Today, TV channels broadcast more men's sports shows than women’s sport shows. Why is this the case? Should TV channels give equal showtime for each?

Today, TV channels broadcast more men's sports shows than women’s sport shows. Why is this the case? Should TV channels give equal showtime for each?

Television has brought sports to the living rooms of households, but even so it has been blamed for ignoring the events that feature female athletes and prioritizing male events despite being backed by several plausible attributes. This has led to voices in support of blurring the differences. 

The reason for this bias is quite conspicuous: the male branch of sports has humongous fan-following that is lacking in the case of the female domain. Therefore, it is natural for the television broadcasting companies to favor the more popular events since it can help fetch colossal viewership - that is populated by both the genders - and also sumptuous profits. However, this is not possible in the events that are participated by girls. 

To corroborate, the outcomes of a survey by a magazine Stern revealed that most of the media houses and sports channels aimed at tapping and covering those areasHu and disciplines where the chances of earnings were abundant. That is the reason why the FIFA world cup of the males  gets more airtime than the world championship of females.    

Having said that, the demand for TV granting more showtime to female sporting events is quite warranted: this will aid in empowerment of women. It has been observed that due to the conservative attitudes of society, females are unable to earn their deserving dues, and if the onus of emancipating women is shared by television by telecasting more and more sporting events that feature women, the latter will get a chance to break their stereotype since sports provides a way to liberation. 

In hindsight, commercial compulsion is the fundamental foundation for the apathy of television towards women sports, but this needs to change and more time slots be allocated to this branch: it will assist in diluting gender differences.

When asked to choose between a life without work and working most of the time, people would always choose not to work.

When asked to choose between a life without work and working most of the time, people would always choose not to work. Do you agree or diagree? 

Disagree 

• Earning money to subsist is a crucial activity which makes it imperative to work - this also affords freedom 
• Comforts and luxuries can only be afforded if one has enough money which can be obtained by employing oneself 
• Working is the best way to broaden professional and social circles and also perspective 
• It is good way of using time productively, idle mind is devil’s workshop, staying without work could lead people into pervert mindsets, taking up crime      
• Good for mental well being: keeps people away from depression and a feeling of being unproductivity 
• For some, attaining professional goals fetches eternal happiness 
• Humans have been subjected to working ever since they appeared on this planet. In ancient times, they spent most of their day, hunting for food, the only livelihood they had, in modern times they must work to earn food. 

Agree 

• Many feel that life is not subject oneself to unwarranted stress and strife of chasing professional goals and raising desires, but spending it in the bliss of peace 
• Working many times involves spending more than the required time, which exposes one to ailments and sufferings, and also spoiling family relations   

Whether one will choose to lead a life that sans professional engagements is a debatable issue that has fetched strong arguments both in favor and against.

A strange perception seems to be emerging among a specific section of social theorists who profess that if given an opportunity a majority would choose to stay jobless. This notion can, however,  be countered by quoting a strong rationale behind this aspiration not being a metaphor for a life most would like to inhibit, owing to their critical requirements and professional aspirations.

Barring a few, most would surely hardly enjoy a life  that sans professional obligations for long even if they elect to do so. A majority can rarely think of surviving without having a professional ambition to pursue. Being a gregarious  creature, man longs for professional and social associations, which can only be effectively afforded if one engages in fruitful endeavors – that can only be laid at disposal by undertaking professional pursuits. Even though one would still have social contacts when not doing work, they will remain confined to a few people and boredom would set in fast, making one feel useless.

Moreover, it is undeniable that a majority is quite enthusiastic about embracing a professionally active lifestyle: it can greatly help in not only making available basic amenities such as food, shelter and clothing  but also rendering resources to bestow upon them and their loved one several luxuries, besides helping amass enough for the rainy days, as well as twilight years. On top of that, one can also pursue their dreams of earning professional accolades and acknowledgment by exhibiting their skills and finesse, a far cry for their counterparts who choose to remain workless. 

Overall, it can thus be said that the notion of choosing to remain unemployed is merely a figment of imagination promoted by some who are exhausted from chasing their ambitions. Therefore, I fail to subscribe to this statement. 

