Hi Anon,
Aside from Feeb11's comment, I'd like to offer my 2 cents which may be uncomfortable for you to hear.
I got a hint of what you are trying to say but the tone and construct of your article are uncomfortably awkward. It has an abstract impression to me.
>>>>
the question of performance in the workplace,
relevant issues include( It's hard for reader to grasp what you try to depict right away the way it's cosrtrcuted) : how, if at all, increased female participation will
weigh/ impact/bear on the work environment and whether women are
integrated/mingled/unified into the paid workforce as primary or secondary earner.
Estimation/Notion Speculation about decreasing opportunities for secure career and ‘jobs for life’ has intensified following recent high-profile examples of company reorganisation, (
this is more than a mouthful! ) downsizing and outsourcing. Is this a major and lasting
variation/amendment in patterns of employment? What are the social and economic consequences within the household of uncertain careers? As organisations downsize, multi-skillingand work flexibility become
crucial/prime/foremost . But who is responsible for training in the necessary skills: employers, the state or the individual?<<<
You used a lot of jargns to compose this piece but I regret to tell you that they did not effectively make your points come across as clear. My advise is, try to master a simpler sentence pattern before attempting using big words and complex sentence structures. I don't know if it's me who failed to understand your post but that's how it appeared to me. I am just being straight forward. Sorry if I hurt your feelings!