Talk:Double burden

Second shift

Why is there a redirect from Second shift to this?? 71.82.214.160 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I should explain what I meant. I was wondering why there isn't a Second shift page that explains what second shift is, in the common 3-shift work system. I believe that sense of the term "second shift" is much more common than reference to the double burden (and by this I don't mean to trivialize the idea of the double burden). I would make a page for the other kind of Second shift, but I do not currently feel like reading all the WP documentation and becoming a user. 71.82.214.160 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

AGREED.

OK, ninety-five percent of people entering "Second Shift" into Wikipedia will not be helped by being redirected here. Not to trivialize Equal Rights, but this article is pure propaganda. Furthermore, was this article written by a twelve year old with a thesaurus? The poor grammar does not help their cause. Sometimes I can't even tell what a sentence was aiming at. To put it bluntly, it reads as though someone is laboring to sound intelligent.

Example; "heterosexual couples where two opposite-gender partners" is redundant.

"Gender studies (and actual in gender environmental studies) elaborated beside the workload in terms of time double burden includes additional the difficult individualized tasks (and societally advanced ability) of economical integrating, synchronising and acting within controverse economical rationalities:"

That's cute, someone's trying to make a sentence, I think. Not really sure.

Renaming this article

I closed the recent AFD on this article. However, there was some strong suggestions that this article be renamed. A suggested title was Second shift (sociology). Opinions? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a subject of discussion, perhaps the couples realize that due to the wage gap between men and women, it's more practical for the male to work longer paid hours because he gets paid more per hour (more buck for your bang, so to speak). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.206.147 (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sociology of Marriage Group Wiki Assignment

Hello,

Our group will be doing some editing to this article for our Sociology of Marriage class. Below is a brief summary of the direction we will be going in with this article. Also, we will definitely take the comments/suggestions that are above into consideration, and feel to let us know if you think anything else should be covered.

Points Covered in Article
•Definition of double burden
•History Behind Double Burden
•Pre-Modern Day vs. Modern Day
•Double Burdens for Women
•Double Burdens for Men
•Types of double burdens (Work vs. Kids, Work vs. School, and Kids vs. School
•Single Parent Double Burdens vs. Married Parents Double Burdens

Member Breakdown:
•Jay (JOriola (talk · contribs)) will be covering the history behind the double burden issue. Mainly occurring in slavery times and early 1900's and how that shaped the future structure of the double burden. Also, he will touch on the evolution of the double burden pertaining to the pre-modern day and our modern day society; how it originated and changed.
•Jade (Jade.Richardson (talk · contribs)) will be covering the different types of double burdens (Work vs. Kids, Work vs. School, and Kids vs. School). She will, also take a look at how the each of the burdens affects a man and a woman respectively.
•Marcus (Marcus.gregory.jordan (talk · contribs)) will be making evident the differences and similarities in double burden between sexes. He will show how different cultures provide different challenges for both men and women and how the double burden varies between men and women from culture to culture, although there may be similarities for some of the different groups.
•James (J.Varnado (talk · contribs)), will cover married parents verses single-parent double burden. It will entail the differences between the two such as, the struggles married couples go through and the independence of a single mother/father.

Preliminary Sources:
Agarwal , A.(2009, June 23). Single parents in college-how to meet the double challenge. Ezine articles, (), Retrieved from http://you129.com/college/story/748/

Bratberg, E., Dahl, S. A., & Risa, A. E. (2002). 'the double burden': do combinations of career and family obligations increase sickness absence among women?. European Sociological Review, 18(2), 233-249. Retrieved from http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/2/233.full.pdf+html

Brown, Jessica.(2008, December 7). Double burden for the baby boomers. The sunday times. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/investment/article5298079.ece

Jean, Yanick. *Double burden: Black women and everyday racism*., Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=U3tMBrDoWEcC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=double+burden+of+parents&source=bl&ots=qxLtiWWjn-&sig=w5OugjrpaTFxSxbb-hzn3BGF7ig&hl=en&ei=Oeh_TpmAFcXe0QGZtrDXDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false. Morgen, S. (1990). Beyond the double day: Work and family in working-class women's lives. Feminist Studies, 16(1), 53. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=ea50cadc-1c84-4544-99ca-03e7d0ee32c5%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=9611116763 Wharton, Carol S.. "Finding Time for the "Second Shift": The Impact of Flexible Work Schedules on Women's Double Days." Gender and Society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 1994. 189-205. Print. http://www.jstor.org/stable/190009 Pentti, J., Ala-Mursula, L., & Väänänen, A. (2008). The double burden of and negative spillover between paid and domestic work: associations with health among men and women. Women & Health, 40(3), 1-18. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2005-05959-001

