Children whose mothers work part-time are less likely to be overweight than children whose moms are in full-time work or not in the workforce, according to new Australian research.

The study looked at the impact of mothers’ hours of paid work on children’s lifestyle and weight at ages 4-5 years and 6-7 years, using data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (an amazing study by the way.)

Children whose mothers worked part-time were less likely to be overweight, watched less TV, ate less junk food and were more physically active than children whose mothers were working full-time or at home full-time.

You can read more about the study by downloading a press release from  The Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, in collaboration with the University of New England and the Australian National University.

It’s an interesting study.

Of course, working part-time is a wonderful solution for working parents (men and women). Sadly, here in the United States, the concept of part-time doesn’t seem as well advanced as other parts of the world.

My experience is that:

1. Part-time work is great if you can afford. Many people can’t — and they’re the ones (often those in poorly-paid jobs) who often don’t have the voice to lobby for increased flexibility.
2. The U.S. lags behind Australia and the U.K. when it comes to job sharing. I’ve seen many people job share some very senior jobs in Australia.
3. Many part-timers lose benefits in the U.S. That’s a powerful disincentive to work part-time.

And who hasn’t stuck their kids in front of the TV at some time? I have. I do. And I will continue to do so at times. My kids are banned from watching Monday to Friday but I am not above breaking my own rule when I have a work deadline.

As someone who works full-time (but telecommutes so I have flexibility) and knows how to cook fast and nutritional meals (my mother taught restaurant management, had her own French restaurant and was a fantastic cook),  I don’t know how to respond to this.

I tend to think a huge amount of this problem relates to the lost art of cooking.

In France, where I lived for a few years, cooking dinner was like a weight around working women’s necks, a big fat albatross made out of Normandy butter. That horrible pressure to churn out a four course meal for lunch … and hold down a full-time job.

I do see people struggle to get basic meals on the table …  and find it so hard that they resort to packets, snacks, takeout and prepackaged meals.

We eat simply most nights. A bowl of pasta and salad, some lentils and rice other nights, a stir fry another.  It isn’t difficult or expensive, but it takes practice and timing to do it night after night.

(But I am very lucky. We can afford a cleaner to come in regularly to clean up our well-used kitchen where I churn out hot breakfasts and dinners six to seven days a week. I know many people can’t, and if they’re like me, a huge deterrent to cooking often is the big bloody mess it makes.)

P.S. My kids are skinny as rakes so far.

I hate hate hate Valentine’s Day.

I don’t mind flowers from my husband, but I prefer them when they are not preordained by convention. I’d rather have a posie of flowers than a store-bought card with his name scribbled below.

But what I can’t abide is the institutionalization of this giant fake love-in among young children.

Today I flamed my kids’ school list-serv by suggesting that they should skip the exchanging of Valentine Day’s cards this year.

The parties have already been killed thanks to Snowmaggedon, as President Obama called the East Coast blizzard. It takes not a village, but rather a record-breaking snowstorm to cause a downgrading of a class festivity that has no value except to generate profits for Hallmark.

They should skip Valentine’s Day celebrations because:

1. It is a waste of their time and mine. I can hear you mothers of girls crying out right now: “My daughter loves making craft and cutting out the cards.” Yes, true. You have girls. I have boys. If your child received a card last year from one of my twin boys, it was from me. I LOVE your child, and I want to be his or her best friend. Really. Now that’s something that should put you off. And to you parents who sent cards to my boys, I love you too.

2. It teaches all sorts of weird lessons. Love is great, love is good and love is fine and dandy among adults and family, but why cheapen the emotion with these fake expressions of love for every single child in the class?

As one mother responded today, if we insist on doing Valentine Day Cards, why not encourage a sincere expression of love? Suggest that children write a letter to someone they really do love. I am all for that.

3. It is cute. Exactly. What is it about you people and your
“cute”? Get over it. Love is not a Hallmark Card with a saccharine, canned message.

The best expressions of love are the ones that happen in the midst of the rough and tumble of life. When your husband tells you he loves you after you’ve cleaned up baby puke for the 10th time that night, or when your son brings you a heart he’s made without any prompting.

