Ramesh Ponnuru: liberal editor-in chief of the National Review
If the National Review is going to send someone to do the Bill Maher show, why not send a conservative?
The case of Matt Dubay, who has filed a historic lawsuit euphemistically dubbed the “Roe v. Wade for Menâ€, was brought up on Bill Maher’s show this week.
The case involves a young man whose girlfriend got pregnant by lying to Dubay about her ability to have children. For this reason, birth control was not used.
The central issue of the case is this: if the woman represents to the man that she is physically incapable of getting pregnant, and this is a misrepresentation of fact, then should the man be held financially responsible when she gets pregnant?
Gloria Steinem issued the expected insults, but conveniently forgot to mention the central issue of the case. She also made appear that Dubay wanted the child aborted (We can expect hyper-feminists who support abortion rights for women to insult a man even if he doesn’t want it).
Then, Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor for the National Review chimed in. He also failed to mention the fact that Dubay was essentially “rapedâ€. I almost fell out of my chair that Ponnuru called Dubay a “deadbeat dadâ€, and rendered absolutely no conservative analyis on the issue.
What Ponnuru should have said is this: If the woman lies to the man about her reproductive capacity to become “Murphy Brown†and then steal his money, the man she reproductively raped should receive automatic custody of the child at birth. And we should consider prison for the woman.
There is no other relief possible that does not reward the woman for taking advantage of the man. To suggest that Dubay must pay his rapist for committing an act of rape is outrageously liberal and radically feminist.
Reproductive fraud is an extremely serious and life-affecting issue. I do consider it rape. When a man forces his reproductive capacity on a woman, we call it rape. When a woman forces her reproductive capacity on a man, it is also rape. I cannot bring myself to lessen the offense to something cute like “paternity fraud”, simply because the perpetrator happens to be a woman.
The only difference between the two is the means that a particular sex uses to get what they want. Whether fraudulent means or physical force is used is substantively immaterial to the case. Clearly, men should never be forced to pay their own rapists for the acts they committed.
Illegitimacy is still at record levels, despite the fact that we have the best birth control methods in the history of civilization. Most of them are invisible — making it very easy for women to rape men. Automatic awards of welfare and child support make this a profitable activity.
It is my experience that the vast majority of men do not want to have a child out of wedlock. It is quite clear that the vast majority of illegitimacy is actually predatory reproduction for income and to achieve status as a brave “single mother”.
When conservatives widely expect fair treatment of men in family law and society, illegitimacy will decrease steeply and marriage rates will improve drastically.
Conservatives who assume a professional feminist position on family issues prevent conservatives from reaching their goals. When we blame all of society’s problems on men, we turn the family over to feminists and big government.  Federal social expenditures necessarily rise.  Social statistics, have not improved under Republican leadership.  Â
Self-entitling federal social expenditures that are driven by husband-absence, such as welfare and heath care, are a tremendous portion of the federal budget.  We cannot have a balanced budget while fighting the war on terror until we stop driving husbands out of the family and entitling permanent non-marriage. Â
The Dubay case is clearly a step towards rebuilding a sound social infrastructure and resolving many otherwise unsoluble federal budgetary problems.Â
David R. Usher is President of the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
Â
| More from David R. Usher
Stumble It!
March 16th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Hello David,
Though I agree with your description to the central point of this particular case, I feel it to be only a first step to reproductive responsibility for both men and women. Personally, I would, one day, like to see something similar to this.
{This proposal assumes continued legalized, on-demand, abortion. Should this be changed this entire proposal would be unnecessary.}
* A women, by law, must name and inform this person she is impregnated with his child within a reasonable period after learning she is pregnant (30 days).
* At this point the named father has two choices which he has no more than say 10 days to respond:
1. He can accept parental responsibility for the child. Thus meaning he accepts to care (financially, emotionally, etc) for child to the best of his ability.
2. He can denounce this pregnancy. Thus stating he accepts no responsibility (financially, emotionally, etc) for the child and does not support the pregnancy.
* At this point the female has the three choices she has at present:
1. She can continue the pregnancy and raise the child with, or without the support of the named father.
2. She can have the child aborted.
3. She can continue the pregnancy and present the child to the named father, or have put to adoption.
Though not a perfect solution. The only “perfect solution” is for the child to be raised by both the mother and father, this proposal provides men equal choice, and forces women to think responsibly about pregnancy.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Thank you David,
This is ’spot on’, as they say.
When a man clearly states that he is not ready or willing to raise a child at this time in his life, and a women mounts him at the most fertile point in her cycle (which is information that ONLY she has access to) this is, in fact, reproductive rape. It is also financial rape, emotional rape, and spiritual rape.
Nothing is more repugnant. Lets hope this case meets with success.
