I know the country has erupted over the Lindsay Clancy trial. I seldom comment on things like trials since I'm not a lawyer, and I'd probably just make myself look stupid for discussing the legal ins and outs. If anything I'll mention what is happening around such a trial. Which brings me here.
For the record, from my observations, the outrage erupting over this, the outrage that the MSM is desperately trying to contain, isn't driven by people wanting to discuss postpartum issues. It isn't even from the women who insist the man must always be guilty, so there is a vast conspiracy to cover up the fact that the father murdered the children. As my oldest pointed out, as batty as that is, at least they hold a higher moral grounding. After all, they're saying they support her because the believe she is innocent. Fair enough.
No, the flamethrower that has created the firestorm of outrage, and the group the MSM has done its level best to downplay or sweep under the carpet, is that segment of women (mostly) who have rallied around Clancy, declared their allegiance to Clancy, who have raised a million dollars for Clancy, and have proudly declared that it matters not one whit if she killed three or thirty kids or none at all. Because it's the Ya-Ya Sisterhood that matters full stop, end of statement, that's it. Women first, and everything else 5th at best. And they have continued saying it when there has been pushback. That has caused the outrage. That has caused the most people - including women - I've ever seen in my lifetime come out and say it might be time to rethink feminism all the way back to women's suffrage.
Which brings us to the interview with three of the jurors. Never have I seen an interview with people do more to damage to everything those interviewed clearly yearn for than this. It's a hoot. Find it on the internet and shake your head. Or be ashamed. Much of it was them trashing and belittling the holdout juror. Nothing in their interview suggests they were jurors merely seeking justice and wanting to do whatever was right. Not a single damn thing. But then then this juror said this:
I saw the broadcast and knew in a split second that this statement would explode across everywhere. And it has. Rightly so. Because not only was it delivered with all the soulless disregard of a Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101 terminator, but it was framed as a major character flaw on the part of the holdout juror. The Male holdout juror BTW (that point being constantly made in the MSM - see the Oppressed v Oppressor template I mention below). It was said unironically as if being unable to get over the children's vicious murders was yet one more character flaw of his. These are murdered children, yet apparently it's a defect in your character to get hung up on the fact. As my son pointed out, she even used the connotative 'vicious'. That's what the prosecution should say. Make it sound really bad. But she, who clearly said she wanted Lindsay to beat the wrap, says it was a vicious murder, accepts that it was a vicious murder, and agrees Clancy did it. But the only problem is the juror, the Male juror, who got hung up on it. And she said it as emotionally as one might say he just couldn't get over us having toast with our sardines.
If you support women's rights, this is your hour to get to the rooftops and scream out against this Daughters of the Handmaid's Tale brand of feminism. That outgrowth of the women's movement that says women should rule, they can destroy and murder and women should still rule, end of argument. If this keeps up, I wouldn't be surprised to see the last century and a half of women's rights unravel over the next decade or so. If women don't call it out, however, then I admit I have a hard time believing that's a bad thing if this is where women's rights must go.
Oh, and if you ever wondered what the late Rush Limbaugh meant with his controversial term Feminazis - wonder no more. This is group intersectionality through the oppressed versus oppressors template writ horrible, but increasingly common among leftwing activism. The question is, how far are we willing to let it go?
UPDATE: So it came out that the lone holdout juror is black. Which shouldn't matter, yet we all darn well know it would. If this was a black holdout juror who resisted an all white jury trying to convict a black man, it would make all the difference in the world. Not to mention the overwhelmingly contemptuous and disparaging way in which the interviewed jurors spoke about him. Can you imagine if the holdout who was black was doing what the Left/Press wanted? Whew. We'd have George Floyd level international outrage. Plus, it looks like the press is now switching to secret police mode, and digging into the black holdout juror's past to find anything with which it can destroy him or at least his credibility and reputation. As it does anyone or anything that gets in the way of the Left's agendas. The fact that he's black? It matters no more than women harmed by transgender men or people defending the slaughter of Israeli Jews on October 7th. That is, not at all.
This whole situation is just horrendous and I’ve honestly tried to avoid as many details as possible because it is just deeply upsetting. We do 100% need a better conversation in this country about caring for women who are postpartum (and mothers in general!) but this trial is NOT the right catalyst for that conversation and I fear has done far, far more harm than good. The demonization of her husband especially I think is just terrible and helps nobody. But also, the media has done backflips to turn this entire situation into an absolute circus, which of course brings out the crazy opinions on all sides.
ReplyDeleteDo the unhinged opinions of a segment of women in response to this trial mean we should “roll back feminism all the way back to suffrage?” That doesn’t follow to me. We don’t talk about putting all men in jail because a certain group of men support and idolize people like Andrew Tate (well, I’m sure some people say that, but I think we can agree that they have a ridiculous opinion!) The answer is not to further ostracize women by saying all women should have their rights revoked because certain women are saying heinous things. We ought to be building bridges between the sexes, checking in with postpartum and young mothers (and older mothers. I think all mothers could use support and friendship, not cause they’re a special class but cause they’re people and we live in a very isolating world!) and not letting this or that heinous act by this or that person of either sex color our opinion of that sex as a whole. Men and women are discrete categories of people, yes, but each and every person in that category should be treated as an individual, not as part of some class where the bad actions of certain members result in punishment of the whole group.
With the possibility of a couple extreme exceptions, I don't think they actually mean abolish the 19th Amendment. But this has pushed people. And again, not just because of that very loud and visible group putting women as the only consideration without concern for the kids, but because they haven't backed down. I saw Oprah had a special taping about this. And sure enough, it's the mom who matters. In fact, the takeaway that people ran with from that was a black doctor who said, while hopefully such a tragedy never happens, we know it will. When it does and it's a woman of color, will we make sure she gets the support and passion before her that white Clancy got? Again, not the kids, not the victims, the woman as first and last of anything that matters. I get that there has been festering anger at feminism for some time, beginning with #MeToo, and then the obvious double standards with how that was applied. Then you have the Transgender men with women problem, and those women - usually not impacted - throwing women who have been impacted under the bus. Reminding us old codgers about how prominent feminists declared support for Bill Clinton because of his defense of abortion rights, even if a few sisters got assaulted in the process. And now this. As one young woman on FB said, all of this has made you wonder just how much the women's movement actually cares about women. It hasn't been helped by this very loud segment making it clear that however much they do or don't actually care about women, they absolutely don't care about the children. And again, it's that in the face of people criticizing, they haven't backed down or even repackaged their rhetoric. They've hunkered down and said variations on 'you're darn right the only thing that matters is women.'
DeleteThe family had a nanny working 3 days a week. Her ex-mother-in-law testified, "that Lindsay Clancy's family was aware she was struggling and tried to assist her in finding help."
DeleteI completely agree that mothers need support. I just don't see any sign that Lindsay was not getting any. By all accounts and testimony, she received more support than the average woman.
Nate, this is where it gets tough since the news media died. It's impossible to find out just what was happening or what the facts are. The media will just ignore swaths of a story at this point, and you're stuck looking to the Internet, which isn't exactly the most credible source for information. I have heard that, but again, not from any news coverage (which has been bumper sticker level, but has ebbed more since the disastrous juror interviews).
DeleteIMO, we've faced several sets of issues since 1919.
Delete==
The least consequential were defects in the legal - formal order in regard to the status of women. These would have been (1) categorial exclusion of women from jury service, (2) imbalances in the available berths open to men and open to women in public higher education, (3) excessive discretion in admission and retention standards in public higher education, (4) mandated discharge of married women in public employment; (5) categorical exclusion of women from public sector positions where brawn, courage, danger, and fraternity were not crucial features of positions / organizations; (6) non-functional membership standards in unions acting as collective bargaining agents; (7) limiting the prospects of people with certain ascribed traits via collective bargaining agreements. Recruitment and promotion in the public sector (and in private natural monopolies) is properly regulated by timely and competitive civil service examinations. Some categories of people might be deemed ineligible to take the examinations (which might properly include physical fitness tests) - e.g. aliens or people with criminal convictions not expunged with the passage of time. (As a rule, protective service occupations are properly reserved for men bar positions in women's auxillaries). Some adjustments in matrimonial law as it was administered ca. 1945 might also have been in order as well as efforts to define as tortious certain activities in work places which map to common crimes like extortion and harassment (with liability possibly extending to supervisors, managers, and companies).
==
Please note that anti-discrimination law applicable to private parties is generally at war with freedom of contract and freedom of association. One manifestation of the advocacy of characters like Karen deCrow ca. 1970 was a hostility to men associating with men and a desire to exterminate male spaces. Everyone's rights were compromised by this.
==
Please recall Joan Didion's critique of the magazine-article feminism of the era. She found the ultimate motor a flight from the constraints and disappointments of adult life. That was one aspect of it. Others were the valorization of sheer willfulness, the hostility to beauty, the hostility to agency and accountability (in circumstances when it was inconvenient), and the ongoing rhetorical games to justify self-centeredness. You can see all the manifestations of this.
