Jobs for the boys

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 [1] . 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. Sources 1 - http://larrytemple.wordpress.com... 2 - http://www.smh.com.au... 3 - http://www.pnas.org...