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

Today, TV channels broadcast men’s sports shows more than women’s sport shows.

Why is this the case?

Should TV channels give equal showtime for each?

Why women sports gets lesser time on television 

• There is commercial consideration: men sports has bigger fan following in comparison to women - viewership rating  men’s sports has wormen followers too, but women sports has mostly women followers only 
• More men are into sports than their women counterparts 
• There is huge money involved in men sports in comparison to women  and that is why television prefers men’s sports
• Conservative attitude of societies force television companies to avoid women sports 

Commercial compulsion should be given precedence 

• It may not be profitable 
• 
  

Women should also get more time 

• Women need all the encouragement to engage in this activity: 
• their upliftment 
• sports is emerging as a burgeoning industry that can render employment to millions 
• This will help societies abandon their orthodox attitudes 

While sporting events involving men can be frequently seen on television, those featuring women are a rare occurrence. This gender bias is primarily driven by commercial compulsions, but it is the need of the hour to halt this practice to enhance the status of women.

The most common pretext offered for this lopsided attitude is that sporting disciplines featuring males attract colossal investments that are needed to sustain such a money intensive domain and draw profits. It is argued that sports have been traditionally considered the realm of men, and thus, might not stimulate similar interests from the audience, and businesses might circumvent infusing resources into such areas. 

However, media attention has always helped invigorate interest in every field, and the same rationale applies to sports: men or women. A majority of male sports like lawn tennis and basketball, evolve and attain prominence. Similarly,  female sections of these sports also developed widespread popularity: they were given equal time in the USA and Europe, allowing events, like Wimbledon championships, featuring women to gain more sponsorships than only male events. Thus, exercising fairness will aid in empowering females, laying open a new employment venue at their disposal.

Additionally, abandoning this discriminatory attitude will enable breaking the stereotype, and induce aspiring young girls to exhibit their sporting skills and physical prowess. This will, consequently, put them at par with men, and force communities to abandon social taboos. To corroborate, telecasting women wrestling matches on Indian television motivated more and more parents to engage their daughters in this sport, and shun orthodox beliefs. 

To recap, the lopsided perspective harboured by mediahouses does not highlight the reality; their attention on any domain has made it commercially viable. Therefore, abandoning this prejudice will help female sport become popular and economically sustainable.

In many countries, companies hire more men than women for certain positions. Some people believe that employers should be required to recruit equal numbers of men and women in every field. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In many countries, companies hire more men than women for certain positions. Some people believe that employers should be required to recruit equal numbers of men and women in every field. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The great public discourse of contemporary times is aligned with the  issue of whether gender bias should be relinquished while  hiring personnel because many businesses still resort to selecting more men compared to women. I strongly feel that employment  should be afforded on the basis of abilities rather than sex-based selection. 

A lobby strongly asserts that recruiting an individual should be based on qualification not on gender. One should have essential degrees and certifications to prove their worth to occupy a certain position. If one does not have specific education - whether male or female, they will be unable to do justice to the duties related to the job. As a result, this will create problems for themselves, as well as for employers. 

Additionally, skills should enjoy greater precedence over gender. One with appropriate requisite skills and seasoning  should  be prioritized over the idea of embracing gender-specific or gender-neutral approach: the former hold greater relevance in functions critical to operations. For example, in fields such as robotics and medicine, only profound knowhow and relevant experience can help deal with on-hand problems, and present optimum solutions.

Furthermore, the focus should be on assessing the approach rather than just evaluating a job aspirant on the basis of their sex. Many modern organizations have started shortlisting new entrants on the basis of psychological assessment and psychometric tests, which aid them in evaluating the reactions to challenges, approaches espoused to surmount those, and problem-solving capabilities  of prospective employees, and  in these examinations, they rarely ask for gender descriptions.  

In conclusion, disputes apart, while choosing the candidate, businesses should focus on education, skills and psychological capacities, rather than whether they are males or females. This will truly help in blurring gender differences, and present equitable opportunities to both sexes.

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?

Undeniably, there has always been a fierce debate that sports shows of men have always been given priority over that of women. There are several reasons driving this imbalance. I shall critically analyze this matter and elucidate my views regarding equality being allocated to both the genders in the following paragraphs.

To begin with, some profess that since early times the population of men have always been prioritized in all sectors despite the fact that women have excelled in all domains. Therefore, not only family members discriminate against gender but also there are other influencing factors influenced: media, schools and governments, to name a few, paying attention to all domains of males, and giving importance to their performances, skill sets, and efforts. Moreover, females have always been put at second choice positions, and thus, media also gives precedence(preference) sports such as cricket, basketball, and so on, performed by men.  

Nevertheless, a school of thought asserts that women have been performing efficiently in all realms, they have been seen working at the highest level of the position in all sectors:  sports, corporate, politics, and fashion industry, among others, at global level, and  hence, deserve the same respect as men do. Affording them similar  air time would promote this branch of sports, and create employment among females, in the form of players, coaches, sports consultants, and so on, not only creating new job venues for this sex but also multiplying economic activity, resulting out of serving the growing requirements of women sports practitioners and their teams.  

