Question

Do you think that women cricket is being dominated by men's cricket? Do you think that this is a sign of gender inequality? Support you answer with 200 - 300 words.

# Expecting no copied or wrong answers

# Points - 100

Answer 1

Hi friend! That's a very good question there and I hope this helps!
==================
Cricket is an open-air game played on a large grass field with ball, bats, and two wickets, between teams of eleven players, the object of the game being to score more runs than the opposition. Over the years, this game has evolved significantly, and as women rights were reinstated, a subdivision for women cricket was also made. A majority of people think that women cricket is underrated and not appreciated by many people. I oppose this, and the International Cricket Council also did so by letting women commentate for a countless number of matches.

I don't know about other countries, but Indians, and I'm saying this with a very heavy heart, underrate women's cricket a LOT. They just think that cricket should only be played by men. I'm not saying that everyone agrees to this, but the majority goes to men's cricket. This is a very big sign of gender inequality, and if everyone wants women rights to be there, then let women follow their dreams and achieve full proper rights. There are lesser matches for women's cricket and even if India won the world cup in women's cricket people are still going to chat about how badly the men played for the last match. Women aren't given proper rights and are still deemed to be inferior by many orthodox Hindus, Muslims and other religions.

These matches should be given more importance as these matches show that women are capable of things no man can even think of achieving. Women can do so much more, but, instead of achieving their full potential, they are forced to stay at home and do lowly chores. And with this, I can conclude that women's cricket is clearly underrated by many people and this should be stopped. People should give more importance to women, as they are representing the country and handling their household simultaneously, which is one heck of a job to do.

====================
P.S. This may be the best answer I've given here, according to my point of view. I personally liked writing this.
Words : 280

Answer 2

Answer:

Whether due to anxiety about the erosion of male power, or through politically-correct clichés, or benchmarking it to the men's game, the treatment meted out to women's sport continues to perpetuate the male-centric world.

So far, the 21st Century has been an era of great advancement for women’s cricket in particular and women’s sport in general. In cricket, wealthy cricket boards have offered elite women players professional contracts. Professionalisation has meant that standards have improved in women’s cricket. Contemporary women cricketers are fitter, stronger, more skillful and arguably more experienced cricketers than their predecessors from the 1960s and '70s. They tour more often and more widely than ever before. They draw talent from more competitive domestic leagues than ever before.

This advancement is a sign of the times. Nearly two hundred years of vital and relentless intellectual and political activism in our industrial age has driven social change, especially in the world’s democracies and in the erstwhile Second World. This has lead to an increasingly prominent role for women in public life, be it politics, other professions, business or sport. Men have been threatened by this advancement. For one thing, it has meant that they face greater competition for their positions in public life. Many men resent this. For another, their conception of women — half the human species — has had to change. What’s more, what they think of women matters less today than it did before. This erosion of male power (the male chauvinists would call it ‘authority’) is resented by many men as well. While it is true that many men have wholeheartedly supported and in some cases even championed the struggle against male chauvinism, these men form at most a significant minority among all men.

Women’s cricket has to be understood on its own terms, independent of Men's cricket template. This requires watching it with an open mind and a generous, intellectually sincere imagination. Lazy observation followed by formulaic clichés simply will not do.

The solid majority of men — who seem to think that women’s advancement is either much of a muchness or consider it some kind of affirmative action program designed to prop up the weak and dismantle their meritocracy — are on the defensive these days. Most of them watch what they say out of worries about “political correctness”. Political correctness refers to the idea that some things which are true and well-founded can no longer be said because to do so would offend some increasingly powerful people and marginalise oneself. This is of course not true. For the most part, these things are neither true nor well-founded. They’re old prejudices. And this bogey of political correctness is basically a passive-aggressive cudgel raised by defeated men who do not yet acknowledge that their prejudices are, in fact, prejudices.

Consider the flurry of commentary about women’s sport in recent months. John McEnroe took exception to the idea that Serena Williams is the greatest tennis player of all time by suggesting that she would be 700th at best in the men’s rankings. The women’s world cup, and the women’s game more generally have brought about two types of commentary. The first kind is involved in benchmarking the women’s game on the men’s game. The second kind suggest that they've always covered the women’s game. Needless to say, both classes of commentary is committed by men.

Explanation:

pls make braintiest answer