Alternative Introductions 

The contemporary  public discourse is founded on a notion that most would opt to be jobless if rendered an opportunity, which is strongly contested by a lobby that quotes that humans were not created to lead an idle and unproductive life; thus, few would like to inhabit such a lifestyle.

In an era when most are found striving to attain their professional goals, a perception seems to be emerging, across several quarters, that if rendered an opportunity, most will opt to remain jobless. However, this notion holds little substance as per another opinion.

In some countries children are often told that they can achieve anything if they try hard enough. What are the advantages and disadvantages of giving children this message?

In some countries children are often told that they can achieve anything if they try hard enough. What are the advantages and disadvantages of giving children this message?

• In some countries children are often told that they can achieve anything if they try hard enough. 

Benefits 

• This fuels never say die attitude: it fosters perseverance (unswerving resolve) and ability to  keep working despite adversities 
• * This persuades them to approach any goal with enthusiasm,  which in turn lets  the creativity come to the fore  
• This also inculcates confidence among the young ones
• They will seldom procrastinate they stay more focussed on their goals
• This is good for society: this will promote a generation that relies on their efforts rather than their destiny   

Drawbacks 

• This can become an obsession, even after realizing that some things are attainable, youngsters start investing into their endeavors mindlessly> they function like someone who is possessed and becomes stubborn, unprepared to listen to anyone. 
• This can also encourage young ones to establish unrealistic goals, which are too high for their resources: stress, due to making impractical commitments> this can have severe implications for the mental and physical well being 
• In many cases when they fail to make a mark, youngsters can suffer from mental afflictions     

Several societies follow the practice of imbibing the principle that incessant toils can surmount even the impregnable challenges, in the young generation. Such enlightenment can although persuade young individuals to pursue their objectives relentlessly, this can expose them to several unwarranted situations. 

The  most prominent benefit that this education can help derive is fostering an unflinching determination among juveniles in their efforts they invest in pursuit of their objectives. In other words, they are adequately prepared to endure hardships that they might encounter while chasing their goals. Not only this the unswerving attitude inculcated through such teaching also aids in bringing their creativity to the fore, which they employ to discover methods, and decide upon the course of action to be deployed to accomplish their aims. 

Similarly, it is undeniable that imparting such education can fill youngsters with hope, and eventually make them enthusiastic about facing life and its struggles. It has quite often been observed that such youngsters are better prepared than their counterparts who never receive such enlightenment, to accept failures as a part of life and strive continuously until they succeed. 

Nevertheless, a perception that is buttressed by pessimism, about the darker shades exists too, which  sees the negative side of everything. It professes that youngsters developed the habit of setting unrealistic goals for themselves. This has a potential of exposing young minds to an undue stress, thereby making them vulnerable to mental afflictions. Also, sometimes they chase dreams which are beyond their resources and impractical in nature.

Overall, despite such teaching carrying certain drawbacks, its merits far outnumber the former. It may be possible that youngsters could become impractical due to this, but such instances are rare; however, they becoming hopeful about life with such encouragement, is a reality.

Overall, this system  has both upsides and downsides: where children foster a never say die attitude towards challenges, they also may expose themselves to unjustified stress. Thus, it becomes essential for the parents to guide their wards appropriately and help them grow as rational adults.   

  

 

Establishment of superstores has resulted in closure of small shops. Is it a positive or negative development?

 Establishment of superstores has resulted in closure of small shops. Is it a positive or negative development?

In contemporary times, the books and television shows showcasing criminal storyline and scenes are gaining more fame worldwide. The myriad reasons fuelling such popularity and the implications it has on the individuals shall be discussed profoundly in the paragraphs that follow.

To start with, the intensity of crime and suspense featured in such fiction and soap operas, render immense excitement to the audience. This helps them escape the mundane they face in their day to day life, and expose themselves to a rendezvous with adventurous acts - committed by characters featuring in such content - that satisfies their adrenaline rush due to the plot, presented in them, shrouded (concealed) by suspense.

