s south-western Sichuan province, have said they will hire only attractive young women for their law enforcement jobs, in the hope that it will improve their district’s image. The district government’s advertisement apparently stipulates that candidates must be female, aged between 18 and 23, over 5ft 2in tall, attractive and with a good temperament. The chosen candidates’ contracts will end when they turn 26.
The move has drawn widespread criticism, with critics saying that this is another blatant example of looks-based discrimination that is …