# DNA Tests Are an Anti-Feminist Application of Science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 3, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390 "2011-03-03T18:54:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/81 "2011-03-04T01:11:10Z")
So the author in the OP is that a scientific tool that yields the biological truth in paternity is a bad thing? The truth is anti-feminist? Ensuring informed consent for fathers is anti-feminist? Fuck that noise If we’re going to have men willing to raise the children of their female partners, said men should at least be able to do so in the face of the truth of the biolgical paternity f said children. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/82 "2011-03-04T01:52:04Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > A distinction without a difference. If you can pick any old “fact” and assert that it can be used as a basis for a conclusion, without requiring a causal relationship between the two, There is no causal relation between genetic fatherhood and social fatherhood, except the causal relation created by the rules of our (and almost all other) societies. If the rules had been different, the causal relationship would have been between different things. This is just a brute fact. It can’t be ignored in discussions like this. > [@](#): > > you are actually declaring conclusion to be independent of facts (since if one fact doesn’t suit, you can simply switch to another). So, you encounter a neighborhood where people have sex with others, but decisions about fatherhood are based solely on explicit promises made through particular ceremonial actions. Genetic parentage is not taken to be relevant to fatherhood in the slightest by these guys. And you’ll tell them that what they’re doing is in some way literally, factually, wrong? That their notions of fatherhood are mistaken in some way? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/83 "2011-03-04T01:54:07Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > This is a separate issue. There are all sorts of situations in which it is reasonably determined that an issue needs to be **settled** , and that the relevant parties are therefore required to bring their facts to the table within a limited window of time or forever hold their peace. > > In such a situation, it is reasonable to take the position that “X is the fact, but Y has been settled upon; the time window for presenting fact X is closed, and attempting to reverse the decision now would be excessively disruptive”. It is quite something else to take the position (as the article writer does) “X is the fact, but someone in a position of special privilege prefers it to be Y, so Y it shall be without further ado”. **You are saying** “X is the fact, but someone in a position of special privilege prefers it to be Y, so Y it shall be.” Here’s what you’re saying: “It is a fact that the other guy is the genetic father and this typically means the other guy would be the social father, but someone in a position of special privilege (namely the current acting father and mother) prefers it to be that this guy is the social father, so that’s how it will be.” ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/84 "2011-03-04T01:58:39Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > And you’ll tell them that what they’re doing is in some way literally, factually, wrong? That their notions of fatherhood are mistaken in some way? Have you answered the question about treating motherhood the same way, randomly once the baby has been born? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/85 "2011-03-04T02:06:21Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Have you answered the question about treating motherhood the same way, randomly once the baby has been born? Yes, of course (as anyone should be able to tell from what I’ve said so far) I don’t think that there’s anything literally factually mistaken underlying a policy like “when women give birth their babies are given to the next woman in line for a baby.” If some society can make this work, then that’s all there is to say about it. There’s nothing forcing anyone–nothing in physics, metaphysics, or logic–to assign the social role “parent” to the genetic ancestor of the child. That “if some society can make this work” is a big if of course–I doubt one like what I just described could actually be made to work. But that’s fact of pure engineering. It has nothing to do with the nature of reality, or the logic of the social concept “parent” or anything like that. Again: my claim is that you don’t get social parentage from genetic parentage for free. Additional assumptions–social rules for example–must _always_ go into the mix in order to derive social parentage from some physical fact like social parentage. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/86 "2011-03-04T03:59:29Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Yes, of course (as anyone should be able to tell from what I’ve said so far) I don’t think that there’s anything literally factually mistaken underlying a policy like “when women give birth their babies are given to the next woman in line for a baby.” > > If some society can make this work, then that’s all there is to say about it. There’s nothing forcing anyone–nothing in physics, metaphysics, or logic–to assign the social role “parent” to the genetic ancestor of the child. > > That “if some society can make this work” is a big if of course–I doubt one like what I just described could actually be made to work. But that’s fact of pure engineering. It has nothing to do with the nature of reality, or the logic of the social concept “parent” or anything like that. > > Again: my claim is that you don’t get social parentage from genetic parentage for free. Additional assumptions–social rules for example–must _always_ go into the mix in order to derive social parentage from some physical fact like social parentage. None of which has anything whatsoever to do with the article linked in the OP. If the writer accepted this distinction between “social” parentage and actual-factual parentage, the existence of DNA testing would be as irrelevant to her argument as the existence of Kupier Belt objects bigger than Pluto. As I noted above, the author bemoans the existence of improved determination of actual-factual parentage because she wants the matter decided by privileged power rather than by facts. She is unwilling to honestly argue for creating some legal fiction divorced from the actual facts, presumably because she knows that the notion would not fly. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/87 "2011-03-04T04:09:16Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > That “if some society can make this work” is a big if of course – I doubt one like what I just described could actually be made to work. That’s an encouraging sign. Argue though you will that one can construct a “social concept” arithmetic in which two plus two make five, you still know deep down that things just won’t work out unless it is accepted that they actually make four. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/88 "2011-03-04T04:27:50Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Is _The Spectator_ the UK equivalent of _The Onion_? That piece reads like an attempt at humor to me… Traditionally _The Spectator_ is a high-to-middlebrow political and literary magazine with a distinctly conservative (in British terms) slant. Maybe that article is meant as a parody, but it might also be the unholy product of miscegenation between radical feminism and conservativism, ideologies that do not generally mix well.. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/89 "2011-03-04T08:25:39Z")
> [@villa](#): > > “Us” as society - I’d agree with you. “Us” as women - McDonagh might well be disagreeing with you there. “Us” as people who need to know their family’s medical history, whether male or female, McD can kiss my left ovary. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/90 "2011-03-04T09:02:09Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > it might also be the unholy product of miscegenation between radical feminism and conservativism, ideologies that do not generally mix well.. If so, can’t they just assume that leftism is the father when radical feminism give birth to an idea? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/91 "2011-03-04T09:45:33Z")
> [@villa](#): > > If you have 10 industries, 9 of which pay men more than women for the same job, and one which pays women more than men for the same job, I don’t see it as a move towards fairness to equalize pay only in the one where women had an advantage. Even though we have one fewer “unfair” industry, we have a society that is overall more tilted towards unfairness. No, it hasn’t. The only way you can claim that it is is by refusing to view male workers at the 10th industry as individuals, instead of just part of some male aggregate. In short, your argument is founded on sexism. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/92 "2011-03-04T11:13:03Z")
The Women’s Lib movement always was pretty silly. No man should be required to support a child that is not his unless he wants to. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/93 "2011-03-04T12:02:47Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > That’s an encouraging sign. Argue though you will that one can construct a “social concept” arithmetic in which two plus two make five, you still know deep down that things just won’t work out unless it is accepted that they actually make four. There are very, very strong constraints due to physics which make any model that doesn’t say two plus two is four a pretty useless model. The constraints which make “genetic parenthood implies social parenthood” a working model are also strong–but not nearly as strong as the ones making ‘two pllus two is four’ a good working model. True or false: There is no causal relation between genetic fatherhood and social fatherhood, except the causal relation created by the rules of our (and almost all other) societies. If the rules had been different, the causal relationship would have been between different things. Don’t think about what you’re afraid the implications might be or anything like that. Just look at the paragraph, tell me whether taken as a whole the sentences in it are literally true or false. They appear to me to be obvious truths. But not to you? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/94 "2011-03-04T12:12:46Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > None of which has anything whatsoever to do with the article linked in the OP. I was responding to a question that was asked of me. The question was asked of me because I argued you don’t get social parentage from genetic parentage for free. I argued for that viewpoint because the OP was saying otherwise. The OP said otherwise because the OP thought this was relevant to the article. I assumed the OP was right. Was the OP incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/95 "2011-03-04T12:34:29Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > True or false: There is no causal relation between genetic fatherhood and social fatherhood, except the causal relation created by the rules of our (and almost all other) societies. If the rules had been different, the causal relationship would have been between different things. Obviously false. If “our and almost all other societies” independently came up with the same relationship between genetic fatherhood and social fatherhood then there are only three possible explanations: 1. It’s is the result of a staggeringly unlikely probabilistic coincidence. 2. The two are linked via a third factor that influences both and causes the correlation. 3. One is caused by the other. 4. is just to stupid for words. If you believe 2) then you really need to tell us what this third linking factor is. And several posters have already shown you their reasoning for believing 3) is the case. So the statement seems quite obviously incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/96 "2011-03-04T12:37:47Z")
