Category: English

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Braden Manns, Professor of Medicine and Health Economics, University of Calgary

Canada’s health systems began shifting from paper charts to electronic health records decades ago. These records hold patients’ critical health information, including medications, diagnoses, clinical notes, test results, specialist consults and plans for care.

Our research, published today in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, raises major concerns about the state of these electronic health records nationwide.

In most provinces and territories, information is currently siloed in separate software programs in different offices, designed by multiple vendors with differing standards. This fragments patients’ health records across services and leaves clinicians without the information they need to provide safe care.

This is harming patients, costing taxpayers $9.4 billion annually and hindering health-system improvement.

Canada’s missed opportunity

Ideally, patients’ health information should follow them over time and across locations. Some might assume that’s how it works now. After all, hotel chains remember whether we prefer foam or feather pillows, no matter what country we are in. Uber ratings follow us everywhere.

Unfortunately, in health care, things aren’t so seamless. In the rush to abandon paper charts and transition to electronic records, Canada missed a major opportunity for standardization.

Without an overarching plan, clinics, hospitals and jurisdictions chose from dozens of incompatible platforms sold by vendors competing for market share, without considering the need for personal health information to follow the patient.

A provincial and territorial legislative focus on the privacy of patient records has also fostered an environment that splinters patient information between health services.

The Connected Care Scorecard

Collecting, tracking and exchanging patients’ health information is key to safe, co-ordinated care. In some jurisdictions, like Taiwan, electronic health records from different vendors dock securely together. If a family doctor changes a medication, then pharmacy, hospital and specialist records are automatically updated. A treatment plan from a specialist lands directly in a family doctor’s electronic record, without need for faxing, scanning or uploading.

In Canada, hospitals, specialists and primary-care services still rely heavily on fax machines and mail, rather than automated, instant, accurate data exchange.

As part of our research, we created a Connected Care Scorecard that reveals where each province and territory stands in connecting its health records.

In British Columbia, for example, dozens of incompatible electronic health record systems are used in community clinics alone. Hospitals, even within the same health authority, run on different platforms. A patient who visits an emergency room in downtown Vancouver will have to tell their story again if they later seek care in Burnaby. Clinicians may end up retesting for illnesses already ruled out.

Prince Edward Island does much better — with one electronic health record uniting all hospitals and a single platform for primary-care clinics. The hospital record feeds information into primary care so details are available for follow-up.

Interoperability matters

Connected, integrated electronic health records allow all clinicians to work together on a common plan. Sharing patient information is critical for team-based care. It improves outcomes like medication safety and enables patients’ access to records, making them part of the care team.

Most jurisdictions do have patient portals where some people can see portions of their health information, like lab results or prescriptions. However, a 2025 study found that only 13.2 per cent of adult Canadians have electronic access to such records.

Despite tremendous hype and opportunity to improve care through artificial intelligence, most health systems can’t use it at scale. That’s largely because the opportunities it offers — assisting with diagnoses and prompting clinicians to order the tests and treatments patients need — are wholly dependent on ready access to comprehensive, accurate patient health data.

Interoperable electronic health records would also help health systems access population-based information to inform planning. Data could help predict disease outbreaks and spot bottlenecks in hospital flow. It could improve cancer care and ensure patients with the greatest needs are prioritized.

Our research shows that although most jurisdictions use some hospital data for planning, information in electronic health records, especially from primary care, rarely gets used to improve health systems. This has long-term implications: you can’t manage what you don’t measure.

All of this adds up to massive costs for taxpayers, patients and clinicians.

Common health data standards

The federal government recently reintroduced the proposed Connected Care for Canadians Act, which would require vendors to adopt common standards for exchanging information across systems. It’s a solid first step, but more is needed.

Most importantly, governments must establish clear accountability — nationally, provincially and territorially — for health data oversight. This must balance minimizing privacy breaches with limiting all other forms of harm arising from disconnected records, including damage to patients, clinicians and health systems.