Or today, when one of my boys protected me from a snowball, telling his friend “My mom has a sore shoulder. Don’t hit her.” Or tonight, when my kids vied with their friends to tell me how good my cooking was. I was the “best cook in the world,” it was the “best spaghetti and meatballs ever ” and “much better than restaurants.”
That was my Valentine’s Day 2010 gift.

P.S. If you’re not convinced by my arguments, please cut out the Pokemon Valentine’s Day card and send it to me. Then I’ll know you care.

About the author: Julie Power is a cranky old mother.

Source: Pokemon card from http://www.dltk-kids.com/pokemon/mvpokemon.html

Happy holidays from MomstoWork.com

Moms work so hard that you deserve a break.

Have a wonderful holiday and a Happy New Year.

Let’s make 2010 the year when us Moms realize our full potential.

So don’t be afraid, be bold.

Ask for a raise, apply for a new job, try something new, make a new friend, read something different,  swap chores with your spouse or partner (he does the bills,  you do the trash?) …  wear a different color or try washing up in stilettos.

And don’t forget to write to us or for us: We love guest posts by moms talking about the issues that confront them.

This year, we featured some fabulous posts on:

Nursing at work

On saying no

On coping with bedrest

On moms dealing with unemployment

On finding a new job

On writing a resume or cover letter.

Check them out. We are sure you will find something you like … or your money back.  Joking …

A wonderful and warm holidays from all of us at MomstoWork including our:

Geek goddess Joy

Renaissance marvel Renee,  queen of all she surveys, and

Julie (insert wonderful adjectives about me here!)

It’s no secret divorce is bad for a woman’s income.

When a couple divorces, the average income of the woman and her dependent children often plunges by 20% or more.

On the other side of the coin, the income of her now “unfettered ex,” who had been the family’s primary breadwinner climbs accordingly, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Would you insure your marriage? The cake?

So would you insure your marriage? Is this is such a crazy idea given the high number of divorces? One study showed that Americans were much more idealistic and romantic about marriage despite the high divorce rate.

Is insurance more sensible than a prenup for us working stiffs?

They were some of the questions we asked when we saw a company talking about introducing Marriage Insurance.

We put these questions to John Logan, chairman & CEO of SafeguardGuaranty.

I read that marriage insurance was banned in England in 1712. What is the situation in the United States now?

JL: Obviously this isn’t a new idea. It was banned in England because the Queen’s soldiers were buying policies on other people and in effect, gambling on whether certain marriages would last. Naturally, we won’t allow that. It’s never been offered in the US before and many of the various States’ Departments of Insurance have been very receptive because they understand the need.

Why would anyone buy marriage insurance?

JL: Insurance is a weird thing. In most cases you buy it and hope you never have to use it. And in nearly every scenario you’re happy to pay money in for years and years, and if you’re really lucky, you never get any of it back. What other kind of investment works backward like that? None.

Many people  buy life insurance, yet you’re 65% more likely to be disabled long enough to go broke before you die. Think about that for a minute. If you’re disabled and can’t work and don’t have any disability insurance, how do you pay the life insurance premium? Especially if it’s term life insurance, say goodbye to your life insurance, yet few people buy disability policies to protect their income. Insurance is often looked at as a “necessary evil.”

Our policies don’t work that way. We’ll pay our policy holders one way or the other, if they stay married or they get divorced always more than they’ve paid in and always (when compared with investments) at the equivalent of a great investment return. Win-win.

But the short answer to that question is that the first and most important reason that someone will buy Marriage Insurance will be to create wealth by investing in themselves and their marriage. Secondary to that is to preserve wealth by providing themselves with a financial safety net in the event they become a statistic of divorce.

Wouldn’t most people avoid the need for marriage insurance by getting to know each other better and marrying later before rushing to the altar/wedding registry?

JL:  It would be nice if statistics proved out what you’re thinking, i.e. that if people spent more time together before marriage that there would be fewer divorces, but the reality is that people who spend years getting to know each other get divorced at almost the same rate as people who’ve known each other for less than one year. I’m a perfect example, I waited until I was 39 before I married because I wanted to be sure beyond any doubt that I’d found the right woman, and we dated for 3 years before we got engaged. My marriage lasted 7 years. Circumstances change over time. And unfortunately, so do a lot of people.

Will it be open to either spouse?

