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.
They are completely relevant when they suggest someone has acted severely out of character in a case where mental competency is an issue.
Thanks for the conversation.
In other words then, Mr. ALL CAPS, somehow Clancy is special and different from every other sociopath who claims that his or her meds made them killers. Sorry, I don't buy it. If you make this allowance for Clancy, you may as well make the same allowance for all medicated killers, the (so-called) logic would be precisely the same, and at least internally consistent.
That’s MRS. ‘ALL CAPS’, thanks. (Strictly speaking, it should be ‘MISS’ since I didn’t change my name when I married...)
And again, thanks for the conversation.
If I knew that I was arguing with a feminist harpy rather than with a rational human being, I wouldn't have bothered with my posts. Feminists always stick together and defend their own, even murderers.
I’m not a ‘feminist’, dear; but thank you for displaying your real nature.
Don’t post to me again.
That’s MRS. ‘ALL CAPS’, thanks. (Strictly speaking, it should be ‘MISS’ since I didn’t change my name when I married...)And then announce your support for Mz. Clancy. That will tell FReepers everything necessary about you.
I can’t even wrap my head around what she did.
I’m inconsolable for months when having to have a pet euthanized, even though they’re very old, ill, and near Death’s Door.
A mother doing what she did, it’s vomit inducing to think about it.
Guys have a lot more of hormones that affect mood, like testosteone. They have no idea how much more control men have over themselves and their emotions than women do. No idea. The few that do were female bodybuilders who took extra t injections, basically double what regular women have, but still 20-50 times less than men depending on age and health, so still way, way less than men, these women got extremely aggressive and angry and self described “horny” all the time, their mood swings were strong and frequent, they said they didn’t know how men could control themselves as they were having a very hard time doing so still with just a small fraction of testosterone the average man has.
I wonder why these women never invented this term for men who “do it for the same reasons”....
Maybe these women can invent the term for theman doing this to his wife. Altruistic wificide. He loved her so much, he just had to kill her, dont you see...! His testosterone was really high, it was 11am in the morning!
(Mens testosterone hormone levels peak daily at about 11 am, late morning)
Yes lets see the equal excuse for men from these ladies, or is this another case of privileges for me, not for thee...
I had a profile page for many years. It’s still on the ‘Wayback’ machine, if you’re that curious.
(Some of the religionists here objected to it because it wasn’t ‘their’ type of faith; and they thought only their type of faith is correct and true, which gave them the right to ridicule mine. So when I was adding to it once and goofed up the html, I just got rid of it.)
I kept my maiden name for two reasons: my husband and I worked for the same institution and kept our marriage on the down low. It wasn’t against any rule - our bosses knew about it. But we thought it was better professionally. I also kept it to honor my father - my brother had no kids and the line dies with us.
Thanks for your interest.
“lousy performance of the two female lawyers for the prosecution”
clips I have seen of them questioning witnesses seemed ok, seemed to ask decent questions about matters involved. if you mean the didnt seem polished, I’d rather they focus on important matters and ignore the people who just want to find fault.
I was not impressed.
Yep, thats why the terms such as murder (unjust killing) and “justifiable homicide” and such exist. To distinguish lawful killing and unlawful killing.
God never said no killing ever, several of His commandments came with death penalties. God said no murder/unjust killing, there’s a massive difference between the two.
not impressed with their style?
not impressed with whether they were truly effective?
you really are vague in both your comments I replied to, other than to make it clear, for a reason only known to you and you don’t seem to care to share, you didnt like them.
I am absolutely pro Israel. I believe that in a struggle between the civilized and savage elements that threaten it, we must choose the civilized. At the same time, I reject the blanket condemnation of all Muslims and Hindus that we see here - I’ve known too many of both. I am anti-abortion except in some rare cases, and I don’t have bumperstickers.
And yes, I don’t like ‘religiosity’, when it is expressed as mockery of other religions. I find the anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, anti-SDA etc., fights on FreeRepublic to be abhorrent. And now we even seem to have anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head.
You know, research is your friend.
Thanks for the conversation.
Well that’s a relief. I was beginning to wonder why you were here. It’s good that you have some conservative thoughts, even if you are misguided in other areas.
Islam should be condemned at every turn. It is not compatible with civilization.
As I’ve said, I’ve known a lot of Muslims. They all got stuck here when the Shah was deposed.
I suspect you haven’t known any civilized ‘Persians’, so I will make allowance for your apparent ignorance and lack of experience.
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.