Jurisdictions must also establish common health data standards, tools and incentives to improve data coordination.

Our challenge is not adopting electronic health records, but connecting them. Without that, our investment simply won’t pay off. Care will continue to suffer.

Dr. Ewan Affleck, physician, senior medical advisor in health informatics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta and chair of Networked Health, co-authored this article.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Canada’s fragmented electronic health records harm patients and cost taxpayers billions: New research – https://theconversation.com/canadas-fragmented-electronic-health-records-harm-patients-and-cost-taxpayers-billions-new-research-280798

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Chenkai Chi, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Educational Studies, University of Windsor

What kind of education best helps students learn math?

In the province of Ontario, the most recent provincial standardized results (2024–25) show modest improvement in elementary mathematics achievement, but overall performance remains uneven, particularly in the junior grades.

Provincially, 64 per cent of Grade 3 students met the provincial standard, up from 61 per cent the previous year. In contrast, only 51 per cent of Grade 6 students met the standard, indicating that about half of students are not yet achieving expected levels by the end of the junior division.

Student attitudes toward mathematics also decline with age: while 67 per cent of Grade 3 students reported liking mathematics, this dropped to 48 per cent in Grade 6.

These results suggest gradual recovery following COVID-19 pandemic disruptions, but they also point to the necessity for more work to be done for both teachers and students to develop a deeper understanding of the 2020 math curriculum. This curriculum incorporated new priorities like social–emotional learning, coding, mathematical modelling and financial literacy.

Read more:
6 changes in Ontario’s not-so-basic new elementary math curriculum

My research has examined Ontario math education taught by generalist elementary school teachers in dialogue with Chinese mathematics instruction taught by specialist math teachers. Grounded in this work, I believe we should firstly be proud of Ontario math education instead of criticizing it.

This research was part of a partnership grant project from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, with education researchers Shijing Xu and Michael Connelly.

Dialogue between teachers

In our research with a “Sister School Network” project, generalist elementary teachers from a Windsor, Ont. public school and mathematics specialist teachers from a Chongqing, China primary school participated in monthly online knowledge-sharing meetings.

At the meetings, teachers shared and compared curriculum. They offered demonstrations on topics such as fractions, multiplication and estimation, and discussed student learning and parent engagement.

From 2016 to 2019, Xu and I co-ordinated these monthly exchanges and organized visits of Canadian teachers to Chongqing as well as Chinese teachers’ visits to Windsor.

Other sister schools that are part of Xu and Connelly’s project include Shanghai-Toronto, Shanghai-ChangChun and Windsor-Beijing.

Special education, professional autonomy

Chinese mathematics specialist teachers deeply appreciated the strengths of Ontario’s generalist model — particularly the comprehensive learning support provided to students with diverse needs and the high level of professional autonomy granted to teachers.

One Chinese participant with more than 20 years of mathematics teaching experience reflected:

“I wish we could have a special education support system like in Canada.”

Such perspectives highlight a key strength of Ontario’s elementary generalist system — one that educators in the province can take pride in. In an interview I did with mathematics education researcher Christine Suurtamm, whose research has engaged international perspectives on mathematics education and Canadian teachers’ practice, Suurtamm noted:

“I think the idea that we have great faith in teachers’ professional judgment to work with a curriculum, and to determine the best way to sequence and select the kinds of activities that address the curriculum expectations and meet their students’ needs, is a real benefit to our students in Ontario. I think that is something we should be proud of.”

Value of working with a specialist

In my study, a Grade 5 Canadian teacher also appreciated the opportunity to co-plan and co-teach with a Chinese mathematics specialist teacher. In interviews, the teacher emphasized a deep appreciation for this collaborative approach and expressed the hope that Canadian schools could provide more structured opportunities for such professional collaboration.

In my interview with Suurtamm, she also noted it would be worthwhile if Ontario teachers had more time to develop their math lessons in collaboration with other teachers.