JL: Yes. Policies are individually based. Either or both can buy policy.

Is it something both partners would need to approve?

JL:No. But based on our research that will be the exception, not the norm.

When will your program go live?

Probably early next year, dependent on how fast we close the remaining investment funding.

Is there a need?

JL: You be the judge.

Here in the US, according to a report released in April of last year, you and I as taxpayers help foot a bill of over $112 BILLION in Federal, State and local tax dollars spent each and every year to support fragmented families. On the average, according to a study done by Ohio State University, regardless of gender, people who suffer through divorce lose an average of 77% of their net worth (not even close to the ‘give your spouse half’ used as common wisdom).

As a result, 41% of American families spend some time below the poverty line after they suffer through a divorce. Some never recover. Of women who are forced onto welfare after divorce, 20% are still on welfare after 5 years. In fact, personal bankruptcies filed by women are up 700% since 1980 and while medical issues and loss of employment still top the list of reasons why, 40% of them list divorce as the main cause in their choice to file.

Globally, divorce is the number one contributing factor to bankruptcy and poverty among (newly) single mothers.

I can provide a library of studies that all point the same way, but it’s fairly simple to explain this way: Today we have the largest population of adults that grew up in broken homes, and study after study shows that people who come from divorced families are 3 times more likely to divorce themselves. Do the math. If we don’t change that trend, people who marry today will stand only a 33% chance of ever seeing their 25th anniversary.

Wouldn’t critics say that providing a pay out if a marriage went bust is providing an incentive to marriage breakdown?

JL: We’ve heard that before, and I’ll say what I always say to that premise. That’s hogwash.

A Marriage Insurance policy will provide no more incentive to get divorced than home insurance provides an incentive for you to set your house ablaze. People who have auto insurance don’t have a higher propensity to wreck their car because the cost of their car might be covered by insurance and in fact, people who have Marriage Insurance are probably LESS likely to get divorced since the benefit for staying married is so much greater. The reality is that anyone who’s gone through divorce knows that it’s a painful and extremely costly process that goes well beyond the simple loss of net worth. And the cash benefit that we provide, at any level, will hardly be considered a windfall when everything else is considered.

The fact is that when you realize that 40% of children born in the US in 2007 were born to mothers out of wedlock, it’s pretty clear we’re already experiencing marriage breakdown. Couples are choosing more and more to cohabitate instead of marry because the cost of divorce is so great. In the UK for example, the cost of divorce is more than the median income. Considering the statistics, that’s a recipe for financial disaster. Take away a lot of that potential risk of financial loss and many couples who are now cohabitating may choose to marry. Plenty of them will stay married.

Thanks John.

John Logan is the Chairman & CEO of SafeGuard Guaranty which will be the first company in the world to offer Marriage Insurance. Find out more information at www.safeguardguaranty.com

photo credit: Anderson Marcello

For those of you who have been following Mom2’s “The second time around” posts, I have a confession to make. I am Mom2. Me. Renee. Your friendly MTWer.

So far, this pregnancy has had its strange moments, but all seems to be well now. I’m off restricted duty and back to a normal life.

I’ve hit the 20 week mark, the halfway point. Also, my husband and I discovered yesterday at out 20 week ultrasound that we’re having a boy. So, now we will have one of each and will be done.

There are 10 fingers and 10 toes accounted for, all other measurements are falling into the correct ranges. The one finding on the ultrasound showed a choriod plexus cyst on one side of the brain. According to the site OBFocus, these cysts are found in about 1% to 3% of all mid-pregnancy ultrasounds and normally resolve by 28 weeks.

For those who read my first post “The second time around”, we had this same scare with our daughter, which required us to have an amnio. If that is the case again, well, so be it. We overcame a 50-50 chance last time. All the other “soft markers” of Edwards Syndrome (a trisomy disorder in the 18th set of chromomosomes, which normally results in fetal death) were not there. Those include:
- closed fists with over lapping fingers
- clubbed feet
-strawberry shaped head
-thicker nuchal fold at the back of the neck

For more information on Choroid Plexus Cysts and Edwards Syndrome markers visit:
http://www.obfocus.com/high-risk/birthdefects/choroidplexus.htm.

Until my next update, wish us luck. I’ll keep everyone posted.