Nordenmark, M. (2002). Multiple social roles- a resource or a burden: is it possible for men and women to combine paid work with family life in a satisfactory way?. Gender, Work, and Organization, 9(2), 125-145. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7747e720-7035-42a2-9df1-23f9918f6c38%40sessionmgr104&vid=2&hid=113

Weeks, Jeffrey. 2003. *Sexualities and societies* . Google books, Retrieved from http://books.google.com/booksid=uGznijmIEWkC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=double+burden+of+married+couples&source=bl&ots=hiR2tYsqrb&sig=qNaxEu3bHted8o6PLPz2VYk4DPs&hl=en&ei=Ffd_TqnhOOTk0QHe-LXVDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=double%20burden%20of%20married%20couples&f=false.

Thank You Jade.Richardson (talk), Jay.Oriola (talk),J.Varnado (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Marcus.gregory.jordan (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks very good guys. Sources are reliable, organization seems like a good start, too. One tiny note: you don't need to use the html code like <br>; see Help:HTML in wikitext.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review

This page seems like a great start. I think double burden is an important issue that needs to be discussed when thinking about the sociology of marriage. What I am most interested in seeing are your sections on double burden for women and double burden for men. I think that it will be crucial to have reliable, non-biased sources when exploring the issue of double burden for women v. men. I think if you're able to do this successfully, it will add to the un-biased encyclopedic nature of your article. Look forward to seeing more!

Ali Mosser Alimosser61 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick Comment

Thanks for the review and comments. I feel like as a group we should add the struggle of single parents that are in college; both male and female. I feel like we will but just to make it concrete, just wanted to push the issue.

James Varnado --J.Varnado (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Review

Looks like your outline is pretty comprehensive. Maybe in addition to it you can also add how couples negotiate(or don't negotiate) on the division of housework.

Leishanda G. (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Leishanda G. (talk) 8:12 PM, 2 October 2011

Comment

We appreciate your constructive criticism Leishanda, but yet while helpful this is not the direction we were planning on taking our article in. While your suggestion has relevance, it is very vague and could branch out into a whole other discussion which would take the major focus off of the double burden. We do thank you for your interest and comments though, and we ask that if you would like, give more suggestions, but for this I think we will respectfully decline.

Thank you though, all the comments that were posted were discussed among our group and have been taken into consideration.

Marcus.gregory.jordan (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Thank you guys for your input. I know we don't have much right now, but hopefully some time this week me and my group members will have time to sit down again and work out some more details. We will try our best to make sure that our article maintains it's "un-biased encyclopedic nature" as Ali has mentioned. I like the idea of finding out how couples negotiate the division of housework as Leishanda has mentioned; we will just have find out if there is a definite link between that and how men and women experience the double burden. In my lookings over another article, I thought of another topic that my group could possibly explore, and that is how culture influence the double burden, or if it even does at all. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep the suggestions coming. Jade.Richardson (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

From reading your above response, your attitude towards this article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. This is not "your" article. It's fine to get other users to suggest things, but it is not okay if act as if you are the only ones with the right to implement or reject changes. Please be very careful in how you approach this. Some guy (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just calling an article "mine" is not bad, I have thousands of "my" articles here, which I define as the ones I've contributed to and are on my watchlist, nothing but. The students above are quite in their rights to call this article, which is the subject of their assignment, "theirs". Of course, per WP:OWN, everybody is welcome to contribute to this article, but I am not seeing any indications that they students would not/do not allow this to happen, so all seems fine to me in this regard. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To me the phrasing "not the direction we want to take our article in" is a little OWN-y, but you're clearly more versed than I. Some guy (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A little bit, but I'd worry about that. Unless editors tell others to go away, I think OWN is not an issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Preeeliminary review

Since I see a lot of work has been done over the past few days, here are few issues from a quick overview about issues that need to be addressed before GA (a more detailed review will follow within a few days).

