GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-08 > 1124115017
From: "Russ _" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] paternity
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:10:17 -0400
The institution of marriage is a partneship, albeit in the past very
lopsided. It's not about ownership. Back before there was social services,
women absolutely needed a husband if she wanted to provide for her children.
How could a woman provide for her children by herself inthe Paleolithic,
Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc.? If it was not for welfare,
charities, job specializations (with available day cares nearby), women
would not be able to raise children on their own today. So it was to her
benefit as well. But most all, it was to the children's benefit. I'd argue
that it's still to the children's benefit to have both the father and mother
married, provided that the conflict between them is not too severe.
>From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
>Subject: [DNA] paternity
>Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 06:11:11 -0400
>Y'll may be interested in an item at the KGO-AM 810 internet radio web
>It's a "LISTEN" item, so all I can quote you is the text description:
>"DNA TESTING RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT PATERNITY...
>"The increasing use of DNA testing is creating more and more questions
>fatherhood. Liverpoor (sic) public health professor Mark Bellis says a
>surprising number of men are raising kids who were actually fathered by
>As the old saying goes, "It's a wise man who knows his father."
>P.S. On an anthropological note, most people (especially most men)
>believe marriage was an institution created to benefit women. Not so... A
>woman always knows she's the mother of her child. Before DNA testing, a
>could never be certain. Marriage was a way for a man to "own" a woman and
>improve the odds that her children were his.
>View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find
>marriage announcements and more. Learn more:
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
|RE: [DNA] paternity by "Russ _" <>|