To hindsight, I vehemently believe that in the contemporary era, equality must be extended to both the genders, in terms of allowing similar times to sporting events to the female branch also: it will help yield rich returns.   

In many countries, companies hire more men than women for certain positions. Some people believe that employees should be required to recruit equal numbers of men and women in every field. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In many countries, companies hire more men than women for certain positions. Some people believe that employees should be required to recruit equal numbers of men and women in every field. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There is a fierce debate over the issue that the same ratio of male and female should be hired in every profession, some are in favour of this, while some schools of thought are opposing it. The following paragraphs analyze it deeply and present a justified conclusion.

Some believe that equal numbers of both genders should be employed because everyone bears their own expenses, irrespective of their gender, so they have an equal right to earn to meet their needs independently. On the other hand, some prefer following gender-based shortlisting as per the nature of work. For example, employing more men due to the physical strength and hazards involved in occupations such as mining, construction, factories and warehouse jobs, while females  are deemed more pertinent for professions: teaching and nursing, that need patience and emotional resilience, which males lack. 

However, hiring in the workplaces should be based on the academic qualifications, skills and knowledge, and mental abilities, rather than gender because to complete the tasks one should be competent enough; if they are unable to do so, this can lead to loss to employers. To illustrate, several modern companies and organizations such as Air Canada, UNO, Accenture, and so forth, have started assessing their prospective employees through aptitude and psychometrics tests to evaluate not only academic and professional capabilities but also their approach towards challenges facing everyday functions, and in these assessments,  they never ask for sex description. The results show that their operations are far more optimized than others following gender preference or gender-neutral policy.    

To conclude, selection for employment should be based on qualifications, experience and mental abilities rather than sex.  This approach not only helps ensure efficiency but also promotes equality and creates equal opportunities for both men and women. 

Most high level jobs are done by men. Should the government encourage a certain percentage of these jobs to be reserved for women?

Most high level jobs are done by men. Should the government encourage a certain percentage  of these jobs to be reserved for women?

In contemporary times,  a school of thought believes that lawmakers  should  earmark some portion of the high level posts for women, whereas others do not support this. In the following paragraphs, I will analyze both the perspectives in detail. 

To start with, there are umpteen reasons that women deserve a definite percentage for high level jobs as they are equally gifted and can take ownership as effectively as men.  On top of that, they can make better decisions in some difficult situations and have a wider perspective due to being able to judge calmly and adopt measures accordingly.  For instance, Indira Nui changed the fortunes of a sick Pepsi, a cold drink giant, and with her leadership qualities, turned a loss making into a profit making organization. 

Moreover, this will help transform the views of society and let females earn their due and break the stereotype image since they will be  persuaded even by their families to take up these roles. Society will have broader perspectives and it will help in enhancing the economic output,  and ensure social progress .

However, in spite of having numerous benefits, some conservatives protest against this proposal since they harbor misconceptions that only men are better leaders and cannot be replaced by women. Also,  they fear that  if for some top, reserved for females, positions appropriate candidates are not found, it will cause  organizations  a great loss. Likewise, some also feel that reservation is an unfair policy and will not let deserving people get their deserving positions due this criteria.

To conclude, a particular percentage of high level posts should be fixed for females as they have adequate skills and good leadership qualities that match  the capabilities of males. This can help companies and society favorably.

Most high level jobs are done by men. Should the government encourage a certain percentage of these jobs to be reserved for women?

Most high level jobs are done by men. Should the government encourage a certain percentage of these jobs to be reserved for women?

Should certain jobs be earmarked for females? Yes. Why? 

• Women do deserve equal opportunities for top jobs, as they are equally gifted, in terms of taking ownership 

• They are better operators in certain difficult conditions as they can remain calmer and judge better 

• This would enhance diversity of talent and also offer solutions from diverse perspectives that also include that of women 

• Let females earn their due and break the  stereotype image by even persuading their families to take up these roles 

• Society is bound to benefit when the half of the population gets to contribute to economic and social progress 

No. Why? 

• Although a misconception that is disjointed from reality; conservatives feel men make better leaders 

• This might leave some top jobs deprived  of able leadership if some able women candidates are not found 

The suggestion regarding earmarking a certain proportion of leadership posts for women invites mixed reactions even though the proposal holds great substance, that shall be elucidated in the following paragraphs. 

The suggestion regarding earmarking a certain proportion of leadership posts for women invites mixed reactions. The following proposal shall be profoundly analyzed in the following paragraphs. 

Many schools of thought vouch for the notion that females are equally gifted and sometimes prove to be better leaders; they have been excelling in any roles allocated to them in disparate domains - ranging from leading profit centers to prospering businesses, but their candidature is seldom considered due to the orthodox views harbored by those at the top. Embracing this arrangement will help ensure that they get their due. 