• per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, lead should be a comprehensive summary (abstract) of the rest of the article, and should not contain new information. It does not seem to me like your lead is either.
• the article does not have enough blue links, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking it needs to be wikified
• reference density is insufficient. Every sentence should be referenced, unless it is truly obvious (per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue).
• the titles of various sections are improperly capitalized, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• bold text is used improperly in the Types of Double Burdens section, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Boldface
• for that section, quotations should be incorporated into the text, see Wikipedia:Quotations
• ""1968: The Double Burden"." reference misses author, publisher, date
• Conway reference misses page numbers

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Further comments:

• the history section needs to be more clear on what is the modern day; 70s? 90s? 2010s?

• "In an article that was written by a team of researchers" - bad style, needs rewriting. Use author's names instead. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution
• File:Gender.gif is missing a license and will likely be deleted soon
• "A very helpful study" - bad style, seems like editorializing (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, puffery and editorializng sections)

I hope to see those issues addressed soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Double burden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 18:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a "pre-review" of the article. I notice three things that need to be fixed before I delve into a prose review. First, the article needs to be wikified throughout. The tag on the top of the page explains how to do so. Second, the big quotes at the top of a couple sections should be fitted into the text itself and changed to normal size, as it doesn't look good as is. Third, for the fifth reference, make sure page numbers are added, and the fourth reference needs publisher data and the like. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that none of the images have any valid permision and are likely to be deleted as they are. AIRcorn (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This review has been open for a week but no student has posted here. I am quite disappointed with; as I mentioned in class several times I expect a prompt reaction to the reviews. Please note that no activity for a week is grounds for closing this review as a fail. I hope this won't have to happen... (note to the reviewer: I'll make another class announcement on Monday afternoon). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. We will make immediate action on changing as well as improving the page to the standards you feel it needs to be. I agree in regards to the big quotes and their size being fitted. The images were taken off as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOriola (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll post a prose review some time tonight or tomorrow. I've been backlogged badly on my end but it's mostly taken care of now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Could the cite error at the bottom of the page be fixed first? I'd do it but I'm not actually sure where it is. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We noticed the citation error at the bottom of the page, but we were not quite sure what it meant. I can take another look at it and try to figure out where exactly it is some time today. Jade.Richardson (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. This happens when a reference is defined in reflist but is unused in the body. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Jade.Richardson (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some lead comments and other misc. things:

• "According to studies done dealing with a " According to studies, dealing... flows better.
• "motherly responsibilities in the Western hemisphere, and parts of the Eastern hemisphere" that comma isn't needed.
• There are many spots where there's a space after punctuation and the ref, i.e. (end. [4]) That space should be removed in all instances it exists.
• There are instances early on where references come before punctuation; the punctuation should be before the reference.
• For ref #17, is that noting the total pages? Since the ref is just being used once, you only need to note the page that info is on that's referenced.
• Ref 34 (^ a b c d e f g "1968: The Double Burden". [author missing] [date missing]) Still needs an author and access date (I don't see a date so that isn't needed).
• "The idea of double burden is not a new one." If there's a time when it started in the reference, that would be preferred to add in this sentence.
• "the out pouring of occupations in the early 1920's" outpouring
• "The roaring 30's "encouraged women to fulfill what Stalin termed the "great and honorable duty that nature has given" them." link Josef Stalin, and explain the roaring 30s as well, since that's a new term to me, i.e. was this just in Russia or worldwide?
• "so that their family's" their families
• "Now in modern times, the idea of the double burden still brings a default idea into one's mind, but it is more evolved with the times concerning both sexes and their new found roles" I'd remove the first part of the sentence, starting it with The idea, plus newfound is one word.
• "sometimes expected on any women" any woman, or just "on women".
• "but more and more women enter and make their presence known in the work force" reword. Perhaps 'but as more women enter the workforce and make their presence known...'
• "one of the other" one or the other
• "effects the men as well" affects

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, we will be addressing these issues this upcoming weekend. Jade.Richardson (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. It was very helpful. We shall make the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOriola (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me know when all changes are complete and I'll review the rest of the article, as this is only part. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We will let you know by today or tonight that the changes have been completed. J.Varnado (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Hello, all of the issues that you mentioned have been addressed. Thank You Jade.Richardson (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Here's my final wave of comments:

