• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Are American Women Living 5 Years Less than Their Mothers?

haymarket said:
It is in the evidence you asked for. Obviously you did not even read it. So what the hell was the point in asking for it then?
Click to expand...

No it isn't. I asked for proof of the assertion that women do more total work and that that is the reason for a drop in life expectancy. Showing that more women are in the work force doesn't even prove the first half of the assertion.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope, they say that women do more housework, neither actually make the argument that women actually do more work.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes the one does. It says that men have more leisure time than women. And there is less than a half hour difference on average of how much time men work compared to women. Women do more than that difference in housework, childcare, grocery/household shopping, and other such tasks with no makeup in it by men.

http://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2012.pdf

It is in the charts.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, yes the one does. It says that men have more leisure time than women. And there is less than a half hour difference on average of how much time men work compared to women. Women do more than that difference in housework, childcare, grocery/household shopping, and other such tasks with no makeup in it by men.

http://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2012.pdf

It is in the charts.
Click to expand...

Right, there used to be a division of labor but women wanted to have careers too so they added that to their plate. You wanted it all, you got it all, happy?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Right, there used to be a division of labor but women wanted to have careers too so they added that to their plate. You wanted it all, you got it all, happy?
Click to expand...

There wasn't an equal division of labor even before. Women still did a good deal more work when they were simply staying at home, it just wasn't recognize to the degree that working outside the home is.
 
roguenuke said:
There wasn't an equal division of labor even before. Women still did a good deal more work when they were simply staying at home, it just wasn't recognize to the degree that working outside the home is.
Click to expand...

BS, women had it made. They are the ones who made the soap opera programs exist precisely because they had so much idle time.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
BS, women had it made. They are the ones who made the soap opera programs exist precisely because they had so much idle time.
Click to expand...

Wow, way to believe the stereotypes that really didn't show even half of the picture.
 
I don't think these particular women referred to in this study are dying from working. :lol: It says in the study that a lot of them are unemployed.
 
jmotivator said:
No it isn't. I asked for proof of the assertion that women do more total work and that that is the reason for a drop in life expectancy. Showing that more women are in the work force doesn't even prove the first half of the assertion.
Click to expand...

I posted the evidence at 8:09 AM. You posted your reply to it just three minutes later. You did not even read the damn stuff. So why the hell did you ask for it in the first place? Your disingenuous approach to this exchange is rather disgusting.

The evidence was provided for you. Its all right there for you. Just go back and read it.
 
roguenuke said:
Wow, way to believe the stereotypes that really didn't show even half of the picture.
Click to expand...

Way to ignore facts. When modern conveniences like washing machines, dryers, dish washers etc came out, women had a lot of time on their hands and spent much of that time watching soaps. The proof is that soaps existed and the only ones home at that time of day was women. Now if you want to go back to when women washed clothes and dishes for six kids and did it by hand you would have a point but modern women had it made in the shade.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't think these particular women referred to in this study are dying from working. :lol: It says in the study that a lot of them are unemployed.
Click to expand...

No of course not, but the easiest assumption for these guys to make is that us women are fat, lazy, non-married, multiple kid producing, welfare receiving, soap opera watching, etc...etc... that are dying because of said reasons. Better to be back when we made sandwiches in the kitchen and stfu. Apparently we lived longer then and had it made.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Way to ignore facts. When modern conveniences like washing machines, dryers, dish washers etc came out, women had a lot of time on their hands and spent much of that time watching soaps. The proof is that soaps existed and the only ones home at that time of day was women. Now if you want to go back to when women washed clothes and dishes for six kids and did it by hand you would have a point but modern women had it made in the shade.
Click to expand...

Well then you should be happy that they work outside of the home then. :)
 
ChrisL said:
I don't think these particular women referred to in this study are dying from working. :lol: It says in the study that a lot of them are unemployed.
Click to expand...

Unemployed is a different thing than being a stay at home mom. Unemployed means they lost a job and that is very stressful.
 
americanwoman said:
No of course not, but the easiest assumption for these guys to make is that us women are fat, lazy, non-married, multiple kid producing, welfare receiving, soap opera watching, etc...etc... that are dying because of said reasons. Better to be back when we made sandwiches in the kitchen and stfu. Apparently we lived longer then and had it made.
Click to expand...

:lamo So they tell us anyway.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Unemployed is a different thing than being a stay at home mom. Unemployed means they lost a job and that is very stressful.
Click to expand...

It does not. Unemployed means you don't currently have a job. That's all.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
The country was better off when they stayed home but they could have done something better with that idle time than watching soaps that is for sure.
Click to expand...

That's nothing more than an opinion on your part.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Wrong. You are not unemployed unless you lost a job and are looking for another one.
Click to expand...

No, that is only if you are collecting unemployment. :lol: If you aren't working, you are unemployed. The study says nothing about the women collecting unemployment, it just says a lot of them are unemployed which would mean they aren't working.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, yes the one does. It says that men have more leisure time than women. And there is less than a half hour difference on average of how much time men work compared to women. Women do more than that difference in housework, childcare, grocery/household shopping, and other such tasks with no makeup in it by men.

http://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2012.pdf


It is in the charts.
Click to expand...

