Well Being

Women In 1965 Could Eat 200 More Calories A Day Than You

By  | 

stepford wives storeResearchers have found that the 2013 woman needs to consume 200 fewer calories than their 1965 counterparts to maintain the same weight. That's a lot of calories! Imagine what you could eat for 200 calories, then imagine how many more calories early hominid women needed to consume compared to these spoiled bitches of the new millennium.

Researchers from the University of South Carolina compared mothers from 1965  to mothers today in order to determine how levels of physical activity (defined as “time spent doing general child care, playing with children, preparing meals, post-meal cleanup, housework, as well as participating in sports and exercise”) have shifted over the past 45 years. 

Here are a few of the study's findings:

  • Mothers with younger children reported doing 14 fewer hours of exercise a week (44 hours per week in 1965 to less than 30 hours 2010.)
  • The loss of two hours of exercise a day led to them burning, on average, 225 fewer calories each day (1,573 calories per week).
  • Mothers with older children lost 11 hours of ‘active' time a week (32 hours per week in 1965 to less than 21 hours in 2010.)
  • Mothers today are sedentary for an average of six more hours a week than they were in 1965.
  • Mothers today would have to consume 175-225 fewer calories per day than those in 1965 to maintain weight

Women these days spend 25% more time watching television and using the computer than cooking, cleaning and doing laundry combined. Current conveniences and feminism are the culprits behind the trend of more and more time spent engaging in sedentary activities. Today's woman just sits on her lazy butt, not doting on her husband as if he's Ward fucking Cleaver. Mothers have jobs and microwaves and aren't shackled to traditional homemaking activities. Don't rejoice in the name of progress–those gendered activities burned calories and kept the 1965 woman svelte! All that time mid-20th century women spent cooking and cleaning burned an average of 225 extra calories a day–that's 1,573 calories a week. Opportunity is making you fat.

Of course, men are facing a similar dilemma. Today's men are burning fewer calories at work and are spending more of their awake time watching television, using the internet and playing video games, but why talk about all humans when we can wring our hands over women's bodies and behavior? Framing the results of the study around changes for women smacks of anti-feminist backward thinking. As if determining the number of calories burned off while homemaking would be significant enough to curtail the obesity epidemic. If only we could go back to the way things were before the second wave feminists ruined it all, then the obesity epidemic wouldn't be a thing. I'd rather eat 200 fewer calories a day than be trapped in a kitchen and dependent on a man, but that's just me.

Via The Daily Mail//Image via The Stepford Wives (1975)