Also, women do deserve equal opportunities for top jobs, as they are effective motivators. They act as beacons for their family, children and acquaintances, and have always inspired others to attempt to attain pinnacle. Thus, reserving some places needing one to take ownership, for them will help society harness this talent and derive excellent outcomes in terms of productivity at organizational level. Similarly, this would enhance diversity of talent and also offer solutions from disparate perspectives, both male and female, allowing a better mixture of energy that the former are known for, and the patient observations that latter are bestowed with.  

Having said that, there is some skepticism regarding such settings. It is feared that this might precipitate unfair treatment to the better qualified, simply overlooked due to their gender, eventually, leading to resistance and backlash from both the genders who believe in opportunities being offered on the basis of abilities rather than sexes, causing tensions and divisions in the workplace, affecting the work environment unfavorably. 

In conclusion, the scheme of  keeping some percentage of top management slots aside for women cannot be deemed acceptable by most because it will lead to gender-based conflicts, fetching chaos in return.  

In Marriages today, some argue that it is the responsibility of both spouses to earn a living for the family. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In Marriages today, some argue that it is the responsibility of both spouses to earn a living for the family. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In contemporary times, one can argue the need of the hour is that both the partners should take up employment to supplement family income. Their opinion is based on strong reasons, but some defy this view and profess that it is not a requirement and that the man should be the bread earner only.

It  is becoming a necessity for both the spouses to earn and put money on the table. This is backed by humongous data that indicates the spiraling cost of living that comprises modern lifestyle, tution fees for the schools and universities, grocery cost, real estate prices and rentals, and so on, mandate that it is better to have two earning hands in a family rather than one, for it can afford a chance to not only meet the current expenditure but also create a buffer for exigencies that may arise unannounced, helping sink in a feeling of financial independence.   

However, a few have a different notion stating that managing a nuclear family with good values is an important process of upbringing families, and to attain that goal it is important that the female partner stays at home to take care of all the needs, and male spouse dons the role of the bread earner. A recent survey done by Aman Nagpal, a Professor of Human Behavior at Toronto University indicates that a majority of families where only men of the house are earning livelihood, admit being happier than others.  

Overall, even though both spouses being in employment can be an added luxury that the family can enjoy, it should not be a necessity. Affairs can be managed better with prudent planning and budgeting, and female married partners looking and managing the home should be the top priority, while men should work.

Some people think it is better to educate boys and girls in separate schools and some others feel they benefit more from attending mixed schools. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people think it is better to educate boys and girls in separate schools and some others feel they benefit more from attending mixed schools. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

There is a lobby that believes imparting knowledge to both genders in the same formal settings is constructive for their personalities; however, the critics consider this practice to be counter-productive though I concur with the former view.

Co-education plays a prominent role in shaping individual personalities. This arrangement renders equal opportunities to both genders by obliterating several gender disparities which would aid in removing bias and fostering respect for each other, as well as making them more adaptable to sharing responsibilities in professional realms later as adults. Moreover, this practice helps them to boost their confidence to muster courage while approaching opposite genders since some children turn into introverts and feel comfortable staying with the same gender throughout their endeavours.

However, some parents outrightly reject this notion. They believe by studying together in the same formal settings, their wards would get distracted from their academic pursuits which would adversely affect their outcomes, thereby putting their future aspirations at stake. Also, the conservative view rests on the challenges tutors might face while educating both the sexes under the same roof.   

In hindsight, despite some negative aspects of pursuing formal tuition together, its positive aspects would be of great afford for both the genders and render them an opportunity to learn several moral values which will help them when they grow into adults.

Some people believe that women should be treated as equal to men when applying for a job with police or the military. Others think women are less suitable for this kind of job. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that women should be treated as equal to men when applying for a job with police or the military.

Others think women are less suitable for this kind of job.

 Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Ielts Essay Women in Combat Duties 

The debate on whether women should be allowed to work in law enforcement agencies and armed forces is quite charged. Many are in favor of allowing females to join active combat duties in police and military though others offer resistance on this issue.

Females have proven their worth on several battle fronts in the history of mankind, be it Joan of Arc, or be the Queens of Jhansi in India who led their armies, mostly composed of men from the front against the formidable foes. Thus, overlooking their candidature and depriving them of a chance to serve on such posts just because they are women would be quite unjust.

Nevertheless, women fighting along  with men has certain pitfalls. As it is suggested by many commentators, law enforcement agencies and armed forces require high fitness standards and need combatants to be agile, an area where men outstrip their women counterparts by miles, whether it is sneaking into or evacuating from enemy territory.  Various studies carried out to assess training programs reveal that mixed-gender units were sluggish while all male units in both police and army were quick in expediting their tasks.

Moreover, one can hardly deny the threats females may face when fighting it out on streets, or battlefields: they are vulnerable to sexual assault, in case they land among criminals or are captured by enemy forces. This could be catastrophic and devastating for the women on combat duties, and an embarrassment for the establishment that employs them. 

In hindsight, I strongly feel that the changing paradigm needs to reset the aspirations of the society. It is necessary to allow females to take up jobs in police and military - the traditional bastions of males. If given opportunities, the women will prove their birth.