• "sometimes a person's health is effected" affected.
• "Many people faced with these circumstances have a higher chance of being sick since health and stress seem to go hand in hand. In fact stress has been implicated in up to eighty percent of all illnesses, as found by a report done by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women" i'd actually combine these sentences: "..to go hand in hand, as stress has been implicated.."
• "rate than the women who are" than women
• "and it has been somewhat done proving that women who are faced with work during sometime of the day and then faced with taking care of children have been known to request more sick days than men in the same situation." this is rather oddly worded. i'd cut it down to "..who are faced with work and taking care of.."
• "the women is faced with a higher amount of a domestic workload than the males will be faced with." tense changed mid-sentence; take out "will be faced with".
• "The Canadian Family in Crisis written by John Fredrick Conway." comma after crisis
• "and also in the workforce" and are in the workforce sounds better here.
• "house for the mother in some cases." there are some instances of weasel words creeping into the article, such as there. End the sentence at mother, and double check for other instances of that.
• "Though this seems like no time at all it does add up in no time." the sentence really doesn't add anything of substance; remove.
• "eighty-three percent of women participate in housecleaning and food preparation compared to only fifty-one percent" those numbers can be written as just that, numbers (83 and 51), though I won't be too concerned on that.
• "average loose up to" lose up
• "The Canadian Family Crisis" start sentence with In, plus wasn't it in Crisis in an earlier paragraph? fix that.
• "work/family conflicts.[5] The male's stress in these situations derive from work/family conflicts" the article links to a dash, which should be used in both cases instead of the backslash.
• "that will effect the entire family" affect
• "on much stress." either write more stress or just remove much
• "has a career, as well" rm comma
• "Strains begin to develop between these two roles when women, and men, find" Strain begins to..when women and men find
• "it effects how decisions are made" affects
• "are two of the firs things" first
• "put of going" put off
• "Online, has both Bachelor of Science in Nursing and Master of Science in Nursing programs" rm comma after online and just say have instead of has both.
• The second single parent paragraph has the problem of spaces between punctuation and references. Remove those.
• "The double burden of women, that have jobs and still have to come home and shoulder the majority of the housework, leads to" neither comma needed.

I'll put the article on hold, and will either pass it as a GA when it's fixed or end the review sometime in the next few days. I was told grades are due soon, so I'll only leave this open another 72 hours; sorry for the delay on my end. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, we will be addressing these concern tomorrow (Dec 18). We will let you know when all has been corrected. Thank You Jade.Richardson (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the previous problems you have listed are now fixed. Hopefully everything is adequate to your liking. Thanks again (J.Oriola) (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOriola (talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything now looks good, so I'm willing to pass the article as a GA. Well done! Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Expansion

Although I respect the effort that was put into creating the "Double burden" article, I think there is room for improvement. For a class assignment, I plan to revise the article. My tentative plans are as follows: -include a subsection about the sexual division of labor under the history section -edit "Pre modern day" and "Modern day" into "Pre-WWII" and "WWII-modern day" -shift "Health effects of the double burden" farther down as a subsection under a section called "Effects of the double burden" -add a section about the effects of racial differences on the double burden with subsections of "White families" and "Minority families" -add a section about the effects of economic differences on the double burden with subsections called "Middle-class families" and "Non-middle-class families", which would include the poor and the wealthy -eliminate the current 4th ("Types of double burdens") and 5th (Single vs married parents") sections -add a section called "Family structure" with subsections called "Nuclear families", "Non-nuclear families", which would include single parent households, "Heterosexual couples", and "Homosexual couples" -excluding "See also", "References", and "Further reading", the last section would be the above-mentioned "Effects of the double burden" with a subsection about "Health effects" In total, there would be 9 sections starting with "History of the double burden" and ending with "Further reading". While I realize that my above plans are very watered down and a bit ambitious, I think they could improve the existing article. Therefore, I invite members to please offer constructive criticism, helpful readings, etc-anything to help me improve this page. ThatRavengirl (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision

Although there has been a good amount of work done on this topic, I feel that it has mainly focused on the sociological viewpoint of double burden, instead of the economic aspect. Also, I feel that the causes of the double burden and the implications of it are greatly underplayed. I will be drawing heavily from the journal Feminist Economics, and am hoping to update the article so that it reflects more current thoughts and ideas. I am hoping to remove some information that is outdated, and restructure the article so it has more relevance. A detailed outline is in my sandbox, but a brief list of changes I am hoping to make it below:

- add an etymology section

- add a conceptual frameworks representing unequal work allocations, and discuss what the double burden entails, including multi tasking and work intensity

- add a work burdens around the world and discuss the manifestations of the double burden in various parts of the world

- elaborate on the causes, and include subsections such as separate notion of paid marketplace vs. home work, and include causes in the developing and developed countries

- add a section on effects of the double burden, and talk about the economic and societal effects

In addition, I am going to go through each section and add links and photos as necessary.. Please let me know if there is anything that I can add that will make this article better, of if you have any suggestions for my proposed addition to this article. None of my changes are set in stone, so any advice will be appreciated.

