Jobs for the boys
Resolved: ‘Jobs for the boys’ is, on the whole, beneficial for society.
‘Jobs for the boys’ :
“work that is given by someone who is in an important position to their friends or members of their family” , “appointments given to or created for allies or favourites”
Note: This is intended as a debate that will have shades of humour and such throughout. I don’t expect my opponent to do copious research or do fantastic replies – I shall not be doing so myself. Instead, let us explore the veneer of rationalistion, for I am playing devils advocate as one may have guessed.
Now, onto the fun!
We live in a time of troubles my friends. We’re stressed, overworked, beset by a gluttonous labour market – unemployment keeps rising – there’s more sex scandals in the office ... need I go on?
I look forward to an engaging - if logically pointless - debate. If there can be art for the sake of art, I don't see why debates should be any different.
My opponent proposes a scheme in which those in powerful positions would hand jobs to those they approved on based on social motives. This rather archaic system of job distribution is intended, in my opponent's argument, to keep women from taking men's place in the workforce, and instead be kept in their proper place in the kitchen. As I see it, he has presented me with two topics to argue:
Jobs should not be distributed based upon the social relationships of the employer
2) Women deserve a place in the workforce
These two arguments together will, I believe, prove that "Jobs for the boys" is an irrational idea.
In centuries past, you gave a job to your neighbour's kid, and he gave a job to yours. This encouraged a sense of community, and provided security in a we-take-care-of-our-own sort of way. In a cruel world, such as the one in which they lived, fraught with warlords on the warpath and those nasty people from that other place who aren't like us, this was perfectly sensible behaviour. It also led to a rigid class system with little-to-no way to rise through the ranks without the correct connections. While it may be difficult to prove that there were in fact suppressed geniuses in the lower classes, as on the whole the lower classes do not receive the education necessary to utilise their natural ability and in the case that they do their lives are rarely recorded; I do believe that I would have very little difficulty proving that some of the people who do rise to the top of such a system are, for lack of a better term, idiots.
Seeing as we have established, within this argument, that selecting workers from your children and the children of those you favour does not necessarily mean that you will receive the creme of the crop, let's take a look at where a system like "Jobs for the boys" would leave us.
The current system of promotion based on merit is designed to allow the best to rise, regardless of the social standing of their parents, while the inferior percolate to the bottom. If the sons of the men at the top of the system were, in fact, the best of the best, wouldn't such a system merely allow them to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was so? So you argue time? Think of all the time you'd save if you didn't have to go through the process of proving to other people that they are just as inferior as you say they are. Discrimination isn't about keeping people suppressed, it's about allowing us superior types to bask in our glory for as long as possible. Um... No. Understanding that any person is a random recombination of their parents' genetics, and not just the apparent characteristics but the dormant ones too, we can come to the logical conclusion that some of those born to superior people may bet necessarily be superior, and that miracles of genetics may produce a superior child from even the lowest of the inferior. Now, in the age of multiculturalism and globalisation, it is time to realise that superiority isn't necessarily a part of race or class, it is merely a part of superiority. As such, we should build our social fortresses utilising all the tools that the modern age has at its disposal, including the carefully developed systems created to weed out those who simply don't measure up.
On to my second point. As my opponent has kindly pointed out, when men and women work together the men inevitably find themselves distracted by the womens' mere presence. This is, as my opponent has also pointed out, the reason for gender divisions in schools. While it seems most likely that this is a fault on the part of the male brain, as they seem to be incapable of coping with a simple fact of nature, this may not be the world ending catastrophe that it at first seems. It is clear, by my opponent's arguments, that it is time for the workforce to be divided. But 'how' is another question entirely.
The are some jobs that, undeniably, only women can to - such as carrying children. There are also jobs that men are undeniably better at. Men gain muscle far more quickly than women, so it only follows that men would be far more suited than women in jobs like construction. As standardised testing has yet to prove that men are more intelligent than women, the logical course of action would seem to be handing the intellectual side of business - matters of economy, art, and social manipulation - over to women, while leaving physical jobs such as the military, construction, and other types of manual labour to the men. This would have the added advantage of allowing women to continue working for as long as possible while on maternity leave, as there is nothing that stops a pregnant woman from thinking.
That being said, there is no logical reason to keep women out of physical labor type businesses if they can handle the work. My opponent's argument for women being ejected from the workforce revolves largely around men's inability to think straight with women around. In jobs that were purely mechanical, there would be no need for the kind of thought that men find so challenging in their current situations.
My opponent has also argued that the working man requires a loving wife at home to help him to cope. The role of the housewife has always been been physical, from cleaning to gardening to taking care of the children. As we have already explored above, men are clearly designed by nature to take on such physical roles. And so, rather, when a wife comes home from a hard day at the office and needs someone to complain to about that nasty woman in the next stall over, who better than her husband to support her and ensure the continued running of our new, efficient society.
As you can see, the "Jobs for the boys" policy would not only be a retrogressive mistake, but a gross misuse of natural resources.
Before we resume the fun, let me thank Hatstand for accepting this debate and wish her a warm welcome to DDO. I should say though that there are more serious debates than this to be had.
I must confess, I’m bemused that Con suspects I’m not acting in a sane manner in my arguments. Saying that this debate is ‘logically pointless’ ... tut tut. My arguments illuminate certain ways in which people frequently argue, just taken a bit further.
Finally, this round is rather rushed, so I apologise in advance if it falls flat.
Now, let us resume the debate.
Con has rightly recognised the strength of many of my points. The sex scandals of the modern office, the drain on workplace productivity from the ladies distracting the men, the indescribable horror of shorter French lunches... we agree on many key points. We agree that one gender ought to have the power. Con drastically proposes that the ladies should run the offices and sit in the big chairs.
As a man, I think that this blatant misandry is a vicious assault upon the rights of men. Not to be chauvinistic of course, but this proposal is utter tosh. It’s a big, bad thing for our country. And there are serious problems with the specifics of my Con’s proposal.
Con says that there some jobs only women can do “such as carrying children” yet says that “There are also jobs that men are undeniably better at. Men gain muscle far more quickly than women” . Now I hate to break it to Con, but carrying children requires muscles. This fair interpretation of Con’s example of jobs that only women can do shows it is utter tosh.
And Con lays the claim that men aren’t more intelligent than women. Now I hate to say it, but men are more intelligent. A relatively uncontroversial claim I’d have thought. As Professor Lyn says  “The undeniable, easily measurable fact remains that, by the time both sexes reach 21, men, on average, score five IQ points higher than women”. So, men ought to be in the big chair.
But, let’s be charitable. This claim, well, does 5 IQ points matter? Or perhaps the good professor is wrong. Well, I’m so sorry to say but as Professor Lyn says “brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism.” And, The Economist article  concurs. More concurrence ... Basically, male IQ has a higher variance. More male geniuses. Of course, there are more idiots who are male... but that’s clearly a genetic predisposition towards ‘ignorance is bliss’.
So, in a male’s objective view, what does this mean?
Well, there can only be 1 gender in the office – we both agree on that. But men are geniuses in droves, so men have to sit in the big chair. But... we wouldn’t want to distract our geniuses, would we? So, the rest of the office just has to be filled with males. Jobs for the boys.
And of course, if we kick men out of the office men’s style will take a hit. Men are already dressing poorly I regret to say. Men just don’t wear suits, scarves and pocket squares like they used to. And when have you ever seen a man sport a boutonniere? Do you think black tie is the most formal wear known to man? Uneducated dolt! The aristocracy still knows what white tie means. We’ve got to protect men from throwing that almost ethereal shred of formality they still retain... and, we don’t want women wasting their time in the mirror prepping for work, do we? Oh, and society doesn’t dress properly... merit forgets the externalities of our modern lives. Jobs for the boys recognises positive externalities like dress sense, and that’s why merit is totally and utterly unfounded. Forgetting positive externalities. That’s the 8th of the 7 deadly sins!