In 2023, Ontario announced funds to double the number of school mathematics coaches. Research about how and where the coaching model has been implemented, how teachers are relying on it and its real effects in the classroom would help gain insight into the efficacy of this approach.

Challenges with Ontario math education

My research also suggested ways Ontario mathematics education might learn from Chinese mathematics learning.

Two key challenges emerge in Ontario mathematics teaching. First, teacher collaboration is limited. Unlike Chinese mathematics specialists who routinely engage in co-planning, lesson observation and collective reflection, Canadian generalist teachers have few structured opportunities for sustained collaboration, despite a clear desire for it.

Second, the consolidation of mathematical learning seen in Ontario is relatively weak. One Chinese math specialist teacher described teaching mathematics as a dynamic balance between Fang (放) — encouraging open exploration and the use of multiple strategies — and Shou (收) — a structured consolidation phase. In this phase, key ideas are clarified, connections are synthesized and methods are formalized.

Ontario educators and policymakers may consider these insights in ways that are responsive to local situations.

Curriculum and approaches evolve

Overall, my collaborative research views improving mathematics teaching and curricula as an ongoing and progressive process.

As Suurtamm notes, curriculum changes should be approached as an evolution rather than a revolution. Changes build thoughtfully on existing foundations rather than seeking to replace them wholesale.

Before pursuing new directions, it is important to reflect on and recognize the strengths that already characterize Ontario’s mathematics education system.

Chenkai Chi receives funding from SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship, Ontario Graduate Scholarship and Mitacs Globalink Fellowship.

– ref. Chinese and Canadian approaches to math teaching have a lot to learn from each other – https://theconversation.com/chinese-and-canadian-approaches-to-math-teaching-have-a-lot-to-learn-from-each-other-274072

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jane E. Sanders, Associate Professor, King’s School of Social Work, Western University

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated and brought into focus the ongoing disproportionate burden on mothers when it comes to household logistics, child care and financial inequity. It also revealed just how deeply embedded and structurally reinforced that burden is.

When labour that had previously been a shared social responsibility shifted into individual households, the load fell mainly to women. But perhaps even more important is that the true impact of this burden was invisible — even to women themselves.

Data over three years, from 2020 to 2023 — the height of the pandemic — laid bare the reality of a poorly scaffolded social structure. What had been seen as informal or “natural” for women to take on was, in fact, an uneven distribution of labour and responsibility.

That reality has clear economic effects. Canadian women earn approximately 69 per cent of the average salary of men. Mothers’ salaries also decrease by 49 per cent in the year after a child is born and 34 per cent 10 years later, while fathers’ salaries are largely unaffected.

This disparity — often referred to as the motherhood gap or child penalty — increases over time, crosses generations and is rooted in how societies value and distribute care work.

Studying families during COVID-19

Even before the pandemic, women were often responsible for the majority of housework and child care.

This was the status quo when COVID-19 arrived, as social isolation regulations increased family mental-health concerns while simultaneously decreasing social support.

Between January 2021 and August 2023, qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews and focus groups that included 113 people — social work students and professionals from King’s University College at Western University’s School of Social Work and the local school board — to examine the impact of COVID-19 on families who participated in the first three years of our Support and Aid to Families Electronically (SAFE) program.

Participants were asked how families were impacted during COVID-19 and the associated restrictions. We did not expect the disproportionate cost of these increased household responsibilities to be invisible.

Our social systems position women, particularly mothers, as the primary load-bearing point, shouldering a concentrated burden within families. When the already inadequate scaffolding of social structures is removed, as it was during COVID-19, the pressure is too concentrated. Policies, social expectations and workplace culture reinforce these imbalances.

Inequality hiding in plain sight

There were stories of mothers juggling working from home with children’s daily needs, balancing in-person work without child care and facing unemployment and financial peril. After each story, and among other questions, we asked if they thought any of this was related to their gender.

Overwhelmingly, the women said, “No.”