Moreover, the investigative instincts of the readers or viewers are satisfied when they are engrossed with continuous analysis and interpretation of the situations and actions revealed in the content to find the culprit and the causes instigating them to partake in unlawful acts. To corroborate, a study by Forbes reveals that the daily soaps and books featuring content portraying illegal acts inspire people to solve the underlying mysteries as it keeps their brains occupied and gives them a sense of achievement by unearthing enigma.

Another implication it bears is that it works like a tool to generate awareness among the people of the intensity, reasons and effects of the crimes likely to take place around them. It also provides them with possible measures to escape such happenings with them. They, thus, are helpful by virtue of preparing them for countering an antisocial activity that they might face.

Overall, the rising bar of popularity among audiences for the content comprising such fiction showcasing criminal endeavors is backed by umpteen reasons, but these act as an exciting source of entertainment and education.

When there is a rise in the standard of living, people in the cities are more benefited than those in the rural areas. Please give your opinion on the problems arising from this discrimination.

 When there is a rise in the standard of living, people in the cities are more benefited than those in the rural areas. Please give your opinion on the problems arising from this discrimination.

The rising differences in the quality of life of urbanites and ruralites has sparked a profound controversy with many terming this disparity as completely uncalled for though there is a lobby that justifies the rationale behind this gap.  

The ever expanding disparity in the quality of life in urban and rural areas will always remain impregnable since  there is a fundamental difference in the arrangement in both the societies where villages have people/ are populated by those hailing from similar backgrounds and following a simple yet, affordable lifestyles whereas, the urbanized areas have huge populations hailing from diverse regions, who have disparate requirements and aspirations. This sheer multitude of dissimilar interests and demands entails creation of facilities, amounting for such a contrast. 

Similarly, terming differences as biased against the ruralites is quite unjust. One close look at functions of both the locations can help determine the rationale behind this contrast. Where the rural areas are more influenced by the basic trades and are interested with a task of feeding the society,with minimal technological intervention, the urban centers are vested with the responsibility(task) of fueling progress and rendering better technological solutions to support all components of the modern society. 

Nevertheless, it is hard to convince the critics who feel that this inconsistency could prove to be a recipe for disaster as to overcome this gap many might migrate from rural to urban locations. Such an exodus could prove to be unfavorable for farming that might have to face the scarcity of able bodied people, affecting the agriculture yields and food production.

Overall, I feel carrying out discussion in the disparities in the urban and rural lifestyles is an inconsequential and little more than and mere squabble on an issue that seems to be a brainchild of anti development lobby 

Some people think that in the modern world, getting old is entirely bad. However, other people believe that the life of old people is much better now than it was in the past.

Some people think that in the modern world, getting old is entirely bad. However, other people believe that the life of old people is much better now than it was in the past. Discuss both views and give your own opinion

Autumn years have historically been considered as times of misery for everyone, but this perception nowadays seems to be transforming due to the availability of modern facilities. Both the former and latter views are bolstered by plausible reasons.

To commence with, the traditional view about advanced age being the most terrible phase of life is founded on the fact of the rise in incidence of age-related disorders and ailments such as heart conditions, weakening eyes and so on, which affect the quality of life drastically.* The torment does not end only at poor health conditions, but the ageing individuals must also bear the pangs of loneliness and neglect of their loved ones, for whom they sacrifice the prime time of their lives, their youth.

*Various surveys across the world, carried out to evaluate the age wise health conditions of the global populace revealed that a majority of health care consumers hailed from the age group 65 and above, and the most of these individuals were inflicted by ailments like arthritis and Parkinson's to name a few, which generally surface during old age.

However, there are some who are quite optimistic about the advancements  brought about by science and technology in the field of medicine and age care support. They suggest that the elderly can now lead an active life despite ageing, something that was beyond imagination in the past, helping raise their self esteem. The  disease and ailments are inflicting them much later in life than usual, enabling them to enjoy their surroundings even in the advanced age.

Overall, even though both the perspectives stand true in their own virtue, I believe that the latter view has more relevance today since senior citizens enjoy the liberty of interacting with the world around them more actively.