This hasn’t been addressed yet but doesn’t the ability to solidly establish paternity actually help women in many cases? After all, just because a woman claimed Mr. X was the father of her child didn’t necessarily mean that Mr. X was going to support the child. At least with a paternity test she can determine who is obligated to support the child Odesio ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/97 "2011-03-04T12:58:33Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Obviously false. > > If “our and almost all other societies” independently came up with the same relationship between genetic fatherhood and social fatherhood then there are only three possible explanations: > > 1. It’s is the result of a staggeringly unlikely probabilistic coincidence. > > 2. The two are linked via a third factor that influences both and causes the correlation. > > 3. One is caused by the other. > > 4. is just to stupid for words. > > If you believe 2) then you really need to tell us what this third linking factor is. > > And several posters have already shown you their reasoning for believing 3) is the case. > > So the statement seems quite obviously incorrect. You’re telling me that if a society assigns social fatherhood based on something other than genetic fatherhood, then even in that society, the social father is _still_ the genetic father. That’s what you’re telling me, but is it what you mean to tell me? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/98 "2011-03-04T13:01:25Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > This hasn’t been addressed yet but doesn’t the ability to solidly establish paternity actually help women in many cases? After all, just because a woman claimed Mr. X was the father of her child didn’t necessarily mean that Mr. X was going to support the child. At least with a paternity test she can determine who is obligated to support the child > > Odesio I believe the author of the article would argue that it doesn’t really confer any advantage to women. A woman should be able to pick whoever she likes and obligate that person to support the child. If the author had her way, Mr. X is on the hook for child support no matter what the test says. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/99 "2011-03-04T13:30:10Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > You’re telling me that if a society assigns social fatherhood based on something other than genetic fatherhood, then even in that society, the social father is _still_ the genetic father. > > That’s what you’re telling me, but is it what you mean to tell me? No, that’s not what I am telling you. I am telling you that where two factors are correlated in every single known case, then there must be either a a causative factor or a third factor that links the two. If you are arguing no causation, yet can’t produce the third factors, then all you have is an argument from ignorance. Pretty basic logic. You, on the other hand, are telling us that if a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump its arse on the ground when it hopped. That’s no sort of an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2011, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390/100 "2011-03-04T13:34:25Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Obviously false. > > If “our and almost all other societies” independently came up with the same relationship between genetic fatherhood and social fatherhood then there are only three possible explanations: > > 1. It’s is the result of a staggeringly unlikely probabilistic coincidence. > > 2. The two are linked via a third factor that influences both and causes the correlation. > > 3. One is caused by the other. > > 4. is just to stupid for words. > > If you believe 2) then you really need to tell us what this third linking factor is. > > And several posters have already shown you their reasoning for believing 3) is the case. > > So the statement seems quite obviously incorrect. Also, to answer your question more directly, I’m arguing for 2). I’m saying tha the correlation between genetic fatherhood and social fatherhood (i.e. the fact that in general genetic fathers are more likely than others to be named social fathers) is best explained by reference to a third factor, namely, a complex of factors involving human psychology as determined by evolution. Facts about the way human minds work and the way they typically interact-facts which themselves I suspect can be explained in evolutionary terms–lead to there being a general correlation between genetic and social fatherhood. There’s no necessary connection between genetic and social fatherhood, and there’s no causal connection from one to the other. The correlation is to be explained as the result of social and psychological factors. And this means that should the social or psychological factors be different than is typical in any particular society or for any particular people, we shouldn’t expect to see the same correlation between g-fatherhood and s-fatherhood that we see in general. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dna-tests-are-an-anti-feminist-application-of-science/573390.md?page=6)