The unequal burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on women was evident in the new roles they were required to undertake, the stress associated with these roles and the psychological and emotional impact of these increased expectations.

However, the concentrated weight of this load was not recognized by those bearing it.

The participants in our study did not identify the stories they shared — of job loss, of being an in-home caregiver (daycare provider, food preparer, entertainer, social support) or of providing mental-health case management and support when everything, including in-school learning, closed — as being connected to the fact that they are women.

The responses revealed how deeply gendered expectations are internalized, framed as circumstance or coincidence rather than inequality.

For example, some of the women said they took on more of the household burden simply because they happened to be the ones who were home during the day, while others said they took on more because they were the one working outside of the home during the day. One participant said:

“Whoever was at home dealing with [our] three children, [they’re] not really doing any of the household stuff. And that just happened to be my husband who was always home. [I would] come home [after having] worked, I now deal with kids and dinner, and then I’m also doing all of the household things. This was burdensome, but I don’t really think it was because I [am a woman].”

Even when the cost of this burden was clear, the fact that it was gendered remained hidden. Another said:

“I don’t think I closed down the business because of being a woman. It was just a lot to handle. It was just draining on a day-to-day.”

It was understood that if women are unable to bear the load, foundational social structures could fracture, as one mother observed:

“My mental health had the greatest impact on the mental health and emotional regulation of the entire household.”

The cost of ignoring the burden

There are profound positives to motherhood, and conceding the need for equity and balance does not contradict them. Rather, acknowledging the disproportionate responsibilities related to household well-being, child care, education and financial equity validates women’s struggle to keep up. It also challenges internalized dominant messages for all of us.

The mental health and educational impact of COVID-19 on children, youth and families will be longstanding. The impact on parents, particularly mothers, will be ongoing.

Only once we truly acknowledge this disproportionate burden can we discuss how these expectations fail everyone, particularly during times of structural instability.

Until caregiving and emotional labour are recognized as shared social responsibilities, rather than private obligations borne disproportionately by women, crises like COVID-19 will continue to deepen existing inequalities.

Jane E. Sanders received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant number 430-2021-00162.

– ref. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the load mothers carry — a burden that’s still being ignored today – https://theconversation.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-exposed-the-load-mothers-carry-a-burden-thats-still-being-ignored-today-275922

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tamara Krawchenko, Associate Professor, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria

When delegates gathered for COP30 in Belém, Brazil in November 2025, they scrutinized various sectors of the global economy for their contributions to rising greenhouse gases. Agriculture, aviation, steel, cement — all were on the table. One topic not discussed was war.

This isn’t a minor oversight. Militaries are significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has generated an estimated 311 million tonnes of what’s known as CO₂ equivalent, comparable to the combined annual emissions of Belgium, New Zealand, Austria and Portugal. CO₂ equivalent is the metric used to compare the warming impact of various greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide.

Recently published research calculated that the first 15 months of Israel’s war in Gaza generated more than 33 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, comparable to the combined 2023 annual emissions of Costa Rica and Slovenia.

In February 2026, Israel and the United States launched a war against Iran, joining a long list of other conflicts where emissions go uncounted in global inventories.

These are massive emissions, and they are generated with no formal mechanism to record, report or attribute them, and no accountability for the climate costs that affect people in conflict zones and far beyond.

A recent article by Neta Crawford, a researcher with the Cost of War project at Brown University, highlights how armed forces, militarization and war fuel climate change. She argues that military emissions and conflict-related emissions remain undercounted, even though they undermine efforts to mitigate climate change.

The military emissions gap

Estimates suggest militaries and their supply chains account for approximately 5.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which is enough to make them the world’s fourth largest emitter if counted as a country. And that figure only covers peacetime.

This is what researchers call the military emissions gap: the difference in emissions between what governments report and what their armed forces actually emit.

The problem starts with the rules. Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), countries have been exempt from fully reporting military emissions since the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in the 1990s. The United States successfully lobbied for the exclusion on national security grounds.

