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.
You’re a chick, right?
Or perhaps just react illogically and emotionally like one.
Thanks for chipping in though.
History and the greatest philisophical minds in history opine that the franchise should be held only by property owning arms bearing men over the age of 21.
Current science shows that age should be adjusted to 25 as the male brain has not fully formed until then.
History has also shown that men build civilizations and women destroy them.
If you take the bait, I’ll provide more... a bit rushed right now.
Take the bait.
BTW.... Some smart guy said , one man among a thousand I have found. A woman among none of these....
You might check Genesis, too. God has an opinion as well if I recall right.
Made for a purpose they were...women.
Jesus-Mercy-Peace.
It’s curious that you mock and insult me, but practically beg me to respond to you. Very curious.
Find someone else.
It’s Saturday night and it seems there are a lot of unhappy men here on Free Republic. They’re all looking back at their ancestors who had the good life but they are deprived of it. Their chats used to be in the smokey back room where they could denigrate American women and sing the praises of subservient foreign women. Their life is hard.
No. They are idiots. Until this trial, saying a woman was too hormonal got you terminated.
It’s the slippery satanic slope from full term abortion to deleting children being legal.
Bring back the patriarchy.
If a female’s hormones can cause a person to go “insane”
Then what the hell are trannnys doing in the military when taking hormone therapies.
A soldier could get discharged if they take any psychotic meds.
Even anxiety meds could get you discharged.
Massachusetts is different from many other states in that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the person was sane at the time they committed the crime. In other states the burden is on the defense to prove insanity at the time of the crime. There are problems with both, IMHO.
Approximately 1 in 6 Americans are on anti-depressants at any given time (~57.1 million Americans). The idea that any of 57.1 million Americans can be excused of guilt because they are taking SSRIs is obviously absurd. So how do you decide who has been affected and who hasn't?
~7,765 homicides in the US per year are associated with excessive alcohol consumption. Should all of those people be found not-guilty because they were mentally impaired at the time? Arguably alcohol can have a much larger acute effect on rational thought than SSRIs - so if you are going to let people avoid guilt because they take SSRIs, why not the same with alcohol? (I'm not advocating for this, just using an analogy).
Ultimately, in order to render a sufficiently informed verdict on whether or not Clancy was ‘sane’ or not at the time that she killed her children requires understanding the big differences between postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis, the differences in timeline during which they occur postpartum, and the rarity of postpartum psychosis vs the much more common postpartum depression. Conflating postpartum depression to postpartum psychosis, and using that as a defense for homicide is a slippery slope, and arguably this is not a diagnostic decision that should be made by jurors who are not experts in mental health issues (for the record, being a nurse does not make one an expert in mental health issues).
Whether or not there is testimony that Clancy was a ‘good mother’ is also irrelevant. Clearly sequentially strangling your young children to death is not the act of a ‘good mother’, obviously. So the only valid question is whether she knew what she was doing when she did it and if she understood that it was wrong.
Further, there are plenty of narcissists out there who are very skilled at presenting a different picture to the world than what reality is, so character witnesses are of limited value - particularly in a case like this.
Your post prompted me to look up Flatland and then watch the movie.
Really Good Stuff
Thanks
“Insulted. Mocked. Take the bait”
Only an insult and mockery if you feel womanly behavior is worthy of such...which is counter poised to your seeming position.
In fairness, you did bob my bobber, but moved on.
Not I note without the required estrogen drenched last word, though.
De rigor, not curious is how it is.
Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.
I’ll give you a free last-last word if you really need it.
Fight the need.
Jesus-Mercy-Peace.
Given the comments of the one juror about the holdout--"He just couldn't get over the fact that Lindsey viciously killed her children"--I'd say the prosecution proved it's case quite well.
This is a case of activism, not justice.
The reason I don’t worship Muslims is not because I’m ignorant. Quite the contrary. But you go ahead and enjoy your servitude.
To what do you think I’m in ‘servitude’?
You strike me as someone of shallow thought who jumps to kneejerk judgments of people and things of which you don’t really know anything or understand.
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.