4.3 Article

Double shifts, double trouble: Alcohol as a problematic panacea for working mothers

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103699

关键词

Alcohol; Double shifts; Women; Midlife; Working mothers; COVID-19; Alcohol; Double shifts; Women; Midlife; Working mothers; COVID-19

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Discovery Project [DP210103446]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Addictions and Mental Health
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship [1161246]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article focuses on alcohol consumption among midlife women, particularly working mothers who face the dual responsibility of work and domestic duties. It highlights the unique stresses they experience and suggests that their drinking behavior may be influenced by these pressures. The lack of literature on the drinking patterns, practices, and motives of working mothers is emphasized, along with the potential impact of gendered expectations on their health.
Alcohol consumption among midlife women has become an area of research focus. We suggest it is important to examine the social roles that many midlife women take on - specifically working mothers. Working mothers balance both employment and the unequal burden of caring/domestic duties, leading to 'double shifts' of paid and unpaid labor. This creates unique stresses that may impact their drinking. This is particularly important as a growing number of mothers re-enter the workforce after childbirth. In this commentary, we suggest that working mothers' drinking tends to be overlooked or even endorsed as a means of managing the gendered stresses they face - stresses which have been exacerbated during the pandemic. We highlight the dearth of literature focusing on the drinking patterns, practices, and motives of working mothers and argue that gendered expectations placed on working mothers may be an increasingly important social determinant of health among this group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据