The 2015 Paris Agreement introduced voluntary reporting. However, as a 2025 briefing from the Conflict and Environment Observatory and Griffith University made clear, the result is a system that is “patchy, incomplete or missing altogether.”

The top three military spenders — the U.S., China and Russia — either submit no data or incomplete, non-disaggregated figures. This is a structural blind spot that excludes one of the most carbon-intensive sectors from meaningful accountability.

What wars cost the climate

Crawford’s study on Gaza provides a comprehensive account of the war’s full carbon cycle. It found that direct combat emissions — jets, rockets, artillery, military vehicles — account for just 1.3 million of the 33.2 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent.

The vast majority, more than 31 million tonnes, are projected to come from the reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure: nearly 450,000 apartments, over 3,000 kilometres of roads, schools, hospitals and water systems. Rebuilding what war destroys is, climatically speaking, the biggest act of war of all.

A report on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by the Initiative on GHG Accounting of War found that direct combat emissions constitute 37 per cent out of total emissions between February 2022 and 2026. The war has ignited thousands of fires in forests and wetlands, accounting for 23 per cent of its total carbon footprint.

Russia’s attacks on electrical infrastructure have further released sulphur hexafluoride, a greenhouse gas 24,000 times more potent than CO₂, from high-voltage switching gear. And the rerouting of civilian aircraft around Ukrainian and Russian airspace has added an estimated 20 million extra tonnes of CO₂ equivalent compared to pre-invasion flight paths.

In Iran, it is estimated that the U.S.-Israel war has unleashed over five million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent — largely from infrastructure destruction and energy-related impacts.

None of this appears in any country’s reports on emissions to the UNFCCC.

What needs to change

In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an advisory opinion establishing that states have binding obligations to assess, report and mitigate harms to the climate system. In a separate declaration, ICJ judge Sarah Cleveland stated that those obligations extend to harms resulting from armed conflicts and other military activities.

The UN General Assembly has called for Russia to compensate Ukraine for all damages resulting from its invasion. When wars of aggression are launched, the emissions generated in fighting them, surviving them and rebuilding belong on the aggressor’s carbon ledger. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it generated a climate debt on behalf of the entire planet. The same can be said of other aggressors.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC is currently in its seventh assessment cycle, with reports expected in late 2029.

This assessment cycle must include a dedicated report for conflict emissions covering infrastructure destruction, fighting and post-conflict reconstruction. The UNFCCC must make reporting military emissions mandatory and develop a framework for attributing conflict emissions under its Enhanced Transparency Framework.

Civil society and academia have already done the hard work of showing it can be done. Organizations like the Conflict and Environment Observatory have built methodologies from scratch, using open-source data. The science exists. What’s lacking is the political will to enshrine it in global climate governance.

The richest countries spend roughly 30 times more on their armed forces than they contribute in climate finance to developing countries. Global military spending has reached a record $2.7 trillion. This is more than the total $2.2 trillion invested globally in clean energy in 2025.

As conflicts proliferate, the world is committing to an ever-larger unaccounted carbon liability. The climate finance gap is also likely to get worse as countries cut international development aid to direct funds to higher military spending.

Every degree of warming we are trying to avoid is undermined by wars. Accounting for conflict emissions is a vital way to make climate science whole.

This article was co-authored by researchers who are part of the Accelerating Community Energy Transformation initiative: Curran Crawford, Basma Majerbi, Madeleine McPherson (University of Victoria) and Samaneh Shahgaldi (Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières).

Tamara Krawchenko does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Wars destroy lives and the climate. Why aren’t we counting military emissions? – https://theconversation.com/wars-destroy-lives-and-the-climate-why-arent-we-counting-military-emissions-281129

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Julie Ada Tchoukou, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

When Canada abstained from a recent vote at the United Nations on a resolution recognizing the transatlantic slave trade as the gravest crime against humanity, the decision may have appeared cautious, even procedural.