Now that we’ve refuted the ludicrous notion of kicking men out of the workforce, it’s time to continue the reasons why merit is such an unjust, inefficient way to select workers.
Jobs for the boys reduces job insecurity. Reducing job insecurity helps the economy and our mental health. Con’s not surely suggesting we worsen mental health? No time wasted upon resume creation or advertising costs. Getting back to the good old 19th century days of simplicity. The good ol’ days.
And don’t forget – kicking out the females in the workforce reduces unemployment. Sure, the no. of employed people declines drastically... but unemployment drops!
Wait... I was on merit, wasn’t I? You’ve already heard positive externalities, but what if I told you that jobs for the boys reduces the faceless anonymity plaguing our urbanised jungle? If you have to know people to get jobs then the faceless men in politics will disappear, and people will start talking to each other again. I know – a counter revolution unparalleled in modern times. It will be just as effective as starting an anti-social network to combat social networking.
I think it’s clear that Jobs for the Boys is really a fantastic idea built upon uncontroversial, objective scientific principles. In this age of rationality, we must face the truth, and confront the progressive claptrap assaulting the values we hold. For a brighter tomorrow, let men turn on the lights at the office. For a better tomorrow, have jobs for the boys, and innocence and bliss for the ladies. Yes, moving forward towards a new horizon. A better horizon.
1 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
2 - http://www.economist.com...
3 - http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com.au...
Also, I apologise if my prose is somewhat lacking. I too have been rather busy as of late.
"Con has rightly recognised the strength of many of my points." I have accepted the facts that the Pro has presented, but a fact is not an argument. While I appreciate the work Pro has done in pointing out significant problems, this achievement is tainted by the fact that he has yet to propose a viable solution - which "Jobs for the boys" clearly isn't. The fact that Pro has seen fit to quietly tiptoe around several of the issues I raised with his proposed solution only further proves my point.
My opponent suggests that jobs be handed out based upon friendship between parents. As I have already pointed out, ability isn't always passed through the generations. As my opponent has failed to repute this, he clearly sees my point. But ask yourself, is this the future we are envisioning for ourselves? Where once again natural ability has naught to do with a person's influence? I think not.
I am not going to refute the fact that in this day and age a fair bit of time is spent compiling one's resume and such. Is this time truly wasted if it ensures that we have the best possible people in authority? The system may not be perfect, but until we find another way of selecting the person most suitable for a position it remains a better option than drawing lots out of the genetic hat.
I do believe that one of the points we have managed to agree on is that if men are unable to focus in a woman's presence, one of the genders must be removed from prominent positions in the office. In the case that men were given the dominant role, women would have to be removed all together.
You, my friend, by simple use of logic have just halved the work force.
My opponent has suggested that the higher variation in intelligence makes men more suitable for important positions. There has been much contention around what an IQ test actually measures. The original purpose was to test pattern recognition skills, but studies, such as this(1) show that there may be other factors at play.
My opponent has also suggested that men are more intelligent than women, due to a measured 5 point gap in average intelligence. This claim would seem far more valid if the same publication which my opponent sourced for this fact had not published a second article(2) in which it stated that given the equal opportunities now provided to women, womens' tested IQs are quickly catching up and have even begun to overtake those of men. Seeing as this article was published in 2012, two years after the article my opponent sourced, I think it's safe to say that new data has emerged, and it's time to move on from old, erroneous stances.
Are we really willing to bet our futures on some numbers that came out of a test when we don't even know what it is we're measuring? Even if an IQ test measures what we have always assumed it does, is pattern recognition the most crucial skill in our workers? Studies have shown that a transformational leadership style is based on an individual's emotional intelligence(3). Isn't the ability to motivate workers to produce better work a more valuable skill than pattern recognition? As such, I don't see how either the supposed 5 additional IQ points or the higher variation in men's IQ is relevant to the way we select the gender most suited to "sit in the big chair".
