From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Guilty of (Fill In The Blank)
X-To: ALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:27:00 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
LM> In <1992Nov21.024458.18269@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.o
LM> writes:
LM> >margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
LM> >LM> In <1992Oct30.014531.22679@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.gu
LM> o
LM> >LM> writes:
LM> >LM> >I realise that you might find it invidious to "legislate honesty".  Ho
LM> r
LM> >LM> >there are many areas where "attitudes" and "honesty" are legislated, n
LM> y
LM> >LM> >"affirmative" action laws, "comparative worth" pay programmes,
LM> >
LM> >LM> These laws were passed in response to a verified problem.  I've seen no
LM> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LM> >LM> evidence of such a problem in regards to the laws you want passed.
LM> >
LM> >
LM> >I hardly think that the lack of "equality of results" is necessarily inhere
LM> >proof of systemic discrimination.  Read "The Employment Equity Empress Has
LM> >No Clothes," by Grant A. Brown, for a thorough refutation of the premises
LM> >behind "affirmative action" laws.  (*Someone* is going to call the title
LM> >sexist, I just *know* it...)
LM> >
LM> >Still, the reason I brought up the point, is that in employment situations,
LM> >*used* to count on the honesty and the objectivity of employers to hire wit
LM> >bias, and to trust their judgements without having to *force* a judgement u
LM> >them.
LM> >
LM> >In the case of father notification, we have a case where people have said "
LM> n
LM> >will generally tell the father, unless there is a genuine problem," and ind
LM> >that "you can't legislate attitudes".  This is why I find it so strange tha
LM> >in the former case, we feel it necessary to legislate attitudes and honesty
LM> >without it being considered "oppressive," yet in the latter case, many of t
LM> >same people who yell about having to legislate attitudes, are crying foul.

LM> Can I take it that you have no evidence of a real problem in regards to
LM> the laws you want passed?

Hardly!  The movement for Male Choice is not confined solely to Usenet.  It
was conceivably (unintentional puns, GOiD!) begun by many men who chose not
to be fathers, yet were nevertheless forced into that role.  Since then, it has
grown, although given the relatively small size and fractious nature of the
men's movement, this growth has not been as quick as the growth of the Women's
Choice movement.

And as of this time, the Powers That Be (a patriarchy???  Ha!  If they were,
they would already have sanctioned Male Choice, wouldn't they? (-: ) have
chosen not to take statistics on the number of unwilling fathers who have
been served with paternity suits.  (Perhaps they're afraid of noticing a
problem...nawwh).

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * There it is!  The Bridge of Death!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion