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.
theguardian.com
Lindsay’s ex Patrick Clancy and his new wife Rachel Danis are set to describe their experiences of the Massachusetts triple-murder trial of his former wife Lindsay Clancy, with Clancy telling 60 Minutes: “I live with it every day, but I think I did the best I could.” The couple will on Sunday night make their first public comments on the case Sunday Sept 20. CBS has been trailing excerpts of the broadcast.
The interviews with the pair marks a second significant media “get” for 60 Minutes since it came under new leadership earlier this year. Last week, it secured an interview with a pilot who was rescued by special forces after being shot down over Iran.
The Clancy interviews come as Massachusetts prosecutors are set to decide later this month whether to retry Lindsay Clancy over the killings of the couple’s three children – Cora, five; Dawson, three; and Callan, eight months old – in January 2023. A hearing is slated for 29 September at Plymouth superior court.
A trial over the summer riveted public attention and ended in a mistrial when a single juror rejected the Clancy’s defense position that she had carried out the killings because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis that meant she could not be found criminally responsible for her actions.
The trial shed light on the little-understood mental health condition, and the resulting mistrial sharply divided public opinion. The single holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, came forward last week to say he thought enough physical evidence and key witness testimony presented at trial proved Clancy “knew exactly what she was doing and planned [it]”.
Patrick Clancy, who testified in the prosecution phase of the trial but has supported his former wife, has been subject to intense speculation outside the courtroom from online content creators and conspiracists. Earlier this month, an attorney for Clancy threatened legal “consequences” over what he called a “relentless, escalating and destructive defamation campaign” targeting his client.
“Enough is enough – this spread of blatant and baseless falsehoods must stop,” attorney Howard Cooper said. “Those responsible should understand that there will be consequences, and every appropriate measure will be pursued to hold them accountable, including legally.” According to excerpts of the 60 Minutes interviews released ahead of airtime, Patrick Clancy talks about his grief, his memories of his children, and conspiracy theories.
Clancy tells correspondent Ross Douthat he still talks to his kids “all the time” and asked them for help. Asked if they do, Clancy responds: “I like to believe they do. It’s a way I stay connected to them.” Clancy, who discovered his three children after finding his injured wife lying in snow below a second floor window and is now paralyzed from the waist down, also told the news program: “I think I did the best I could with what I had at the time, and I live with the outcome. I live with it every day, but I think I did the best I could.”
The Clancys repeatedly sought psychiatric and mental care for the young mother in the months before the incident, and have since filed a civil lawsuit alleging negligence and over-prescription of medications on the the part of two health professionals and healthcare providers.
In the released interview excerpts, Danis, 37, discusses how she met Patrick, their marriage, and defends her husband against the theories that have appeared online. “I don’t understand how the story’s been so twisted, but I would hope people know that Pat is, as I said before, the most selfless father and supportive partner,” Danis, an infertility specialist, tells the program.
The couple met while jogging and Patrick moved to New York and remarried earlier this year, she says. “I was just a girl that met a guy running in Central Park on a really cold Saturday, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.”
“Altruistic filicide” is a totally bogus concept!
Lindsay Clancy was a trained nurse, pledged to support life. She is a child murderer, NOT a “victim of hormones”.
The lone holdout male juror is the one who was right—NOT the women jurors who are now going on their disgusting, self-centered tour!
About 85% of violent crime is committed by men. Since men have such poor judgment, horrible tempers, and lack of self control, they should not be permitted to vote.
My conclusion is based on the evidence presented and the requirement that I apply the principle regarding reasonable doubt.
That’s how a trial is supposed to work.
Shows an idiotic precedent not to hold her criminally responsible. May as well not convict anyone of murder who are on scripts. Just look at all the copycats already.
Woman have been murdering marriages for awhile now, and with the support of our corrupted legal system and lawyers.
“There’s no way I could have found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
She murdered all three of their children. There is no doubt that she did that. Her own defense attorney didn’t dispute that.”
____________________________________________________________
She KILLED her three children. Murder is a legal charge and the elements of it weren’t discussed here.
Killing someone is always homicide, but it’s not always murder. 11 of 12 jurors understood that.
I was unlawful. It was without justification. It was with intent, planned beforehand (she even chased one child down who had escaped). It was not reckless but methodical as she actually strangled them, and choked them until dead.
Her murders were in sequence, not like three deaths from one car crash. She murdered one, then the next one, and then the next one.
In the most extreme argument, her defense could argue that the first one was manslaughter, leaving the other two as murders.
Your conclusion is based on ignoring evidence. She even looked up the husband's trip, including the stop at the pharmacy, in Apple Maps. She had no reason to do that except to know how much time she had to commit her crimes.
It appears the pendulum's swung too far... we're close to a tipping point. It's gonna get strange for a while.
We are women. We are just as good (if not better) than men. But part of the time we’re homicidal maniacs who just might kill our own kids. Or yours. It just our nature, part of our charm, really. Accept it or youre a bigot.
So is it your position that any murderer who happens to be on a psychotropic medication (nearly all of which carry warning labels about suicidal thoughts - and by extrapolation homicidal thoughts) should be found not guilty and just walk free?
Being on medication or emotionally disturbed shouldn't be a get out of jail free card. The insanity defense used to only apply to people so mentally handicapped and delusional that they didn't even know what they were doing or that it was illegal. No matter how "depressed" someone is, they know what murder is and that murder is illegal.
As to your ad populum argument that your position is the correct one because all but one juror found her not guilty, surely you're aware of the fact that lawyers pad juries with sympathetic individuals, in this case, a pack of feminist harpies. Of course they would find her not guilty, even if she didn't have her meds or "depression" as a flimsy excuse.
...... we’re close to a tipping point. It’s gonna get strange for a while........
May the saints preserve us.......
I came to my conclusion before the jury had even deliberated.
How much of the trial did you watch?
Even the worst pyschopathic killers in the history of criminal justice can usually dredge up friends who'll tell the jury what wonderful people the perps are (I'm sure Ted Bundy could find plenty of people to say how charming and fun to be around he could be).
This kind of testimony carries absolutely zero weight, or rather it shouldn't, except for those easily duped by courtroom tricks of glib defense attorneys. The facts of a murder trump stories of what a wonderful person a killer was.
I’ll repeat my question: should anyone who commits murder while on a psychotropic medication or with a vague diagnosis of depression be automatically allowed to walk free according to you? There would be a lot of convicted murders set loose on us if we followed those guidelines.
Adolf Hitler was a wonderful painter, and he loved dogs.
Of course not. But I’m not considering ‘every case everywhere’. I’m considering THIS ONE, and the totality of the evidence presented in THIS CASE.
If you take that as a rule, then everything presented as evidence in court is suspect from the get-go - you can’t believe anything at all that any sworn witness says because anyone can lie.
I’m not saying that testimony from friends who say that a murder suspect is a wonderful person are always or even mostly perjury. Those friends may sincerely believe the suspect is a wonderful person and be completley oblivious to his/her dark side. The point isn’t that they are all lies, but that they are completely irrelevant as evidence in a case.
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.