Also, I appreciate you pointing out that things have gotten worse under the republican watch, however, I see no improvements coming from the democrats, more likely a continued slide into endorsing additional entitlements to women who rape.
March 16th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
David,
Your writing is as enjoyable as it is clear, as usual. I have read each of the items you have posted herein with great pleasure at the quality of your writing and of your reasoning. I have found myself in complete agreement with you on every point so far.
Until now…
‘It is my experience that the vast majority of men do not want to have a child out of wedlock.’
I agree with your assessment. Just a question:
Is not the moral integrity of a man, what makes him a man?
Doesn’t Dubay’s asking her about the possibility of pregnancy indicate that he had reservations _at that time_ about her judgement, if not her integrity?
Why is he not responsible for his decision to go for the instant physical gratification her suspect assurance afforded him, rather than to refrain from what _he apparently considered at that time_ to be a risky situation?
IOW, if men fear deceipt regarding possible pregnancies arising from sexual congress why is the answer not to simply remain chaste, or in the vernacular, to abstain from sex? At least in such a risky, or even questionable, situation?
Please don’t let me down by claiming men have a right to casual sex.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Dear whraglyn,
Unfortunately, state laws permit both men and women to have casual sex. This has been going on since the founding of this country. I do not agree with this, but that is the way it is. We have to work with what is transpiring in this situation.
Dubay believed he was having casual sex by the representation by his girlfriend that she could not get pregnant. She apparently knew it was not casual sex. He never consented to have sex for the purposes of having a child. We cannot bifurcate the huge difference in intent to blame him for what she did.
Intentionally creating a fatherless child is cruel to the child and an abuse of the social purpose of fatherhood. Where Dubay had no intention of bearing a child, and where she apparently didn’t want marriage, and where he was not given an option to raise the child in lieu of child support, he cannot be held responsible for a bunch of money (in this obviously immoral situation).
Follow the money: We have a system that encourages women to get pregnant out of wedlock to collect roughly $400,000 in child support (from an average guy). Women are doing this in record numbers because it is an entitled activity that gives them victim status as heroic single mothers. This, in turn, drives more illegitimacy and non marriage.
Any woman can get pregnant tonight simply by wandering into a bar and telling the guy she is on the pill. In contrast, the chance that a guy can walk into a bar and get a woman pregnant are about zero. What women are doing is the issue of overarching import. Whether the sucker was Dubay or any other guy is essentially irrelevant.
The only way to break this cycle is to give custody of the child to the father when a woman lies about her ability to procreate. We must stop rewarding women with small fortunes for having children out of wedlock.
This approach will form a new pro-marriage balance of power: women won’t want to get pregnant out of wedlock when they can’t get anything out of it. Women will opt for marriage instead of the welfare state. This, in turn will reduce illegitmacy rates and cause improvement in marriage rates.
We have spent more on welfare since 1964 than the national debt. I will bet anyone the national debt that this change in social policy and law will substantially decrease our national deficit.
This will not do anything to reduce “casual sex” by TWO consenting adults. I don’t agree with casual sex (in fact, I was the only person in my church youth group that stood up for virginity until marriage). This issue has nothing to do with the Dubay case, where her consent was not for “casual sex”.
The alternative is to continue the existing arrangement, with both liberals and conservatives ending up supporting radical feminist policies, which as we all know, are an abysmal failure.
Conservatives have a lot to learn! Illegitimacy will not abate until we stop funding women to intentionally have children out of wedlock. Marriage rates will not improve until we stop making single motherhood a self-entitling activity at the expense of marriage, fatherhood, and society.
March 18th, 2006 at 6:55 am
Thanks for adding to the effort to set the olde media straight. They’re blind in one ear and deaf in the other eye and their brains on drugs like fried eggs when it comes to dealing with “gender issues.” (A label that seems to amount to a license to lie.) It’s a tough, seemingly never-ending job, and you do it well.
March 19th, 2006 at 3:12 am
I am a member of a mailing list supported by the National Center for Men. (Sponsors of the Dubay case). The list to which I subscribe is specifically focused on legalizing reproductive choice for men. This is only one of many issues the organization supports. Finding this litigant has taken over a decade. This case, and the issue it represents, has been my passion for the last 3 years. I have donated over $1000 to NC4M, and I am not a wealthy man. You don’t have to believe me, but please hear me.
Please forgive that below I am posting the exact words I have posted in other blogs. I’m very busy spreading the word since the case became public. The following words are my own, and are not endorsed by any organization
================
Why is this debate failing to recognize the most DIRECTLY RELEVANT POINT of unequal treatment under the law that the case is actually intended to address? Somehow it was misunderstood: Abortion has absolutely no relevance in this case, and this would be true even if Roe were overturned.
Consider: A child exists. Two bio-parents exist. Now what?
