Men and women, because of their inherent physical differences, are not equally suited for many tasks. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or the examples that could be used to challenge your position.
With the advancement of technology and society, statements espousing the differences between men and women's efficiency sound quite archaic. The segregation of work as men's work and women's work is a cruel indictment of the rampant misogyny that is still prevalent in modern society.
Firstly, women today have made rapid strides in domains which were always viewed as 'male dominant'. For example, we have more female airplane pilots, construction workers and coal miners than ever. Yet there remains the popular opinion that some jobs are best left to men. It is true that men and women are adorned with a different set of physical characteristics. Women's bodies are congenitally predisposed towards childbirth and infant care. However, from an anthropological standpoint, it is important to note that women have always been active hunter-gatherers and foragers in nomadic tribes. Prehistoric communities do not appear to have pigeonholed women into performing duties that are inherently matronly.
The association of men with physical endurance and strength is misplaced and baseless. Historical accounts show us that women worked actively in foundries and kilns during the industrial revolution. This conception that women are best suited to docile and submissive roles was challenged during the two world wars in which scores of women signed up for the draft. Today, more and more women are engaged in active military service in warzones, effectively debunking such chauvinistic and erroneous claims.
Interestingly, the technological revolution of the 1980's showed us that work was not just a mere display of brute strength. The jobs of the internet-era warranted cognition, swiftness and attention to detail, traits which women were able to bolster and use effectively. Women continue to rule the roost in sectors which require finesse, panache and rigor. For instance, in a study conducted on e-commerce establishments, it was found that women were more likely to be employed in enervating positions such as computer programming, data analysis and consultancy. Although this can be considered to be an affirmation of their innate physiological constraints, it is also a glaring testament to their alacrity and indispensability to a conventional workplace. Women have efficaciously circumvented criticism to carve a niche for themselves.
The role of women in a typical household is a product of a centuries-old patriarchal hierarchy which has men as primary caregivers.It should also be acknowledged that most men are unwilling to accept the involvement of women in conventional male bastions such as industrial labor and construction.This trepidation has led to a reinforcement of this predatory hierarchy. Concerted attempts have also been made by certain communities to curtail the progress of women, particularly in the spheres of education and skill-acquirement. As a result, female literacy in several parts of the world lags behind the male average. Women are constantly under-represented in legislatures and public fora. They continue to be paid lower wages than their male counterparts even when the quantum of work is commensurate.
In my opinion, this is a product of the deliberate suppression of women's rights. Despite the overarching necessity for women employment, we are still held back by narrow-mindedness and sectarianism. There is gross misinformation on the internet regarding women's contributions to science and education. For example, Rosalind Franklin's contribution to biochemistry has been overshadowed by the work of her male counterparts. Many women continue to be poorly represented in academic publications and testimonies. The aforementioned issue only offers ammunition to those practicing exclusion and factionalism.
In conclusion, it should be understood that physical constraints can be easily surmounted, and women have constantly proved that. It is the mental handicap of not being able to recognize women's rights and efforts that gives rise to such unwarranted statements. Physical differences are ephemeral, all that matters is tenacity and fortitude.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 491, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., from an anthropological standpoint, it is important to note that women have alw...
^^
Line 9, column 132, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: It
...chy which has men as primary caregivers.It should also be acknowledged that most m...
^^
Line 9, column 298, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: This
...ch as industrial labor and construction.This trepidation has led to a reinforcement ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, regarding, so, still, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as a result, in my opinion, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 40.0 19.5258426966 205% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 29.0 14.8657303371 195% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 11.3162921348 177% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 58.6224719101 136% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3496.0 2235.4752809 156% => OK
No of words: 619.0 442.535393258 140% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.647819063 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.98795655647 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.42843263666 2.79657885939 123% => OK
Unique words: 339.0 215.323595506 157% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547657512116 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 1108.8 704.065955056 157% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 33.0 20.2370786517 163% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.9589044231 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.939393939 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7575757576 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.57575757576 5.21951772744 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.97078651685 141% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.83258426966 248% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.206368462751 0.243740707755 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0521698148361 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0345926500238 0.0758088955206 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106696335585 0.150359130593 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0206987485371 0.0667264976115 31% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 48.8420337079 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.49 12.1639044944 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.09 8.38706741573 120% => OK
difficult_words: 218.0 100.480337079 217% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.