Jobs for the boys

The Pro has requested a not-so-serious debate, so I too have chosen to play devil's advocate in the issues discussed below. Please understand that the opinions expressed below are not necessarily mine, or even ones that I think are sane, but I suspect my opponent of the same transgressions in his argument. 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.