It was neither.

Abstention, in this situation, is not neutral position. It’s a firm stance — one that carries legal, political and historical consequences.

A vote about legal meaning, not just history

At first glance, the resolution might seem symbolic; a statement about a past atrocity with a moral status that’s already globally accepted. But in international law, recognition is never merely descriptive. It helps define legal norms and the scope of responsibility.

The category of “crimes against humanity” has evolved significantly since its early articulation at the Nuremberg Trials in the 1940s. What began as a response to the atrocities of the Second World War has developed into an important pillar of international criminal and human rights law.

Identifying the transatlantic slave trade as the gravest crime against humanity isn’t simply restating history. It situates that history within the legal architecture that governs how we understand atrocity, responsibility and redress today.

The resolution passed with 123 votes in favour. The United States, Argentina and Israel voted against it, while 52 states abstained, including the United Kingdom, Canada and all European Union member states, including Spain.

By abstaining, Canada did not opt out of a symbolic gesture. It declined to participate in shaping the legal meaning of one of international law’s most significant categories.

The myth of absention as neutrality

In multilateral diplomacy, absention is usually framed as a middle ground; a way to avoid taking sides. But in practice, especially in process of creating legal norms, absention can function as a form of resistance.

Votes at the UN General Assembly are part of how international norms are consolidated, clarified and sometimes contested. When states abstain from resolutions that seek to expand or develop those norms, they signal hesitation about the direction of that particular legal development.

Canada’s absention therefore raises questions about alignment. It places the country neither among those states affirming a stronger legal characterization of the slave trade nor among those openly opposing it. Instead, Canada now occupies a position of ambiguity — one that may reflect concerns about legal implications, including potential claims for reparations.

But ambiguity isn’t without impact. In the politics of international law, declining to affirm a legal norm can slow its consolidation and weaken its force.

Why recognition still matters

If the transatlantic slave trade is widely acknowledged as a profound injustice, why does formal recognition matter? Because recognition is tied to how harm is measured, narrated and addressed.

Efforts to grapple with the legacies of slavery increasingly involve questions of quantification, of loss, of dispossession and of enduring inequality. Legal recognition, including reports of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, shapes these process by establishing what counts as a harm of the highest order and therefore what kinds of responses are justified.

This is particularly evident in ongoing debates about reparations, where claims are often grounded in the characterization of slavery and the slave trade as crimes against humanity. Without clear and consistent recognition, these claims face higher legal and political barriers.

In this sense, the resolution isn’t only about the past. It’s about the frameworks through which historical injustice is made visible in the present.

A choice with consequences

Canada has long positioned itself as a supporter of international human rights and the rule of law. Abstaining on the UN’s slavery resolution is at odds with that self-perception.

States may have reasons to be cautious in endorsing specific resolutions about legal responsibility. But those reasons should be clearly stated and open to scrutiny.

Absention avoids that scrutiny. It allows states to sidestep difficult questions about history, law and accountability while maintaining the appearance of neutrality.

But there is no neutral ground in the recognition of crimes against humanity. There are only choices about what to affirm, what to resist and what to leave unresolved.

Canada has made one such choice. It should be prepared to explain it.

Julie Ada Tchoukou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Canada’s United Nations abstention on slavery recognition wasn’t neutral — it was a choice – https://theconversation.com/canadas-united-nations-abstention-on-slavery-recognition-wasnt-neutral-it-was-a-choice-281062

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jane E. Sanders, Associate Professor, King’s School of Social Work, Western University

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated and brought into focus the ongoing disproportionate burden on mothers when it comes to household logistics, child care and financial inequity. It also revealed just how deeply embedded and structurally reinforced that burden is.

When labour that had previously been a shared social responsibility shifted into individual households, the load fell mainly to women. But perhaps even more important is that the true impact of this burden was invisible — even to women themselves.