A mother can still relinquish her parenthood, and nothing requires her to even identify the father. Even worse, in so doing, that mother denies that man of his right to become a single parent… a privilege she alone enjoys. The man cannot relinquish parenthood under EXACTLY, yes, EXACTLY THE SAME circumstances!
Where did that little point get missed? Ah, perhaps someone uttered the words “innocent child”, then someone pulled a heartstring, and then I think God herself had to chime in, completely off-topic, driven by blind passion for her own agenda.
Men are not asking for the right to force abortions, nor to prevent abortions. They are asking for the same rights as women have post-birth.
I am begging to be debated by the other side on this. Any debate about “her body” is completely missing the purpose of the case.
======
That’s the end of the “common” text I’ve been posting. I know it’s my first post, and I do see that this blog appears to be particularly sympathetic to Mr. Dubay’s plight. I’ll be watching this thread in the future for any replies.
This is the first blog I’ve seen where the word “rape” is used in reference to this case. I can’t say I disagree… But it brings up something I’d like to add: When a young boy is statutorily raped in America, he is legally liable for child support, and this position has been upheld in apeals. That is to say, consenting to sex is not a requirement for a state of legal fatherhood.
Actually SEX isn’t required for fatherhood. There was at least one case in which a woman admitted that she had removed a used condom from a wastebasket to become pregnant. Guess what, the man was deemed to be the legal father.
But wait… even DNA isn’t a requirement for fatherhood. When a man is married to a mother at the time of birth, then discovers later that the child is not his biologically, guess what… he still pays.
Believe it or not, NC4M is mostly men and women who love children and respect women. (And a few of us angry nutballs too.) Women are more than welcome among us.
Thanks for listening.
March 19th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Thanks for taking my comments seriously. Your writing and thinking on this are, as always, clear and persuasive.
You are still the best Presidential candidate for 2008, imho!
While I agree that we live in a culture which actively promotes the ‘casual’ sex, it appears clear that the best, if not the only, way to reduce or eliminate forced fatherhood is for men to emphasize personal morality in everyday choices.
You mentioned that you took such a stand in your youth. For that you deserve approbation from all. Are you arguing that such a stand now is useless? If so, why was it of value to you then?
It would seem from the whole of your writing that you are a morals-based man. It appears that you recognize that the personal integrity of men in moral matters is, as it has ever been, the driving force that has made Western Culture the historical and human success it is today.
So, even though Dubay was lied to, why is that the excuse made for his own decision to engage in acts from which a child even _may_ have been produced?
In acting thus on his desire for sex he was acting as an animal, not as a man.
In his engagement in sex despite his obvious misgivings, he chose to as a spoiled child, not as a man.
He chose a moment of sensual pleasure, despite knwoing the risks, over the prudent course.
Why do we rush to defend such selfishness? Isn’t such selfishness, expressed by feminists in their insistence on a ‘right’ to abortion on demand, correctly identified as the root of evil in radical feminism?
We live in a culture built on ‘relativity’ in morals, personal integrity, and law. In the face of such, why is not ‘absolute’ personal integrity the answer?
_If_ men stop engaging in sex when, where, and with whomever there is even a slight chance of coerced pregnancy, the chance of forced fatherhood falls to zero, does it not?
In the face of knowing just how often many women will lie to achieve nefarious ends in this regard, why is not the answer for men to rely on principle and personal integrity in resolving the dilemma?
After all, is not personal integrity what makes us men?
March 19th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
whraglyn said -
“_If_ men stop engaging in sex when, where, and with whomever there is even a slight chance of coerced pregnancy, the chance of forced fatherhood falls to zero, does it not?”
How about 14 year old boys that are “forced” to have sex with their female teachers? These women are rapists and yet the child will be held accountable and forced to pay child support for an act he was not legally capable of deciding on?
There is distinct bias going on – are you for or against it?
March 19th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
And if adult men, individually and en masse, are largely chaste men of integrity; setting examples daily of choosing the right over self gratification, and choosing principle over personal gain, how will such acts by selfish women appear against such a cultural background?
Your use of the term ‘forced’, and your parenthesizing of same, indicate that you understand that very few if any 14 yr old boys are physically forced into sex, by teachers or by any other woman.
What makes such an act rape in every sense of the word is the fact that very few if any 14 yr old boys are emotionally capable of choosing rightly when put in such a situation by adult women.
Yah, i agree the system is corrupt. The bias is clear to any unbiased observer. Of course i’m against the operation of such bias in our society. The law(s) should, and eventually will, be changed.
My question is whether the law will not be changed more quickly if there is first a grassroots movement teaching men from birth that chastity is a fundamental principle of personal integrity.
Yes, the work of Usher and those like him is vital to energizing public debate on this issue, and many other profoundly destructive social mores now prevalent in our culture.
