Jobs for the boys

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. What? 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 [1] “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 [2] concurs. More concurrence [3]. .. 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. Sources1 - . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...2 - . http://www.economist.com...3 - . http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com.au...