Talk:Gendered impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Heavy WP:UNDUE against men

The article should cover men in 80%: why they die, where they die, how ill they become, sex (not "gender") differences in these outcomes, what impact it has on the society including the close ones, etc. Now it covers women in 80%. It is wrong.

The reason is simple. Death is more important than living as caretakers etc.

This sample sentence is nonsensical in the COVID-19 context:

"Women as caretakers ... Evidence from past disease outbreaks show that women are more likely to be caregivers for the sick individuals in the family, making them more vulnerable to infection" 

Well, but then they are less vulnerable to death itself, as they survive more here, so they are in luck. Basic statistics and common sense.

Let us restore balance.

Zezen (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is hilarious. Men most deaths, but women (of course) most affected. 2.25.230.32 (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but that's the current state of the never-ending purity spiral at Wikipedia and why the project is now a laughing stock. How ridiculous that the lede states the fact that far more men are DYING of the virus, but every single subsequent paragraph is about how the virus affects women far worse than men. No point in fighting anymore. Just point and laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.74.196 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think these comments are constructive. This is not a humorous subject and WP:NOTFORUM applies here. Please say what you think is wrong, why you think it is wrong, what changes you would like to be made and what reliable sources should be used to support those changes. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The above three contributors did say what is wrong with the article, and why they think it's wrong. I agree with what they say. Arcturus (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that it's very easy to drag a net over the internet and fish out lots of articles etc written by activists (feminists, intersectionalists, etc) and et voila you have a lengthy, cited article which re-espouses what those activists have poured into the internet themselves. This article is truly an expression of the craziness of our age: objectively men are more affected by the disease, and the consequential impacts of the disease in society are felt by men and women, and yet it can all be twisted, as in so many other things, to further the narratives being put forward by the activists. This isn't an encyclopedic article, it's a collection of summaries of subjective, political narratives, which the majority of people would find somewhat disingenuous at the very least. Sumorsǣte (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article is incomplete and does not cover mens' issues enough. However, this is not a reason to disregard what is covered by the article entirely and the above discussion does not hold up to any standard. The amount of unpaid care work has increased massively due to the virus (schools closed, sick family, etc.) and since women do the majority of it, they are thus, in fact, (negatively) effected by the virus in a gender-specific way. The same goes for the increase in domestic violence, which is again directed towards women in the majority of cases. Stating that "objectively men are more affected by the disease" without any citation is just plain ridiculous, they do die at a higher rate, but that is not the full extent of the virus (especially considering that escalations of domestic violence can end in death as well). Further, implying that the authors "fish out lots of articles etc written by activists (feminists, intersectionalists, etc)" in this case is equally absurd, as most citations are peer-reviewed articles or from the New York Times, neither of which fall in the mentioned category. So instead of leaving a bunch of horribly unscientific comments, how about approaching the problem in constructive way and creating one section for each sex and actually filling the one on men with factual statements and citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:C221:5C00:CD8:6ED9:C9C9:874A (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Deary me. Don't like your worldview challenged, do you. New York Times and some humanities faculties are hardly impartial sources (so many 'academic' humanities institutions are far from rigorous academic/scientific/objective thought). As for objectivity of men being affected by the disease the most — how can DEATH (I repeat: DEATH) not be a considerable detriment? Never mind "men's issues" — death kinda goes beyond modern-day cushy 'rights'. Certainly more than a bit hard-hitting than temporarily having more hard work or being 'hard up' financially. Sheesh. Sumorsǣte (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, let's weigh into this then. I don't think this is WP:Undue exactly since the viewpoints don't exactly differ. Yes COVID might disproportionately affect men, yes the response to covid has some effects that are unique to women. The problem to be me is more the editorially jarring effect of talking about the higher death rate for men for a couple of sentences, and then proceeding to spend several paragraphs talking about the sociological effects. You're always going to have a lot of sociological effects to talk about because society is quite big.

Personally, I think a better solution is to rename the article "Impact of Covid 19 on women" rework the lead to stop stop comparing effects, move the material about sex differences in the effect of the disease into the main covid article, and add a link to this section of the main covid article. Talpedia (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Other demographic impact?

Is there a parallel page about other demographic impact of the pandemic?

There is extensive data on racial + ethnic breakdowns of cases + deaths, by country and region, which seems like enough source material for such a page. – SJ + 23:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Menstruation and the availability of sanitary supplies

Sanitary supplies were apparently not considered essential in India. -Yupik (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, there seemed to be quite a widespread issue reported surrounding sanitary supplies and whether they were considered 'essential'. See Wales [1], a further article on the issue in India [2] and wider guidance issued by UNICEF [3] - seems well worth creating a section. (FrankieBruno (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC))

Clarity needed

"The highest risk for men is in their 50s, with the gap between men and women closing only at 90."

Yes, the reason being that the population of 90+ year olds has a considerable female majority (by virtue of the universal fact that women, on average, live longer than men). So of course, even though a 90 year old man is going to have a higher risk of dying from the virus than a 90 year old woman, there aren't many 90 year old men compared to 90 year old women.

So it only "closes" because of the disparity at that age group between numbers of each sex/gender, and not because the higher risk to men is somehow reduced. Sumorsǣte (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Working-age men TWICE as likely to die than women

According to an official government report on deaths in the UK: BBC News. I trust this article will be updated accordingly, because at the moment it reads as though women are the ones being affected more! Thanks 2.25.254.143 (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions

Hello all! I want to bring in more current sources and information to this page, given the rapid rate at which situations are currently changing due to COVID-19. As new statistics and information come out regarding the gendered impact of COVID-19, I wish to update the page. Also, there are sections that seem to need more information or perhaps be restructured into other sections, like the clinical trial section. I hope to work with other wikipedians and welcome any feedback on how to make this page better. Thanks! Melired (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I would be more than happy to work on improving this page - I've already begun expanding sections on unpaid care work as many studies have been published recently exploring the impact of this increase. I think it is worth adding an economic section or looking specifically at the impact on women's careers/furlough. For instance, Deloitte have recently published a paper on the importance in investing in women for business. LSE have also produced a paper detailing the impact on work during the pandemic. Let me know if you have any further suggestions/ideas for improvement and I'm happy to edit accordingly! FrankieBruno (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Impact on Sexuality Section - Cleanup

A section on the 'Impact on Sexuality' has recently been added - had a couple of queries in terms of cleanup. A lot of the information appears to be about intercourse habits - may be worth adding some of this information into the section on 'Sexual intercourse and COVID-19'. Some of the information does not appear to directly correspond to the impact of the pandemic on sexuality. Although the information is verifiable, the 'Sexual intercourse' section does not actually explain any gendered differences or impact caused by the pandemic.

Finally, the section on 'Impact on Sexuality' relies on one source - worth adding in other sources to increase the sources and verifiability of this section. FrankieBruno (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Future Edits/Resources to Upload!

Hi! I've collated a number of resources and reports focusing specifically on the 'Gendered Impact' of the Pandemic. I've seen the page has been flagged for a clean up so it may be worth inputting some of the information from the following reports to add further detail whilst cleaning up/refining some of the sections.

UN Women - Whose Time to Care?

How are mothers and fathers balancing work and family under lockdown?

Covid-19: the impacts of the pandemic on inequality

How the COVID-19 Crisis is Exacerbating Gender Inequality

Understanding the impact of Covid-19 on women

Covid-19 and Gender Equality: Countering the Regressive Effects

Gender Equality in the Wake of Covid-19 FrankieBruno (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Gender disparity in leadership

As of writing this (November 29, 2021), such section is redacted in a way that is more akin to a personal opinion rather than a well constructed, factual and authoritative statement, using first person and jumping to conclusions without presenting a well constructed argument. In its current state the text does not adequately describe the situation and needs to be reworked or removed altogether. Holothurion (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)