Posted on 09/19/2026 9:55:01 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Repeal the 19th Amendment?
Even if you think it is a good idea, that ship sailed long ago. Women make up more than half the voting population, and by a large margin at that.
In the 2024 election, for instance, over nine million more women voted than men. And just as in college education, women dominate the political culture. It may be possible to get more men off their behinds to vote, but female dominance in politics is not going away any time soon, and whatever fantasies some people have about repealing the 19th Amendment, it ain't going to happen.
Still, it's not just misogyny that is leading people, including some women, to muse that extending the right to vote to women was a mistake. The rise of the AWFL and the increasing dominance of woke culture in our institutions now that they are feminized are objectively bad trends. And they are objectively awful for both men and women, and especially children, of whom there are fewer and fewer.
If nothing else, trends in recent years have given the lie to the claim that "if women ruled the world, peace would be upon us." While it is true that men are much more likely to pick up guns and start shooting, it's not the case that women are characterized by nothing but peace, love, and understanding.
Men may produce more mass shootings; women seem more likely to participate in mass hysterias and the damage that they can leave behind, society-wide.
I don't believe that it is true that women are, as a group, less capable of rational action than men. Both men and women have tendencies that, when untempered by reason, lead to different varieties of irrational actions. Men are more likely to strike out physically, commit sexual crimes, and give in to testosterone-fueled rages than women.
Women, on the other hand, seem more inclined to engage in social forms of aggression and value peer consensus over doing the right thing or finding rational solutions. Men can become tyrannical bosses; women are more likely to become HR haridans.
Our differences are not our fates, though, and the male virtues complement the female virtues, and vice versa. If there are characteristic flaws and tendencies that, left unchecked, lead to bad outcomes, the opposite is true as well. God made us complementary, and together we are stronger than separately.
What the Lindsay Clancy trial shows us, though, is that in the current culture there is a tendency not only to celebrate the female virtues, but to celebrate the female vices as well and excuse them in the most odd way.
Women, we are told by women, are inherently incapable of self-control. Their hormones make them do things, and we must excuse and even empathize with and embrace them because they are inherently female, and females are good.
As the embedded video shows, this is exactly the argument made against the 19th Amendment in the first place: women are irrational, and irredeemably so. The difference is that this is now considered a good thing.
I don’t use this word flippantly, but this truly is SICKENING.
They have given it a name: “altruistic filicide”.
Altruistic: selfless concern for others.
Filicide: the killing of one’s children.
They have pathologized what would otherwise be brutal murder as “the selfless killing of one’s children”.
We are even beyond “suicidal empathy”. We have literally entered the realm of “homicidal empathy”. Pathologized as “altruistic filicide”
And listen to the mind virus of “virtue signaling” according to this juror (whose last name happens to be Devlin - my goodness the simulation has a sick sense of humor).
Lindsay Clancy was a good mom (despite “viciously killing” her three children - literally the terms used by another juror who also would have found not guilty), because she had a big sign in her house that said “it’s a wonderful life”.
This is their actual thought process.
In their own words.
Sickening.
I feel like I just watched a Black Mirror episode and I’m going to be sick.
There is nothing “altruistic” about filicide, the killing of a child by a parent.
Clancy showed no mercy to her own children and taking their lives in one of the most prolonged and brutal ways imaginable. Their last moments on earth were spent struggling for air knowing it was their own mother torturing and murdering them.
We have been treated to lectures about what a WONDERFUL mother Lindsay Clancy was before she viciously with malice aforethought strangled her children. She has been elevated to near godlike status by some women, not because they believe that she was innocent, although some irrational women insist she is, but because she is guilty and embraced her hormonal self.
Many of these women are in the "caring" professions, and they see themselves in Clancy. They see themselves as victims to be elevated as examples for us all, and Lindsay Clancy, a child murderer, is them.
Before we despair, though, and believe that women are incapable of rational action, we should step back and realize that this has at least as much to do with how we have chosen to celebrate emotionalism and deprecate rationality and good judgment.
Because we place high status on emotionalism, those who are most emotionally incontinent get celebrated. And since women as a class are inclined to embrace their emotions, we get this.
But is the problem that women are more emotional than men, or that we celebrate emotion itself as the ultimate good?
This appears to me to be an inversion, and thankfully not yet as strong, of the testosterone-dominated society of the Taliban. It's not that men are, inherently, more suited to rational governance than women if you take off the guardrails that hold us back from embracing our "true selves."
The problem is that our "true selves," unconstrained by reason, are not suited to civilization at all. Civilizations are built on constraining our hormones and impulses, and the postmodern societies we live in are all about "finding our inner selves" and liberating them.
To which I say: if your "true self" is the one unconstrained by self-imposed limits and the pursuit of rational virtue, then what you are describing is barbarism.
Yes.
Next question?
Once famous controversies of the 1970s involved Hubert Humphrey’s doctor, Edgar Berman, arguing that women were unqualified for public office because of their “raging hormonal imbalances,” and TV host David Susskind making a similar argument. In rebuttal, Germaine Greer cited male leaders who held responsible positions in spite of disease and infirmity (not a compelling argument), and asked Susskind to look at her and say whether she was menstruating or not (a little better, but not wholly convincing either).
Lindsay Clancy’s defenders will go to their graves defending women regardless of how heinous the crime because they cannot accept personal accountability.
The self-serving feminazi Clancy jury shows there is a new cultural
tendency to celebrate female villainy and excuse it whenever it crops up.
