Girls have more germs

[Doondoo]

Bacteria are far more abundant at people's desks than office restrooms, and it's the work areas of the fairer sex that harbor the most germs. Women have three to four times the number of bacteria in, on and around their desks, phones, computers, keyboards, drawers and personal items as men do, according to a new study from University of Arizona germ guru Charles Gerba, professor of soil, water and environmental sciences.

"I thought for sure men would be germier," Gerba said. "But women have more interactions with small children and keep food in their desks. The other problem is makeup."

Women's offices typically looked cleaner, but women tend to have more knickknacks on their desks. Makeup cases are the top bacteria spot for women's offices, with the phone, purse and desk drawer also common germ homes. Using hand lotion and makeup is a top culprit, with lotion often trapping germs and transferring them, and makeup resulting in a lot of mouth- and face-touching. Another top cause Gerba found was food, with 75 percent of women keeping munchies in a desk drawer.

"I was really surprised how much food there was in a woman's desk," he said. "If there's ever a famine, that's the first place I'll look for food."


http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/169134.php

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Have we now proven...

The Science of Cooties? :eyes:

[Gman]

4. LOL!

My same thought when I saw the topic!

[RB TexLa]

2. Old news, my mother started telling me this when I was 13 or 12

sometimes I think I should have listened.

[geiger]

3. Girls are more philanthropic during fundraising drives

[Chantico]

5. "Girls?"

Uh huh.

Generalizations and absurd broad-brush stereotypes have no place in "journalism." For every make-up wearing, knickknack collecting female this ahem, guru, points to, I could point to five men who blow their freaking snot on their shirtsleeves.

[Lars39]

7. Welcome to DU, Chantico!

:toast:

[JAbuchan08]

11. I think you're full of it

That is a ridiculous assertion. When I hear studies about men not washing their hands in bathrooms I don't comeback with "for every man who doesn't wash his hands I could show you five women who fix their kids' hair with spit". Why? Because it is stupid and their is no reason to get offended by a study of that nature, much less try to "get back" at the opposite sex with anecdotal evidence.

Although I do question the articles use of the word "girls," which is something I myself am trying to get out of the habit of using.

[Dora]

23. To be fair to the author of the article....

The word "girl" was never used. Blame that on the poster, and consider forgiveness.

After all, men, those brute animals, doth urinate in public when given darkened corners to do so, and doth spit copiously upon sidewalks and roadways.

[SoCalDem]

34. But. but.. aren't men's bodily "fluids" sacred? (and therefore germ-free)

:rofl:

[jedicord]

6. Breaking news - boys stink worse than girls! n/t

[katsy]

8. Good.

In case there's a plague, females will be more able to adapt and fend off the little buggers and survive.

[meldroc]

9. IIRC on Mythbusters

during the Five Second Rule myth, Adam and Jamie proved that one of the cleanest places in your typical household was the toilet seat.

[gatorboy]

21. Adam's a jerk!

[Sanity Claws]

10. You mean boys don't have more cooties?

All little girls know that boys have cooties.

[sutz12]

12. Wow, I figured it would be all of the plants....

;)

[TahitiNut]

13. So, is that why it was "Typhoid Mary" and not "Typhoid Morrie"??

:evilgrin:

[no_hypocrisy]

14. Germs, cooties, etc. Yep, we girls are just vessels of pestilence and

disease. Remember that the next time you want to make out, esp. on Valentine's Day.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[porphyrian]

16. That's because they have dirty, dirty pillows! - n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

29. They're called 'breasts' MOTHER!

and I'm going to the prom and you can't stop me!

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

31. lol

:spray:

[Javaman]

17. Sorry but the correct term is, "cooties". nt

[nolabels]

18. Subjective science for gorilla marketing, who'd thunk it ?

The comments on the article, at the bottom of the article are kind of a helper too

Here is a link to it also
http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/comments/index.php?id=169134

The rational debate on what makes good personal and public hygiene has been absent for many years in light of much new science that is available on many avenues that relate to this. Getting sick from sewage tainted salads that where shipped across the country is a problem. How many cooties are floating around shouldn't be as big of an issue unless they can prove a more definitive link in degrees between illness and them floating cooties themselves.

No doubt people might be getting an occasional illness from the casual encounters with others personal effects but to what degree and how concerned should one be. The idea that corporate interests would want to profit on stoking peoples fear would be my issue.