Usher, and many like him, are true pioneers who are leading the debate in directions vital to the eventual resurrection of the culture as it used to be when run by men.
I mean it when i say that Usher should run for office. He is by far the most articulate espouser of truly uplifting ideals i have read over the last decade.
But, as he says, his primary purpose is to spark debate. My writing is intended to fan that spark.
Let us remember that the strength and integrity of the culture, as it was before the selfishness of the baby-boomer demographic wave allowed the complacency which fostered the rise of radical feminism over the last 40 years, was founded on personal integrity.
That personal integrity, with men leading the way as individuals and as a group, is fundamental to the stability of the culture is only underscored by the fractiousness of the debate in which we are now engaged.
All i’m saying is that the long term solution is personal integrity, and that men must lead the way.
March 20th, 2006 at 8:06 am
All,
The devil is in the “if onlys”. Yes, illegitimacy would cease if casual sex went out the window. The chances we can do this in the near future are very slim to null. If we accomplished this, it would not affect divorce, which is another feminist institution. Both are equally harmful to men, women, and children.
Catholics and others who work only from scripture are having a real difficult time coming to grips with what to do (this is a dilemma that is 40 years old now). They have failed for the same reason they lost “Goodridge” in Massachusetts: it unlikely to win in courts on nonsecular moral or religious values.
Roe will probably be overturned based on secular values — it is just plain wrong to kill babies. Those working from biblical perspectives must become fully willing to do battle against the welfare state in simple plain english if they want to win. And, we desperately need them to do so. We need Dobson working these issues, not sitting there blaming what feminism did on men (who are being held biblically responsible despite the fact that we are living in a nonbiblical feminist society where men have nearly zero say-so in family and procreation).
Of course, casual sex is the original sin. But ending this “right” is a long-haul goal in the secular perspective — we cannot instantly rewind the culture because we cannot immediately reverse Griswold v. Connecticut. The politics to do so will not be in place until we first restore the value of marriage as an institution. To accomplish this, we must first disentitle the predatory welfare state, after which the culture will become interested in marriage again. When the culture is interested in marriage again, the culture will not be so inured to “casual sex”. We must look to the concept of “husband and wife” in heterosexual marriage as being our first order of battle (as basically noted by Peter Sprigg in his book “Outrage”).
Message to all: The broken family is not driven by casual sex, rather, it is presently driven by a plethora of heavily-entitled anti-family feminist legislation and court rulings, under which the notion that casual sex is necessary fundamental right hides
We need to approach the secular problems on the basis of “unwinding” the cultural mess. The first step, and the one that will end the dual disasters of poverty for women and children and father-absence, is to stop entitling intentional illegitimate childbearing — thus making marriage the most attractive secular legal vehicle surrounding procreation and childrearing. Part and parcel of this initiative is to also cap child support obligations to be a percentage of each paycheck, not the arbitrary fixed amount that allow judges to make nonmarriage much more attractive than marriage (particularly in low and middle-income families). Last, we need to set child support what the state pays foster care parents. This is the “actual” cost of raising a child, sans the hidden alimony and mother-support.
The politics are much stronger to accomplish these tasks, whereas the politics of ending Griswold and casual sex are not there yet.
Ending Griswold in the existing framework would not affect nonmarriage or illegitmacy rates. When nonmarriage is a strongly entitled feminist activity, it will preside over marriage, and continue to erode the values of marriage, leaving the door wide open for lesbianism, polymory, and every other imaginable abomination.
Republicans would be really stupid to not work with us. They failed to get big government out of the family in 1996 — and instead installed communist Blankenhorn policies. We could not break through in 1994 because Blankenhorn got there first (late 80’s).
The conservative base is angry and demoralized, and justly so. Wedge issues such as health care and retirement would largely go away if they worked with us closely. Nothing would energize the base more than a fresh debate on marriage policy followed by a new “Contract for America” — one that will actually reduce poverty, naturally increase health care coverage, etc etc.
PS: Our candidate for 2008 is Dr. Mark Klein (www.drmarkklein.com). Republicans better start working with him, unless of course they want to see a lesbian in the oval office.
March 20th, 2006 at 8:14 am
Bravo, Usher! I’m won over!
March 20th, 2006 at 8:26 am
All,
We need a deluge of emails to Charen, the NRO, Dobson, and all Conservatives about this. We can win, but we have to get them to finally take the correct action. When we see a “pro marriage” sign right next to the “pro life” sign in front of every church, we will be getting somewhere.
April 2nd, 2006 at 1:13 am
[...] In retrospect, perhaps it was unfair to single-out Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor for the National Review, in my previous article for briskly doffing Matt Dubay as a “deadbeat dad†on the Bill Maher’s March 10th show. [...]