Would it be wrong to conclude from this information that it would be more harmful to reduce the workforce by half (and it's more intelligent half, on average) than to deny it a few geniuses?
"Now I hate to break it to Con, but carrying children requires muscles." First off, may I remind Pro that walking also requires muscles, as does breathing. The ability to do these things doesn't automatically mean that a person has wonderful prospects in manual labour. For those who remain skeptical, for reasons of their own, may I provide this article (4) which discusses, among other things, the effects of testosterone on muscle mass.
The fact that my opponent has chosen to interpret my statement that only women can "carry children" as meaning women are the only ones who can pick a child up and carry it around, suggests to me that he is rather grasping at straws to defend his rapidly dying argument. However, I am willing to concede that my wording could have been taken either way. If the Pro wants to attempt to argue against my reassertion that men cannot give birth, he is welcome to try. I welcome him equally to contest the fact that men are more suitable for heavy labour than women, if he desires to do so.
So, if we allow women to take charge, the men can continue to do other forms of labour, from the aforementioned construction to fetching the women's coffee. This is clearly a more economic use of resources than having half the population sit at home all day.
My Pro warns of unemployment, but is this really an issue raised by having everyone work? Every member of society is another mouth to feed, and thus would it not be better to have more of the population working, and less people full stop? What my oponent is talking about here is overpopulation. So you say having more mouths to feed creates more jobs? This is true. It creates jobs in areas such as agriculture and retail: the very fields of business that are causing a decline in the environment(5) and the atrocities that people today call fashion. Would we not be better served if we could divert the workforce away from such areas and towards developing technologies and advancing our understanding of the universe?
While we're on retail, my opponent has also suggested that keeping men in the office will somehow preserve their declining fashion sense. It is true that social expectations of working men keep them in respectable attire during office hours. This does not change the fact that these same men will happily follow today's fashions during their free time if they are so inclined. This is clearly an issue with social expectations in general, and the proportion of men in the office is not what needs to change.
Continuing the theme of outward appearances, people today are faceless, it's true, but whoever said that was a bad thing? The ability to see past someone's outward appearance allows us to see a person at their core and judge them by their abilities rather than their charisma. You may say that a faceless culture implies a breakdown of communications, but 'actions speak louder than words'. I'm not about to suggest that we take an old saying as proof, but I thinks that it takes us down an interesting path of logic. My opponent has brought up the example of politicians. May I ask, would we be capable of deciding to give a politician the boot based on his policies, despite the limiting factor of not knowing what variety of tea his father preferred?
No, I'm afraid to say that "Jobs for the boys" just isn't the solution we're looking for.
3.Mandell, Barbara, and Shilpa Pherwani. "Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: a gender comparison." Journal of Business and Psychology 17.3 (2003): 387-404.
Many thanks to Hatstand for the debate. I do concur on the matter of sanity and logic – the whole point of this debate in a way.
I hope the audience has had their fun. I had originally planned for more political issues but Con’s R1 truly surprised me and left us with the typical array of gender jokes. . I do hope my words have been in good taste ladies and gentleman.
I also again apologise for the lack of true depth to this round. Now, let us conclude.
We all agree that the decline in the length of the French lunch is the greatest tragedy of our time. That’s why we need real change. This debate rests upon 2 issues that – whether merit should decide entrance to the workforce, and whether men or women are suited to sit in the big chair. Let’s begin by explaining that it’s men who need to sit in the big chair.
Men are geniuses – the evidence supports it. Who cares if some new study claims that females are on average more intelligent? There are the male geniuses and the ignorant, yet blissful labourers who don’t utter a single rude word. Not a bad chap among either. And you need geniuses at the top. You need a decisive man who’s bold enough to press the big red button. You need a prime minister who’s willing to defend your country’s honour.
