Talk:Work–life balance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updating the Citation[edit]

I would like to update the citation to the correct format, from that below:

The structural functionalism theory, which emerged following WWII, was largely influenced from the industrial revolution and the changes in the social role of men and women during this period. This theory implies that the life is concerned mainly with two separate spheres: productive life which happens in the workplace and affective life which is at home. Structural functionalism theory believes in the existence of radical separation between work (institution, workplace, or market) and families. According to this theory, these two (workplace and family) work best "when men and women specialize their activities in separate spheres, women at home doing expressive work and men in the workplace performing instrumental tasks" (Kingsbury & Scanzoni, 1993; as cited in MacDermid, 2005: 18).

Found the original source which is a chapter in a book at https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/family-theories-and-methods-a-contextual-approach-a-contextual-ap

NikkiSAUoE (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 February 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Work–life interfaceWork–life balance – "Work-life balance" is far and away the more common term, per Ngrams. It also has 14 interwikis compared to just one for "work-life interface". feminist🚰 (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the move. Some rewriting on the lead is needed post-move. Might be a good opportunity to review the whole thing since there are a lot of strange decisions in the way it's laid out. Reconrabbit 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.