Letters to the Editor
-
It isn't always voluntary or a matter of curiosity
For some years now, Canadian Immigration authorities (and US ones too, for all I know) have been demanding DNA testing for immigrant families in various categories, especially refugees, to prove that they are "real" families. The process can be quite invasive, brutal and painful, in that some families, particularly refugee families, are coming from areas where rape is endemic, and the traumatic refugee experience can mean long periods of separation. As well, in many war-torn third world countries, the legal mechanisms for legally adopting say your orphaned niece aren't really there, so your de-facto child can be stripped from you for not being "really" yours, no matter how many years you have been parenting her.
I remember one man telling me, "I really don't want to know. As far as I am concerned this is my child and I love her, and I don't want to know any of the history."
The testing has resulted in tearing families apart, breaking up marriages, and barring children from accompanying the only parents they have known to a new life in the West.
In once sense, I suppose this represents increased affordability, so perhaps at least the financial burden on some families will be easier. On the other hand, the increased affordability may well result in an increased demand for tests from immigration authorities, with all resulting havoc.
It isn't always a matter of "satisfying one's curiosity" (which strikes me as a pretty nice way to describe a suspicious husband checking on his wife's fidelity), in some circumstances, like immigration where human rights and Bill of Rights and so on don't apply, it is going to be used in deeply invasive, painful, and destructive ways.
-
(Whether he's rich, however, is a different issue entirely.)
I'm so glad that broadsheet finds sexist stereotyping okay, as long as it's against men!
In terms of equal time, I hope the next article headline about women has the subhead "Whether she has big boobs, however, is a different issue entirely."
-
Feminists are SO fair to us men, huh?
As long as the control is in the female's hands, it is OK.
But you have issues with a guy having some control over his life.
Is there any more to say? You women do it to yourselves.
Feminism is a cute anachronism, one that fails as we speak because the rhetoric is completely at odds with the reality of how much you women hate men.
-
Right.
Except that, as C. Bob’s letter nicely illustrates, parenthood is entirely unrelated to DNA.
This will only exacerbate the unnecessary and harmful stigma and distress we load onto kids and parents, created by our absurd notion of a “biological” parent.
-
Daddy Wants To Know
God... I know a few daddies who should take that test...
-
@Monkey Pants
The "is he rich?" question is an allusion to a song called "Time of the Season" from the sixties. The lyrics are something along the lines of "What's your name? Who's your daddy? Is he rich? Is he rich like me?"
-
@JC Miller
Yes, as we all know, there is NOTHING more "absurd" than who your real parents are. (Or grandparents, siblings, etc.)
That's why almost 40% of all children in the US are growing up in fatherless households. Because, really, who cares? What difference does it make?
In fact, all children born should be taken immediately to a government "nursery" and then parcelled out randomly to "qualified" adoptive parents who have passed the required "parenting tests" and gotten a "parenting license".
Nobody should mind that, right? After all, it doesn't matter whose child you raise, as long as you have SOME child.
Anything else is selfish "Gene-ism".
-
Monkey Pants
Evidently you're not a fan of Sixties one-hit-wonder bands. The title of the article, and the "whether he's rich" line, are a clunky reference to the Zombies song "Time of the Season", whose lyrics go as follows:
What's your name?
(What's your name?)
Who's your daddy?
(Who's your daddy? He rich?)
Is he rich like me?
It's lame as hell. But no, Broadsheet does not appear to be advocating that we eeeebil, eeebil castrating feminazis go out and fleece rich guys or some shit. You can calm down now.
-
That's very sad, about the immigrant families
I think they should change the law; it should simply be that if you claim a child is yours (from certain areas, don't want to encourage kidnapping!) then you have full legal responsibility for it. It's not the technology, it's how it's used really. I remember reading a few years ago about some South American families being reunited using DNA technology to find grandparents and grandchildren, the parents being "disappeared" by their government.
I'd be offended if my husband wanted the children tested, he should trust me by now; however, many people have kids from much more casual relationships and it makes perfect sense that they'd want a test done to be sure. I don't see a problem with this use.
-
My head is exploding
Laurel and I agree on something?!?!
-
There's an old Yiddish proverb
If your mother calls you a bastard, she should know.
-
Cuckholds be gone!
I think it's nifty, now if a guy has a nagging unsure feeling, he can check in an easily available way. Good for them, women always know their children are theirs barring some weird hospital baby switch mix up, I see no reason why guys can't be assured of the same thing, especially with so many casual sex partners out there.
A person who feels their child is theirs no matter what, wouldn't be the type of person to go out and buy this test.
But we can't pretend biology and knowing your ancestors isn't important to many people, otherwise adoptees would never go looking for their bio parents and people wouldn't be spending hours on looking into their geneology.
-
Paternity Tests
The real opposition to do-it-yourself paternity tests are women's advocates. For instance in Germany, there was an attempt to not only to ban do it yourself tests, but any tests without the consent of the mother. These discussions have been going on in Australia and the U.K. as well. Why? Because, there are cases of "paternity misattribution." The arguments for limiting the tests argue that they increase the potential for the dissolution of families, and domestic violence. Of course the biggest reason people argue against these tests is for economic reasons.
Men do have a legitimate right to know the paternity of children they are raising. These tests really became popular after the Clinton Administration got passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 which required women to name a father in order to receive well fair benefits. The system for the legal estabilishment of paternity, for instance, in California is obviously deficient. Personal service of paternity establishment proceedings is not required, so often men never know that they have been legally declared the father of a child (from a mother they may have never had sex with, or even know) until their wages are garnished. The time to appeal in default cases is short (I think 60 days), and once paternity is legally established (often through default proceedings) paternity disestablishment must be done within two years.
There are obvious injustices that have been perpetrated (and some horror stories). The biggest injustice is that these proceedings ensnare uneducated, unsophisticated, working class men who are intimidated by the legal system. Depending on who's statistics you use, arguments are made that there is a percentage of men who are unwittingly raising another man's child (from 3% to 25% of the time).
The arguments for the system are that we should put children first and that parenthood is not determined by DNA.