Topic: Woman and men are commonly seen as having different strength and weaknesses. Is it right to exclude males or females from certain professions because of their gender?
Due to the unique characteristics from men and women, it leads to the distribution of both genders in some specific areas which are determined by their aptitudes and weaknesses. However, some believe that women should not enroll in male-dominated areas and vice versa. Under my perspective, this idea is indeed rational in some ways.
To begin with, certain posts which include predominantly either males or females may be allowed. Apparently, there may be certain jobs whose requirements are decided by the distinct natures of genders. Taking primary teachers as an example, young students tend to be obedient towards the female teachers due to the familiar natures with their mothers. Additionally, those jobs that require fine physical conditions such as coal mining, logging or building should remain to be done by men.
On the other hand, there are occupations when opening to both genders would create diversity of distinct advantages. In political area, men incline to outnumber women, whilst females also have a vital part in the system. For example, Hillary Clinton, the secretary of State, has confirmed "smart power" as the strategy for asserting U.S. leadership and values, by combining military power with diplomacy and American capabilities in economics, technology, and other areas and also has encouraged empowerment of women everywhere. Hence, when jobs vary to both genders, they would gain significant benefits of their fields.
To conclude, there are particular jobs that may categorize either males or females due to certain requirements. However, they can make advantages of their abilities when the employments include both genders.
[257 words]
Hope to see your feedbacks
Due to the unique characteristics from men and women, it leads to the distribution of both genders in some specific areas which are determined by their aptitudes and weaknesses. However, some believe that women should not enroll in male-dominated areas and vice versa. Under my perspective, this idea is indeed rational in some ways.
To begin with, certain posts which include predominantly either males or females may be allowed. Apparently, there may be certain jobs whose requirements are decided by the distinct natures of genders. Taking primary teachers as an example, young students tend to be obedient towards the female teachers due to the familiar natures with their mothers. Additionally, those jobs that require fine physical conditions such as coal mining, logging or building should remain to be done by men.
On the other hand, there are occupations when opening to both genders would create diversity of distinct advantages. In political area, men incline to outnumber women, whilst females also have a vital part in the system. For example, Hillary Clinton, the secretary of State, has confirmed "smart power" as the strategy for asserting U.S. leadership and values, by combining military power with diplomacy and American capabilities in economics, technology, and other areas and also has encouraged empowerment of women everywhere. Hence, when jobs vary to both genders, they would gain significant benefits of their fields.
To conclude, there are particular jobs that may categorize either males or females due to certain requirements. However, they can make advantages of their abilities when the employments include both genders.
[257 words]
Hope to see your feedbacks