With male geniuses at the top needing to not be surrounded by females, it’s time for women to go home. Our geniuses need a comforting home environment. They had it right in 1955  . The Good Wife’s Guide says “Catering for his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction” – can’t you see the utilitarian benefits already? It also says, quite rightly, “remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours” – absolutely true of course – and the erudite “A good wife knows her place” , in the house! It’s to rediscover these traditional family values.
Now, I’m willing to concede that men are better suited for heavy labour – that’s what the retarded dolts, I mean, uh, special needs people, are for. Men carry children, but women give birth. Con’s absolutely right here. And yet she wants women to be in the hyper stressful office environment while pregnant.
This proposal could destroy our country’s future.
A mother’s stress impacts her baby’s brain [2,3] . As the authors of the paper say “Maternal stress is a key risk factor for neurodevelopmental disorders, including schizophrenia and autism.” And it was found that this is particularly the case for male offspring. So Con proposes that we increase mental disorders. Furthermore, she realises that this plan will destroy male chances in the future, ushering in a new era of female superiority. How cunning. It just goes to show that you can’t trust a woman to tell the whole story.
And the next tragedy of Con’s proposal is that men will cast their formality to the wind. I totally with Con that men don’t office attire in their free time – when was the last time you saw a gentleman wearing a pocket square in the bedroom? Of course men don’t wear suits to bed. I’m a sharp dresser, but I don’t wear such things to sleep. Con’s strawman is just that – a strawman. But we need men in sharp clothes during the eyes to give the females some eye candy, and to save women the hassle of dressing up for the office – women are known to have more self-image problems than men.
And of course, jobs for the boys recognises positive externalities. ‘Merit’ is based upon quantitative measurements that miss the qualitative aspects that really set apart the good from the bad – like dress sense, kindness etc. Don’t you know that many jobs aren’t listed in productivity tables? You see, the statisticians agree that you just can’t measure things like productivity and ‘merit’ . You need an old boys network to qualitatively assess a person’s ability. And I say old boys because only men have been in the office for enough generations to properly assess a person’s ability. You can’t assess people properly unless you’ve been in the office for 50 years at least. So, only the men can decide.
Con talks about we can’t trust the genetic lottery to make sure that the sons of our best and brightest get our best’s genes. Well, aside from the fact that a child inherits their parent’s genes... What we really need to focus on is family upbringing, and the rich do this best. Business success depends upon acing the ‘power lunch’. And that means knowing which of the 4 forks is appropriate at which times, which is something that only the old boys teach their sons. For better cutlery habits, we need to toss ‘merit’ out with the bathwater... I mean, baby.
Finally, jobs for the boys reduces job instability and all that time spent on resume writing. With women in the office not having an old girls network, this idea of women in the office wouldn’t work. Imagine the job instability for women, which would create stress, which leads back to crippling the next generation. Job instability is a horrible thing. Let’s rid of it, and eliminate all that resume writing. Get jobs with people you know. Build those community ties. Get to know your neighbourhood. We need to bring back some traditional spirit into our lives, as opposed to just walking by people in the street. Say hello, brighten another’s day. Let’s regain that good English banter!
I think it’s abundantly clear that jobs for the boys eradicates the terrors of our stressful modern age and builds a better, brighter tomorrow. Thankyou.
I never intended this to turn into a full on battle of the sexes, merely to show the holes in your logic. I did try to respond equally to the inheritance arguments, but it worked out the way it did, and I for one had fun.
If perchance I have offended... Know that I did so only in the name of stretching logic to its limits.
It's true, the decreasing French lunch hour is one of the greatest tragedies that the French have to contend with. Especially as the average French working week is only 35 hours long, that's at least one hour a day less than most other western countries(1), so they don't have much to compare that complaint to. Quite honestly, I don't know why my opponent has continued to pursue this argument. I had attempted to let it drop so that he may maintain some modicum of dignity, but seeing as he is determined to argue with no leg to stand on, who am I to deny him?
"You need a decisive man who"s bold enough to press the big red button."
