Physical Inactivity Worldwide Gender breakdown page 2

[slowcooker]

That's a lot of lazy bitches. Except in Russia. They seem to have it figured out LOL

[Saoirse]

inactivity does not mean slothfulness. women in industrialized nations are far more likely to have inactive desk jobs than men are (just as one example). Since inactivity is defined as "less than 30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity five times a week," having too little free time might also contribute. As an example, a woman might be too caught up working her desk job and then coming home to care for children to exercise, while her husband gets to workout at the gym or play ultimate frisbee. Or it might be the case that women are sitting on their asses watching Oprah. Just saying that we have no clue simply based on that definition.

[bloodorchid]

you stop defending women!

[Figlio di Moros]

Since the trend seems to follow most countries, regardless of development, I doubt it's the higher sedentary workload of developed nations alone that causes the disparity.

[Saoirse]

My basic point is that this is too loose of a definition to draw the conclusion that women are slothful based on their reported rates of activity. There are other logical explanations for the inactivity differences than the one implied (that women are slothful). The world over, childcare generally falls to women. Childcare requires attention all day and all night requiring the person to be in physical contact with, or very close range to little people. This precludes most activities defined as "moderate exercise." Meanwhile, exercise is typically a leisure activity (if "first world" nations) OR manual labor (in "third world" nations).

So let's group alternative explanations by industrialization of the society:
->post industrialized nations: women are far more likely to work desk jobs. once home, the bulk of the housework and childcare usually falls to the mother/wife, especially if her kids are babies, so she has less time for this leisure activity that we call "exercise."
-> industrialized nations: women are more likely to work in the garment industries and other non-manual labor occupations. once they return home, they are far more likely to be responsible for childcare, housework, and cooking.
->non-industrialized nations: women are more likely to be responsible for cooking, tending the home, watching the children, caring for the garden and small livestock.

Another way of looking at it is by examining the typical female occupations and duties, and then categorizing those responsibilities by exercise levels. I think you'll find that the vast majority of responsibilities of women are less "active" and more of the "slow movement" variety of exercise.

but maybe you're right. women are just lazy bitches. it's in their nature, what was i thinking muddling the issue with logic?

[Figlio di Moros]

If you were using logic, you wouldn't resort to a strawman, would you?

[Saoirse]

where's the strawman in my argument? i'm simply pointing out that there are other explanations and we don't have enough information to judge.

[kenn]

Saoirse, the only one stating the pov you're arguing against was a troll and it worked well

[Figlio di Moros]

where's the strawman in my argument? i'm simply pointing out that there are other explanations and we don't have enough information to judge.

Only after editing your entire post, except keeping the one snarky comment accusing me of claiming "women are just lazy bitches". Which, if you haven't noticed, is a strawman; the remander of your post is apologetic. Women are more inactive across the world, and while it's as fallacious to assume it's solely due to slothfulness, it's no more so than to assume it's due to women being hyperproductive workers and childcare machines. The crux of your argument is "Well, women are only more inactive because men don't do housework", which we both know modern men rarely get away with.

[Saoirse]

lighten up figlio, it was a joke. honestly, i don't think anyone really knows how much or little housework men do. the rest of my post wasn't apologetic so much as explaining my thoughts on the matter. if you find it apologetic, maybe that means we agree!

the link title is: "A map of sloth." My post was pointing out that the title is a bit misleading. A person could work all day and most of the night while still being considered "inactive" by the definition given. It's only a map showing the amount of moderate exercise different nations have on average. To me, moderate exercise is a luxury. It would be awesome if I could get out 5 times a week, 30 min at a time to play ultimate frisbee, take dance or martial arts lessons, or go for a jog (though that would kill my knees). I don't have that luxury, but it doesn't make me a sloth.

BTW:

The crux of your argument is "Well, women are only more inactive because men don't do housework", which we both know modern men rarely get away with.

maybe you know that, but it isn't consistent with my personal experience. out of the 9 years i have been married, my husband is only now starting to help a little with housework. among my friends and acquaintances, this varies quite widely.

btw, i never addressed you directly, so why would you assume my comment was directed to you when you never said anything about women=lazy?