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.
The ascendance of the AWFLs.
Women are exactly like men, and should be treated in exactly the same way. Except once in a while, they might have the blues and kill everyone in sight, and society must accommodate that behavior.
This is because Flatland women are one-dimensional lines, with a single eye at one end. Because they are lines, they are invisible at a distance, and can therefore pierce and seriously injure or kill men. Which are of higher dimension, various polygons.
Feelings matter. And in an era where men are becoming “Madden Dads,” they understand the philosophy John Madden did when he was first in television. He taught a class on football and how to break down plays and discuss bigger issues based on the game. And you can see the Madden Dads have now followed how Madden broke down a West Coast Offense and how they can break down anything. And these men are breaking down the excuse monger society believing in no morals.
That ship sailed way back in 1979 when the Diminished Capacity was used by defense team to get their male client get off a double murder.
‘...because of hormones’ is an incredible and deceitful simplification of the case and trial. The jury listened to 80+ witnesses and simply did not feel that the prosecution proved its case.
(I wonder if this author actually watched the lousy performance of the two female lawyers for the prosecution.)
“Is this hormonal you here right now, or non-hormonal you?”
“Men are more likely to strike out physically, commit sexual crimes, and give in to testosterone-fueled rages than women.”
It’s just hormones.
‘They have given it a name: “altruistic filicide”.
Altruistic: selfless concern for others. ‘
What about “altruistic homicide”?
I know some people and know of others.
Not hormones as Rush had it right.
All-American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion
It doesn't matter what they feel.It matters what they think.
Nine of them outright chose feelings over reason and the law. Two later knuckled to pressure. One insisted on thought, reason, and the law.
Lindsay Clancy has been elevated to near godlike status by liberal feminazis.
Not because these peculiar women believe that she was innocent.
They embraced Clancy because she is brazenly guilty and
because she embraced her hormonal self by killing her three children.
You know what I meant. They CONCLUDED that the prosecution hadn’t proved its case and could not find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If Massachusetts had the possibility, as someone suggested the other day, a ‘Guilty But Mentally Ill’ verdict, this might have gone differently.
Not because these peculiar women believe that she was innocent.
they just want their way. be it right or wrong, whatever the issue, if they have a point of view, agree with it and give in or you become the enemy.
And it’s been a disaster for America.
In the past five decades at least, they have been raised with the idea that they can commit any violent crime they want against men, and men have no right to defend themselves and are sissies if they file assault charges. What did we think was going to happen? Did we honestly believe we could look the other way when it came to female violence all this time and it wouldn't get to this point?
No, I don't read minds. And don't try to hide behind "I didn't mean that."
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.