Momo137 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Review

Overall, I find the article to be highly informative. There seem to be certain specifics that are lacking such as information on Eastern Europe, and information about the economy and working conditions in Africa. My only major concern is the number of sources that are used to support the work are relatively few for the amount of information being presented. There does not seem to be a mixture of scholarly perspectives or a collection of corroborating evidence for the claims being presented. Otherwise, I find the work to be informative and of a high quality based upon Wikipedia standards. Jpoles1 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I will be sure to do more research and corroborate my writing with more resources. Momo137 (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Review - widen the scope

Momo137 has made some valuable improvements to this article, considering it was already rated as a GA. I feel that the tone of this article is appropriate for Wikipedia, and there is a sufficiently wide focus. I agree with Jpoles that there is information about double burdens missing from many regions of the world, such as North America, South America, and Eastern Europe. Also, there need to be corrections to statements such as "in the past thirty years" or "recently" in order to keep Wikipedia relevant over a long period of time. Also, I would consider adding sources to the sections that currently contain one source. This ensures that a variety of viewpoints are represented, and strengthens the viewpoints already presented. Another weakness may be the narrow scope of the "Solutions" section, which only contains initiatives relating to families. I'm not an expert on this topic, but I would imagine there are a wider range of approaches to the double burden. Besides that, all of the sources look credible, and the images are beneficial. Good work! Khatchell (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will add more sources and more information about different parts of the world. Momo137 (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Include pertinent feminist economics literature on time use and work intensity

For this article to adequately cover the latest research on women's Work Intensity and time use burden's compared with those of men, the growing literature in this area should be incorporated and referenced in the article. See particularly, the two special issues of Feminist Economics on Unpaid Work, Time Use, Poverty, and Public Policy published in 2010 (vol. 16.3 and 2011 (vol 17.4), the 2010 edited book, Unpaid Work and the Economy: Gender, Time Use and Poverty in Developing Countries (edited by Rania Antonopoulos and Indira Hirway), as well as the other literatures referenced in these collections.DStrassmann (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review. I will look into the literature that you pointed me to and incorporate the information into the edits. Momo137 (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TA comments

Hi Momo137! Great work on the article - it's an important topic and you've added lots of needed information. I noticed that you have the Himmewait reference twice in the References section - it only needs to be there once. Also, it would be better if under the "Work intensity" subsection it said "Main article: Work intensity" and then had the paragraph (see the first section of the Feminism article for an example). Right now it says "See work intensity for more" as the last sentence of the paragraph.

Good luck working on the article! Let me know if you have questions. Nadhika99 (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I will make sure to change the things that you pointed out. Momo137 (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Bias

I feel this article is heavily biased towards the feminist point-of-view on the matter. Recent studies suggest that in developed countries the "double shift is a myth":

On average, women and men across Europe do the same total number of productive work hours, once paid jobs and unpaid household work are added together – roughly eight hours a day. Men do substantially more hours of paid work. Women’s time is divided more evenly between paid and unpaid work. Men and women do roughly equal amounts of voluntary work – contrary to the popular myth that women do vastly more than men. Results for Britain are repeated in the USA and other countries, despite differences in the length of working weeks and lifestyles. It is only in the poorer nations that women work longer hours overall. Indeed, in Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, men actually do more productive work than women.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristiklein (talk • contribs) 16:42, November 10, 2014

One source is not enough to establish your argument as the dominant one. I would not oppose to adding the above source/quote as a criticism of the notion, but by itself it's the best it can support, per WP:UNDUE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nutrition

I came here looking for the double burden of nutrition (e.g. https://www.who.int/nutrition/double-burden-malnutrition/en/ ). I've tried to add a link to the subsection in the nutrition transition page, hopefully someone can fix it a bit if I got it wrong. Thanks! Lionfish0 (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: Turns out dual-burden of nutrition and double burden aren't the same! Guess it might need a whole new page... Lionfish0 (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by Primefac (talk) on 16:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)