Women and men are commonly seen as having different strengths and weaknesses. Is it right to exclude males or females from certain professions because of their gender?
Society has imposed gender traits on some occupations, based on different strengths and weaknesses between men and women. Thus, with reinforced prejudice about gender differences, it is believed to exclude males or females from certain jobs. In my view, it is not fair to prioritise one gender for particular occupations.
Many centuries ago, when gender discrimination spread across society, the role of men was reinforced by the awareness that only men must go out for work. Instead, women were home to look after their families. Gradually, the cleavage in gender strengths and weaknesses appeared. Social and educational fields have linked to feminity. Meanwhile, masculinity has attached to logical and mathematic fields. In hiring employees for some jobs, people have focused much more on gender as the prerequisite than other criteria such as capacity, skills, or experience.
In my opinion, it is unfair for individuals whose abilities suiting professions that are supposed to be for one particular gender. Modern societies should recognise the qualifications, experiences, and knowledge of people in gaining work efficiency. An individual's ability can be judged through his certificate, academic career as well as pragmatic experience. However, strengths and weaknesses imposed on gender might just be given from subjective assessments. For example, cooking and tailoring are usually considered to be women's task since they demand carefulness and meticulousness that are seen as men's weaknesses. Nevertheless, a large number of cooks and fashion designers in the world are men.
Weaknesses can be improved through practice, and strengths might dwindle if they are not consolidated. Employers cannot use gender differences as the precedence for evaluating labours for a long period because they are not feasible. An individual's capacity must be the priority. Besides, if women and men are given equal educational opportunities then they need to have a fair employment market. The exclusion related to gender can cause social conflicts and aggravate person-to-person relationships.
In conclusion, to promote equality among persons, it needs to avoid excluding males or females from certain professions because of their gender; instead, employers should be open-minded about evaluating candidates' abilities, experiences, and knowledge. Everybody has equal rights to approach job opportunities.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 254, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'individuals'' or 'individual's'?
Suggestion: individuals'; individual's
...f people in gaining work efficiency. An individuals ability can be judged through his certi...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 636, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... seen as mens weaknesses. Nevertheless, a large number of cooks and fashion designers in the worl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 237, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'individuals'' or 'individual's'?
Suggestion: individuals'; individual's
...eriod because they are not feasible. An individuals capacity must be the priority. Besides,...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, however, if, look, nevertheless, so, then, thus, well, while, for example, in conclusion, such as, as well as, in my opinion, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 10.4138276553 163% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2056.0 1615.20841683 127% => OK
No of words: 356.0 315.596192385 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.77528089888 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21430805787 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 176.041082164 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601123595506 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 643.5 506.74238477 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 16.0721442886 137% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.7571743912 49.4020404114 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.4545454545 106.682146367 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1818181818 20.7667163134 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.59090909091 7.06120827912 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 3.4128256513 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.372841759259 0.244688304435 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0892069761417 0.084324248473 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0770785268861 0.0667982634062 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.205297048872 0.151304729494 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0683109874471 0.056905535591 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.0946893788 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 50.2224549098 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.95 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.8 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 78.4519038076 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.