[lukasahero]

20. "The $40,000 study was commissioned by the Clorox Co."

Nice catch.

[lukasahero]

19. Some interesting lines you left out of your snippet

"But the worst germ offender in the office overall is men's wallets,"

"Staph bacteria are more common around men's work spaces, Gerba said."

Also some interesting assumptions about women in the article: make-up, children, food. Um, there are women in the world who neither wear make-up nor have children. Oh, and women in the workplace stopped being referred to as "girls" back in the 70's (at least!)

[ProfessorGAC]

22. Well, You Just Shot Yourself In The Foot

I buy your finding of the line about staph infections and men's wallets. That would seem to be a rather highly weighted finding.

But, the article didn't say that all women have kids or that all women wear make-up. It said that women tend to be around children more and tend to wear makeup. Since very few men wear make-up, it is a contributing cause. It was not intended to lump all women together.

So, you made a good catch and then detonated your whole post by taking offense from a clinical statement. It was one of the more solid scientific conclusions in the whole study, and you got upset about it. Go figure.
The Professor

[lukasahero]

26. I "got upset"?

Hmm. News to me. I figured I was just pointing out the obvious.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. Your Post Implied Umbrage

If i'm wrong, i'm wrong. No big deal. But, the part you pointed out as "obvious" was the most scientifically valid thing i read in the whole article.
The Professor

[lukasahero]

30. Ok, so let's discuss the "validity" of the scientific assertion

"Women tend to be around children more."

I work on a team of 23 - 5 women, 18 men. Of the women, one has a child - who's in college. Of the men, 11 have children under the age of 12. Why would men who have children be around them less than women who have children (who are working - we're not talking about SAHMs here - we're talking about office workers)?

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Anecdotal Evidence Is Not Scientific

The culture is what it is. Women tend to be more nurturing and involved in child rearing. That's not an insult, it's just a fact of the culture. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, or i don't, or if anyone one person doesn't.

In the place i work, about 80% of the women have kids, about 60% of the men. And of that 80%, i know of ONE(!) who has a stay at home husband. Of the men with kids still of rearing/raising age, about a third have a wife who does not work outside the home. You can do the math.

So you can see anecdotal evidence is too easy to counter to get into an argument.

And, one need only look at the marketing of cosmetics. You think all those ads directed at women are because women don't buy cosmetics? Of course not.

The statement is perfectly valid, and is a conclusion based upon the available demographic facts along with the finding that women tended, in this study, to have a higher bacterial volume around their work area.

I don't know that the study as a whole is valid. I think the dataset a bit small and the parameters a bit narrow. But, the conclusion about children and make-up logically and validly connects the demographic data to the findings.

OK?
GAC

[lukasahero]

37. Is it possible to have a civil conversation with you

or do you have to be condescending in presenting your side of the issue? I'm done trying to civilly debate an issue with someone who can't be bothered with showing me any respect. "OK?"

[ProfessorGAC]

40. What?

I was uncivil? Get over yourself! You have been nothing but snippy. Your nose is out of joing because i tipped your apple cart, when your conclusions about the article were skewed.

Go back and read YOUR second post. All that bluster, all that anecdotal chest beating. And i'm the one who is uncivil.

You have some introspection to do my friend.
GAC

[leftofthedial]

24. not to mention cooties!

:hide:

[AnnInLa]

25. well, boys have more cooties

or is that Republics?

I forget. The germs have blocked my memory tubes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. LOL I Just Put On Rubber Gloves And Walked Into My Co-Worker's Cube.

Then I handed her a print-out of the article. :rofl:

[Rainscents]

32. LOL!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Catherine Vincent]

35. Did she deck you?

LOL!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Nah LOL At First She Looked At Me Inquisitively, Then I Put The Article Down And Without A Word

walked right back in my cube...

Then... about 30 seconds later... the crumpled up ball of an article made its way over my wall and inches from my head LOL

Then we both chuckled a bit... :)

[AngryAmish]

36. What are they selling? Anti-cootie spray?

That would be a big seller.

[lukasahero]

38. Actually, sort of

Clorox funded the study. Clorox sells those anti-bacterial wipes noted in the study.

[Generator]

41. Yeah but boys start wars!

[sakabatou]

42. So cooties ARE true

Hmmm...

[frogcycle]

43. to paraphrase an old joke...

Can I do it until I just have a cold?

[peacebaby3]

44. Hmmm...this should also mean we have stronger immune systems as well. Good! n/t