The Clancy jury sap-happily stressed that women are inherently
“incapable of self-control”....even when it comes to an urge to commit murder.
The Clancy jury highlighted the existence of “women-only hormones” as a prelude to murder.
The jurors blithely deemed Clancy innocent, insisting women are “slaves” to their hormones
and that, unfortunately for her three children, hormones make women do horrible things.
Ergo, we must excuse, empathize and embrace the Lindsay Clancy’s
who murder their children simply because its “inherently female.”
Dan was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
Hormones? I thought when I was listening to the jurors speaking out it was whore moans.
“I didn’t do it; the hormones did it.”
I didn’t do it; the gun did it.
same sick mindset
The millions of women who successfully navigated postpartum whatever are insulted.
Well now you DO know what I meant.
I listened to a whole lot of this trial. I heard all the testimony as to what a good and loving mother she had been - I didn’t hear a single word against her from the people who knew her best and observed her the closest. I heard about the lousy medical care - much of it not even in person - that she received, and the long list of constantly changing drugs, almost ALL of which carry warnings of homicidal and suicidal ideation.
There’s no way I could have found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I would have found not guilty due to insanity, or whatever is the Massachusetts equivalent. That’s the only HONEST conclusion I could come to had I been on that jury.
He beat the murder rap.
As for the Suburban Boston Baby Butcher, the state will get another bite of that apple.
The jurors in the Lindsay Clancy triple-murder trial were chosen through a standard Massachusetts jury selection process that spanned five days and pulled from a pool of nearly 300 prospective citizens.
The fact that the final deliberating panel was heavily comprised of women—and that 11 of them ultimately shared the “like-minded” stance that Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity—was the result of targeted screening questionnaires, a unique state alternate-selection process, and the persuasive dynamics that unfolded once inside the deliberation room.
1. How the Jurors Were Chosen
The selection process relied on narrowing down hundreds of candidates to find individuals who could remain impartial despite the case’s high-profile and deeply distressing nature:The Screening Questionnaires: Prospective jurors completed a detailed questionnaire. Because the case centered heavily on mental illness and postpartum psychosis, candidates were explicitly asked about their own personal or familial histories with postpartum depression, generalized anxiety, or bipolar disorder.
Jurors filled out these forms under an honor system regarding their personal and legal backgrounds.
Strikes by Prosecution and Defense: Both legal teams used their allotted challenges to strike jurors they believed held immutable biases. The defense sought jurors who could conceptually separate a “break from reality” (psychosis) from standard depression, while the prosecution aimed for individuals who would focus strictly on the physical acts and evidence of planning.
2. How the Panel Became Majority-Female
Initially, the court seated a full panel of 18 total jurors: 12 women and 6 men.Under a unique Massachusetts procedural rule, alternate jurors are not designated ahead of time. All 18 individuals sat through the entire five-week trial and heard all the evidence. Only after closing arguments were concluded did the court run a blind, random drawing to select which 12 would actually deliberate and which 6 would sit out as alternates.Through this random draw, the final deliberating group landed at 9 women and 3 men.
3. How “Like-Minded” Females Ended Up Sharing a StanceThe 11 jurors did not necessarily enter the room with identical mindsets; rather, their consensus was forged by the evidence presented and the structural makeup of the jury:The Prosecution’s Tactical Misstep: According to post-mistrial interviews given by female jurors (including the foreperson) to platforms like NBC Boston and CBS Mornings, the prosecution’s framing heavily backfired. Jurors described the state’s approach as “harsh” and “without a heart,” feeling that prosecutors failed to prove Clancy was legally sane beyond a reasonable doubt.The Influence of Opinion Leaders: In any jury, deliberations are typically steered by a few dominant personalities.
In this room, several female jurors—including nurse professionals who could parse the medical and toxicology data—became highly persuasive voices. They successfully swayed the room toward a lack of criminal responsibility verdict.
Jurors’ Shared Perspective on Women’s Health: Juror Paula Devlin openly acknowledged to CBS Mornings that the majority viewed the trial as a crucial “turning point” to spotlight postpartum mental health illnesses and protect families in the future.
This alignment ultimately left a single holdout—a male juror who remained steadfast that the physical reality of the children’s deaths legally overrode the insanity defense—resulting in a 11-to-1 hung jury and a subsequent mistrial.
It's also an opinion that if she was a he, he'd be in prison with the death penalty.
and that if she killed three puppies, she'd be in prison and then harassed and intimidated for the rest of her life
and that if she killed three black children, she wouldn't be safe anywhere in the United States
So, the female jurors didn't look at what she did but who she did it to and found it completely acceptable.
Apparently you're not listening to the juror who's publicly stating that from the beginning this was an opportunity serve an agenda, not the public.
Until her next trial, Lindsay Clancy is available to babysit your grandchildren.
She murdered all three of their children. There is no doubt that she did that. Her own defense attorney didn't dispute that.
That doesn’t change the evidence presented at trial; and someone else’s attempt at ‘activism’ wouldn’t affect my own assessment.
Do you ever have adult conversations, or do you just specialize in being a snide jerk?
My responses match this "adult conversation". As for "snide", that's your feeling.
I have read in respectable sources that 40% of women have a diagnosable neurosis of some form or another.
The number is much higher @60% for Democrats and much lower @20% or Republicans.
Yes...they should not vote or serve in combat..... Or other than office work in the military.
A well informed opinion.
Change my mind.
Yet you agree with the activist juror. That it's not a warning sign to you questions your self-reflection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.