Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
UK: Study kills '1 in 10' myth of cuckolded fathers
Submitted by Broadsword on Wed, 2010-02-10 02:55
Article here. Here:
'It is one of the world's most persistent myths: that one in 10 children are illegitimate without their legal fathers knowing that they have been cuckolded. Now scientists believe they have arrived at the real figure. One in 25.
Scientists analysed the Y chromosomes of 1,600 unrelated men with 40 surnames to test the idea that there could be a link between the Y chromosome and surnames, which are both passed on to boys down the male line.
For certain, uncommon surnames there was a clear association between the unique genetic markers carried on the Y chromosome with the surname, suggesting that many of the men sharing the same surname had a common male ancestor many centuries ago.
This also enabled the scientists to estimate the probability of illegitimacy among the men carrying the same surname and found that it came out at between 1 and 4 per cent.
"People often quote a figure of one in 10 for the number of people born illegitimately. Our study shows that this is likely to be an exaggeration. The real figure is more likely to be less than one in 25," said Professor Mark Jobling of Leicester University, who carried out the study with colleague Turi King.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
The numbers are still pretty bad at (1/25) or 4%
The numbers are still pretty bad. According to the CIA world fact book there are 102,665,043 men between the ages of 15 - 65 years old. Assuming that 85% of them will eventually have children, a pretty conservative estimate in my opinion; we are looking at 3,490,661 duped dads. I got that by doing the following: 102,665,043 * 0.85 * 0.04 = 3,490,661.
I am not sure how credible
I am not sure how credible this assumption is.
Genetic testing is fascinating, but the farther back you go (this guy is talking about centuries) the less accuracy and time for genetics to mutate.
Also considering the time period (remember we are talking about "centuries ago"), there could be many reasons for people to have different last names other than their biological ancestors, or DNA inconsistant with other relatives.
Years ago adoptions at birth were kept secret, even from the kids and other relatives. Adopting couples would actually fake pregnancies as infertility was considered an embarrassment. And frequently parents died due to harsh conditions (disease, natural disaster, war) and kids were orphaned and sent to live with relatives or neighbors and took on their last names.
Also many names were changed during immigration as most did not speak English and everything was hand written (no computers, no records to cross check). Some immigrants even purposely took on fake names (especially if they owed debts back in their homeland).
So this assumption seems like junk science to me.
BTW- I had never heard of the "1 in 10" myth before.
Even if I don't like it...
... I'll still post it if it's relevant to MR work. (Well sometimes I don't post stuff because it's hardly even readable or points to stuff that is tacitly diffuse, but as I have said before, editing is an inherently subjective job and I do my best, clay feet and all... anyway...).
Anyone can get numbers wrong: any movement, any ideology can get stats wrong due to myopia or mis- or dis-information. Feminism is a glowing example of this.
The 1-in-10 stat has been in MRA circles a long time. If there is counter-evidence then let it be heard. If it is not credible, let it be shown to be un-credible. But ignoring it doesn't do any good. So sometimes if I see things submitted or in news stories I catch myself that runs counter to MRAs' own "accepted dogma", hell yeah, I'll post it. It needs to be aired, whatever it is.
But as for the previous two posters, yeah, this study, like all *truly scientific* studies, must always bear scrutiny _before_ their conclusions can be accepted.
By way of observation, by the late 1800s, many scientists thought we were "done" with physics, that it was established - all the truths about how matter worked were known. Then this thing called the 20th century popped up with new scientists that had new tools of investigation and... and we had to go back to the drawing board. If it can happen in a "hard science" like physics, it can happen anywhere.
Apples and Oranges
The important thing that the study doesn't take into account is that by going back centuries any conclusion reached is automatically invalid for today's realities. Today's society is not reflective of 50 years ago, much less centuries ago. For instance, a wife cuckolding her husband and bearing another man's child carries virtually no penalty nowadays, other than maybe emotional. In bad marriages there may even be an emotional incentive to do so. A study that is premised on male/female relations not having changed in all that time is less than junk science.
I'm not sure Matt, that your
I'm not sure Matt, that your physics analogy is all that great. For one thing, modern physicists's didn't "go back to the drawing board" - the old results are no less scientific by virtue of the fact that new techniques have yielded new or improved explanations. For example, quantum mechanics does not invalidate Newton's laws.
Besides, I don't really see what the supposed debunking of this myth in this article has to do with anything ending. Is someone saying we are at the end of the road with genetics? As far as I can tell this is just a study, not a dire prediction.
-ax