Data over three years, from 2020 to 2023 — the height of the pandemic — laid bare the reality of a poorly scaffolded social structure. What had been seen as informal or “natural” for women to take on was, in fact, an uneven distribution of labour and responsibility.

That reality has clear economic effects. Canadian women earn approximately 69 per cent of the average salary of men. Mothers’ salaries also decrease by 49 per cent in the year after a child is born and 34 per cent 10 years later, while fathers’ salaries are largely unaffected.

This disparity — often referred to as the motherhood gap or child penalty — increases over time, crosses generations and is rooted in how societies value and distribute care work.

Studying families during COVID-19

Even before the pandemic, women were often responsible for the majority of housework and child care.

This was the status quo when COVID-19 arrived, as social isolation regulations increased family mental-health concerns while simultaneously decreasing social support.

Between January 2021 and August 2023, qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews and focus groups that included 113 people — social work students and professionals from King’s University College at Western University’s School of Social Work and the local school board — to examine the impact of COVID-19 on families who participated in the first three years of our Support and Aid to Families Electronically (SAFE) program.

Participants were asked how families were impacted during COVID-19 and the associated restrictions. We did not expect the disproportionate cost of these increased household responsibilities to be invisible.

Our social systems position women, particularly mothers, as the primary load-bearing point, shouldering a concentrated burden within families. When the already inadequate scaffolding of social structures is removed, as it was during COVID-19, the pressure is too concentrated. Policies, social expectations and workplace culture reinforce these imbalances.

Inequality hiding in plain sight

There were stories of mothers juggling working from home with children’s daily needs, balancing in-person work without child care and facing unemployment and financial peril. After each story, and among other questions, we asked if they thought any of this was related to their gender.

Overwhelmingly, the women said, “No.”

The unequal burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on women was evident in the new roles they were required to undertake, the stress associated with these roles and the psychological and emotional impact of these increased expectations.

However, the concentrated weight of this load was not recognized by those bearing it.

The participants in our study did not identify the stories they shared — of job loss, of being an in-home caregiver (daycare provider, food preparer, entertainer, social support) or of providing mental-health case management and support when everything, including in-school learning, closed — as being connected to the fact that they are women.

The responses revealed how deeply gendered expectations are internalized, framed as circumstance or coincidence rather than inequality.

For example, some of the women said they took on more of the household burden simply because they happened to be the ones who were home during the day, while others said they took on more because they were the one working outside of the home during the day. One participant said:

“Whoever was at home dealing with [our] three children, [they’re] not really doing any of the household stuff. And that just happened to be my husband who was always home. [I would] come home [after having] worked, I now deal with kids and dinner, and then I’m also doing all of the household things. This was burdensome, but I don’t really think it was because I [am a woman].”

Even when the cost of this burden was clear, the fact that it was gendered remained hidden. Another said:

“I don’t think I closed down the business because of being a woman. It was just a lot to handle. It was just draining on a day-to-day.”

It was understood that if women are unable to bear the load, foundational social structures could fracture, as one mother observed:

“My mental health had the greatest impact on the mental health and emotional regulation of the entire household.”

The cost of ignoring the burden

There are profound positives to motherhood, and conceding the need for equity and balance does not contradict them. Rather, acknowledging the disproportionate responsibilities related to household well-being, child care, education and financial equity validates women’s struggle to keep up. It also challenges internalized dominant messages for all of us.

The mental health and educational impact of COVID-19 on children, youth and families will be longstanding. The impact on parents, particularly mothers, will be ongoing.

Only once we truly acknowledge this disproportionate burden can we discuss how these expectations fail everyone, particularly during times of structural instability.

Until caregiving and emotional labour are recognized as shared social responsibilities, rather than private obligations borne disproportionately by women, crises like COVID-19 will continue to deepen existing inequalities.

Jane E. Sanders received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant number 430-2021-00162.

– ref. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the load mothers carry — and that burden is still being ignored today – https://theconversation.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-exposed-the-load-mothers-carry-and-that-burden-is-still-being-ignored-today-275922