It is not uncommon for women around the world to work both outside and inside the home on any given day. Women's work in the formal sector is necessary for economic survival, but their families cannot survive without the work they also do at home. For many women, the workday doesn't end when they leave work, but only hours later, when their children, spouse, and home are taken care of. Beneria and Sen call it the “double day.” The reality of the double day offers important insights into understanding the ways in which the push for economic growth as the main form of development disadvantages women. In Naila Kabeer's article, Gender, Poverty and Inequality: A Brief History of Feminist Contributions, Beneria and Sen state that "male migration to urban areas in search of work has forced women in Ghana to take on additional tasks in agricultural production of subsistence, lengthening and intensifying their working days” (288). This means that while men moved away from home, women could also take up male positions in the field and continue their work in agriculture and in the home concept that Kabeer refers to as “time poverty” (194), where the amount of work one has available significantly exceeds the amount of time available to complete said work. Furthermore, many women could not, or were not allowed, to move with their husband to urban centers because of the social connotations applied to being an urban woman (Boserup chapter 9. 145). This revisits an earlier point regarding how the social status and role of women affects the their freedom and restrictions in the economic center. If they are meant to stay indoors, being in the city not only physically places them outside of their designated space, but also culturally paints them as “bad women” who are challenging their roles. The influence of urbanization as the epicenter of economic gains and growth is the final path that harms the shift towards economic growth as a form of development.