Sex - chores/work - Total

Men - 1.29/4.17 - 5.46
Women - 2.17/2.94 - 5.11

Now throw in Child Care:

Men +.27 = 5.73
Women +.53 = 5.64


So when you count work, childcare and household chores together your chart shows that men do more work.

So where is all this life threatening extra labor coming from? Not the traditional sources, it appears.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
No, that is only if you are collecting unemployment. :lol: If you aren't working, you are unemployed. The study says nothing about the women collecting unemployment, it just says a lot of them are unemployed which would mean they aren't working.
Click to expand...

You are not counted as unemployed unless you lost a job and are seeking new employment, that is fact. That is how gov comes up with official unemployment numbers.
 
The suggestion that workforce employment is unhealthy for women is ridiculous, it is buffoonish, and it is the stuff of moonbeams.

We do need to get the data straight, though:

Aunt Spiker said:
...Women have always been employed. Your opinion is based on the RARE 1950's housewife standard which came around after the end of WWII. It was a short-lived period in our history. That wasn't the norm 100 years ago, and it's not the norm today...
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. See link, scroll down for graphs:

PBS: Working Women

1900 percentages of women working outside the home:

6% Married
33% Widowed, Divorced or Separated
44% Single

HOWEVER the percentages of working married women has steadily increased since 1900, which POSITIVELY CORRELATES with the SIMULTANEOUS INCREASE IN LIFE EXPECTANCY.

THEREFORE there is no case for claiming that workforce employment reduces married female life expectancy.

On the other hand the pre-WW2 workforce employment rates were steady for single women and for widowed, divorced or separated women, so the soundest conclusion might be that workforce employment makes no significant difference in female life expectancies.
 
haymarket said:
I posted the evidence at 8:09 AM. You posted your reply to it just three minutes later. You did not even read the damn stuff. So why the hell did you ask for it in the first place? Your disingenuous approach to this exchange is rather disgusting.

The evidence was provided for you. Its all right there for you. Just go back and read it.
Click to expand...

I opened the first one and saw quickly that it was not actually making the point you have been trying to make since 9:05 yesterday. I then quickly opened the other links to determine that they were all making the same point which was in no way a proof of your initial assertion.

But by all means show me where the links you provided show that women work more than men in total combine work/chores (BLS disproved that) and that their life span is decreasing because of it (you have yet to even try and prove this bit of your argument).
 
jmotivator said:
I opened the first one and saw quickly that it was not actually making the point you have been trying to make since 9:05 yesterday. I then quickly opened the other links to determine that they were all making the same point which was in no way a proof of your initial assertion.

But by all means show me where the links you provided show that women work more than men in total combine work/chores (BLS disproved that) and that their life span is decreasing because of it (you have yet to even try and prove this bit of your argument).
Click to expand...

What BS... and worse - it has no garden value as simple manure. You took three minutes to look at all those sources and then found there was no proof there.

What nonsense!!!!!

btw - where did I say that women work more than men in total combined hours? Can you quote that for me before we decide to move the goal posts to that arena? :roll:
 
haymarket said:
What BS... and worse - it has no garden value as simple manure. You took three minutes to look at all those sources and then found there was no proof there.

What nonsense!!!!!

btw - where did I say that women work more than men in total combined hours? Can you quote that for me before we decide to move the goal posts to that arena? :roll:
Click to expand...

Ok, then show me in your links where it shows that women work more than men and die earlier than years past because of it.

If you want to shame me show me what I missed. I assume that you haven't done that yet because you know as well as I do what your evidence shows. As I said in my response, your links show that the number of women in the workforce is increasing, a statistic that NOBODY DENIED.
 
jmotivator said:
Ok, then show me in your links where it shows that women work more than men and die earlier than years past because of it.

If you want to shame me show me what I missed. I assume that you haven't done that yet because you know as well as I do what your evidence shows. As I said in my response, your links show that the number of women in the workforce is increasing, a statistic that NOBODY DENIED.
Click to expand...

I gave you a wealth of data and you have not yet used it. Start with that before you beg for more only to ignore that down the road.

It was explained to you previously but perhaps you also employed your amazing speed reading skills on that also and so missed its import................... here it is again .............

this is a rather recent sociological phenomena that has only now evidenced itself in the form of actual life and death statistics. It will take a good deal of research to be able to provide the hard and fast proof that you asked for. The facts are rather obvious and do not take a rocket scienstist to figure out:

*** roles for American women have changed significantly over the last thirty to forty years causing more to be employed outside of the home and fewer stay at home moms or housewives.
*** at the same time, women are living shorter years on the planet so that their life expectancy is now closer to that of men who also are mostly in the workforce.

But tell you what I will do for you...... when the definitive study comes out sometimes in the next decade, I will be glad to post it here.................. and fully expect you will ignore that also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom