THE EDITOR, Sir:

LAST WEEK, it was revealed through DNA tests that about a third of children tested were misled as to who their fathers are. This 'jacket' discussion has dominated the talk shows with most contributors focusing on why women would choose to be - as they describe it - 'promiscuous'. The word promiscuous, if I remember correctly, comes from two Latin words meaning 'in place of' and 'to mix'. As usual, for the past few days, the discussions have gone all around the subject and neglected the obvious point - that it just makes good economic sense.

In 2004, I was listening to two women who had met at the Family Court. The friendship was cemented when they discovered that their delinquent men both worked for the same company. One, who was seeking maintenance for one child, was awarded $1,000 per week by the Court, while the other who had four children for the man in question was awarded $1,800 per week. A pen, borrowed from me, the cover of a KFC box and the two awards were used by the first woman to explain why it is 'eediat bizniz' to have more than one child for one man. Some 'non-money' benefits were also enumerated.

For years, our attitude toward our women can best be summed up in one phrase, 'brute force and ignorance'. They have suffered various and varying forms of abuse in silence. Unfortunately, having left them alone so often, they had n but to start thinking. This thinking seemed to have yielded some very productive ideas.

The DNA revelation caused us to focus on the tip of the iceberg and ignore the more revealing aspects of this 'problem'. For those of us in professions that keep our ears close to the ground, we know that our women, devoid of education or marketable skills, make the most of their only God-given gift to survive. Many children in this country have two or three fathers. Contrary to popular opinion, this is very well planned. The first two 'fathers' are usually married or in some position of importance. Upon notification of the pregnancy, followed by a firm statement that the woman has no intention of aborting, they 'buy' the woman's silence for the next 18 years. So she has two 'fathers' who do not want to see or hear about the child, unless it becomes a famous athlete, and are equally anxious that their name is not on the birth certificate. That's good because the child really belongs to some gorgeous gigolo who is proud to announce to the world that he has 14 'yout wid nine ooman'.

So, apart from the silly 14-year-olds who find themselves pregnant and don't know how it happened, the 'promiscuity' of which we speak so disparagingly is really a well-planned economic strategy by women who are much smarter than we think. And they are going back to school.

I am, etc.,

GLENN TUCKER

glenntucker@hotmail

Educator and sociologist

Stony Hill

Kingston 9