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 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 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 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, 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  ; see Help:HTML in wikitext.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; 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&#124; 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&#124; 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). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * per 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 Manual of Style/Linking it needs to be wikified
 * reference density is insufficient. Every sentence should be referenced, unless it is truly obvious (per Verifiability and You don't need to cite that the sky is blue).
 * the titles of various sections are improperly capitalized, see Naming conventions (capitalization)
 * bold text is used improperly in the Types of Double Burdens section, see Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting
 * for that section, quotations should be incorporated into the text, see Quotations
 * ""1968: The Double Burden"." reference misses author, publisher, date
 * Conway reference misses page numbers


 * 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 Citing_sources
 * File:Gender.gif is missing a license and will likely be deleted soon
 * "A very helpful study" - bad style, seems like editorializing (see Manual of Style/Words to watch, puffery and editorializng sections)
 * I hope to see those issues addressed soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 05:48, 17 November 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&#124; 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&#32;during the 2013 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from 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&#32;during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

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