Ah, yes, the 'big red button'. Let's think what would happen if someone did push the big red button. Say the leader of the country A (a man) saw country B as a threat. In response, the leader of country A nukes country B. The leader of country C (again a man) then sees that he leader of country A is a threat, and nukes country A. Then comes in country D and so on. This would inevitably lead to a dominancy of cockroaches, which I think we can both agree should not sit in the big chair. I mean, really? Are you M.A.D.? (2)
So what if the leader of country A was a woman. Women are proven to have a lower tendency towards risk taking behaviour (3), so it would be far less likely that a female leader would set the dominoes toppling. Genius only lasts until you step under a bus. The best we can do is ensure that these so-called geniuses can't pull us under the bus with them.
Risk taking behaviour might once have been beneficial; a considered gamble. But the stakes have been raised far too high.
Pro brings up stress for expectant mothers as a problem. Part of the need for maternity leave is to raise the child once they are born, but if the men are staying at home then this timespan could be greatly shortened. If the workplace was full of women, then pregnancy would be something well understood, and there should be little trouble creating a policy that prevented women from losing their jobs during their first pregnancy. In one stroke we have eliminated stress and helped cut down the population, which also needs to happen. You might think that this would encourage laziness in pregnant women, but there is a difference between working towards a promotion and working to keep from losing one's job. The prospect of achievement could keep the women working. There's no problem with moving the stick for a while, so long as we keep the carrot.
Pro cites the "Good Wife's Guide". This was published in a housekeeping magazine. How much research do you think went into that article? How many studies? The fact of the matter is that "The Good Wife's Guide" is not even as reliable as our argument here, and certainly not more so than statistics that show women are suited for work, such as the IQ and transformational leadership studies I introduced before.
At this point, I would again like to point out that even if men wear suits in the office, if they don't wear them at home, then Pro's argument falls a bit flat. If the women aren't going to be in the office, then how are they supposed to enjoy this 'eye candy'. Further, if dress sense was something to judge a person by, Einstein would never have amounted to anything by pure virtue of his hair. Clearly dress sense, while important, is not essential.
Now let us explore the idea that common sense can prevail where statistics cannot. Common sense tells us centrifugal force exists, but Newton's laws of motion tell us it doesn't. We trust Newton over common sense, because common sense is based only on our five senses. The fact that there are whole spectra of light that we cannot see goes to that there is plenty out there that we cannot understand alone, why should human nature be different. Humans are so complex it would be almost as difficult to explain a person using common sense as it would to come to the conclusion that the Earth rotates without science to back us. We are interacting with what is happening, we simply don't have the senses to comprehend it.
Let us turn to our genetic lottery. A child will inherit genes from his parents, but they are not necessarily the dominant genes. Any person has two sets of genes, dominant and recessive. While a dominant gene will always show in a person, it only has a 50/50 chance of getting passed on (4). As such, it is possible for two smart people to have a stupid child, and this only has to happen a few times for bloodlines to be meaningless.
My opponent brings up family upbringing. In this day and age we trust schools to do much of the teaching of our young, ensuring that the children who have inherited recessive genes get the best education possible. Selective schooling and the variety of schools available, along with the streaming of classes, ensure that everyone gets the education they need, however much that is. If something is deemed important to society, and it is not getting taught, this is clearly an education problem. I do wish Pro would keep on topic.
The "old boy's network" may not have an equivalent among women, but my opponent is assuming that this network is a good thing. Having to work well to keep a job creates increased productivity, where knowing that you will or will not keep a job allows laziness. Although natural workers might work regardless, their children might not, as I have shown above. And so the system breaks down.
Finally, in this day and age, there is very little point in getting to know those who live directly around you. Chances are they're not the people you will get along with best, and the Internet allows us to form much more meaningful communities, where people are judged based on how they think, not who they are. This type of anonymity when choosing who works for us and who we spend time with is the way of the future, hands down.
Jobs for the boys denies people the opportunities they deserve, and opportunities that, if given, will benefit society as a whole. A logical distribution of labour based on not only what we can see, but what we know through the invention of new measures, is the right way forward for humanity.