Jobs for the boys

I hope that the manner in which I responded has not kept you from enjoying this debate, as it did not cover the topics you thought it would. 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. - 1- . http://digitaljournal.com... 2- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3- . http://www.epjournal.net... 4- . http://www.genecare.com.au...