Should Japan adopt quotas for women
In this essay, I argue that Japan should adopt gender quotas for professional positions. “Professional positions” will be considered from both political perspective and business perspective.
First off, adopting gender quotas for professional positions will ensure the equal representation of women and men in parliament. Women make up more than half the world’s population, resulting in the fact that women are as important as men in decision-making. But according to NHK news, in 2020, female politicians made up only 9.9% of the politicians in Japan’s House of Representatives, lower than the global average of 25.5%. The under-representation of women in parliament constitutes a democratic deficit, showing that women’s perspectives are being underestimated and not being reflected properly when it comes to political decisions.
The second reason for adopting gender quotas for professional positions is to help potential female candidates not to be overlooked for important positions in the business world because of their gender. The Pipeline's Women Count 2020 report points out that London-listed companies with no women on their executive committees have a net profit of 1.5%, whereas those with more than one in three women at that level reach 15.2% net profit margin.. It implied that when it comes to business, women are certainly not performing worse than men in prominent positions. But in fact, in 2020, Japan women held only 8% of the managerial roles, far from the goal of 30% set by the Japanese government. When women are hired, it is typical for them to do entry-level jobs. They are hardly promoted for higher positions, not because of their lack of ambition but because of the stereotype that men are more suitable for leaders’ roles.
To sum up, I firmly believe that Japan should adopt gender quotas for professional positions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-05-06 | Nguyen Ngoc Anh | 76 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...perspective and business perspective. First off, adopting gender quotas for...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...when it comes to political decisions. The second reason for adopting gender...
^^^
Line 5, column 207, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...business world because of their gender. The Pipelines Women Count 2020 report point...
^^^
Line 5, column 447, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive dots
Suggestion: .
...that level reach 15.2% net profit margin.. It implied that when it comes to busine...
^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re more suitable for leaders’ roles. To sum up, I firmly believe that Japan s...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, look, second, so, whereas, as for, in fact, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 13.8261648746 43% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 43.0788530466 49% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 52.1666666667 84% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1581.0 1977.66487455 80% => OK
No of words: 293.0 407.700716846 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.39590443686 4.8611393121 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.48103885553 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.25748564244 2.67179642975 122% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 212.727598566 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.556313993174 0.524837075471 106% => OK
syllable_count: 483.3 618.680645161 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.6003584229 63% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6802250104 48.9658058833 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.615384615 100.406767564 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5384615385 20.6045352989 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.45110844103 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.5376344086 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.450035020959 0.236089414692 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.168467300161 0.076458572812 220% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.138140898285 0.0737576698707 187% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.323570132297 0.150856017488 214% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0672143340495 0.0645574589148 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 11.7677419355 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 58.1214874552 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 10.9000537634 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.01818996416 109% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 86.8835125448 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.