==
We would all benefit from more virtue. And more liberty.
I’ll be perfectly honest, I’d be okay rethinking the 19th amendment. Obviously it won’t happen because that’s the one crowning achievement that gets pointed to as why feminism benefits every woman. “But you can vote, right?”
ReplyDeleteAnd the visceral reactions you get even musing on such a thing exactly proves the point that women do in fact think more emotionally and are therefore susceptible to manipulation.
Unfortunately, the dross of feminism coats even the church world as well.
Anyway, IMO, these women heavily sympathize with Clancy because of abortion culture. Many of them have also likely viciously killed their own children… in the womb and don’t know what to do with their guilt. So if Lindsay is not fully liable for her actions, maybe, just maybe they are not fully either.
Addendum thought: social media has probably been the single worst thing that has emerged for women in particular and for society in general. It would probably be better to keep the vote and get rid of social media. Sanity might again have a chance 🤪 or we might just have to wait the millennial generation out. In my experience, millennial women are pretty much peak worst social media users. They’ve been most influenced by it, most damaged by it, and most attached to it. The younger generations seem to have a bit more of a balanced approach, at least so far.
DeleteBernadette I keep working on a post that social media may be more disastrous for humanity than the atom bomb. (I don't mean just what it does to women - but to all of us.)
DeleteI call that the topic where angels fear to tread. And I don't think, as I said to Aria above, that people saying end women's rights really mean it. What they are doing is what should have been done decades ago. And that is, explaining to women that just because equality and rights should be theirs too does not now give a blank check to women to think they are all that matters, they get whatever they want, it's all about them, and that includes murdering children as a less concern than the women who murder them (but see transgender activists engaging in school shootings and being the victims in the process). Ultimately, as we witness with the transgender issue, the worth of these and all women is likely only important insofar as it serves greater agendas. Right now, to somehow sanction the idea that even if a woman murders children, she - as the oppressed group - is still the main concern, would be quite the coup over basic sense and human decency. Until, of course, that woman runs afoul of a transgender activist. And therein lies the dilemma for the modern Left.
DeleteNate, that will be an excellent post. Whenever I read that passage about the end times where "men's hearts will grow cold and evil will be magnified"...I think of social media.
DeleteDave, I already think the transgender thing is subsiding. Now it's going to be Islam, I think. Although, I will never understand why the woke left is so happy to cozy up to such an opposite ideology, except they think they are using them when in reality, it's far more likely they are the ones being used.
Bernadette, I've said the transgender movement became a bridge too far for the Left. When transgender activists were called the victims for shooting up schools and churches and killing kids, when they unleashed calls for ultra violence against women opposing transgender talking points, and now that it's come out that surgeries have been performed on minors - and transgender activists are more or less defending what they said was never happening, it's more difficult for anyone to defend. Yes, those on the Left are turning a blind eye. But one of the few boons of social media is that the old media aided 'blind eye approach' is no longer that effective.
DeleteIMO, this fiasco is another argument in favor of eliminating voir dire. Have prospective jurors appear at a cattle call, put them under oath, and have them answer a series of questionnaires.
ReplyDelete==
A. One to identify people properly categorically excluded: (1) those not citizens, (2) those younger than 25 or older than 86, (3) those who have been members of the bar, (4) those who have worked as police officers, (5) those who've had a felony conviction, (6) those who have had a misdemeanor conviction in the last twenty years, (7) those who have been hit with a civil fraud judgement, (8) those under adult guardianships, (9) those who've had a disability adjudication for anything but a physical ailment.
==
B. The second to identify people who can exercise an option to refuse service. (1) working members of the medical profession and allied, (2) those working at firms with fewer than 20 employees, (3) homebound persons, (4) those caring for homebound persons or pre-school children.
==
C. Those acquainted with the principals of a particular trial (applicable to selection for that trial and not others slated for jury selection). That would be the victim(s), the counsel(s) on each side, and anticipated witnesses.
==
The judge and the commissioner of jurors then review the questionnaires and define the pool for each trial. You pick the first 16 names out of the box, 12 jurors, 4 alternates.
One thing might help would be to have more populous superior court jurisdictions with multiple judges hearing criminal cases at any one time. With the cattle call in question, you'd be screening prospective jurors for multiple trials (criminal and civil) and the jurors filling out the questionnaire would have no idea for which of them they might be selected.
DeleteI've heard quite a few asking questions about the entire system. Though in fairness, it's not the first time I've heard people question things. The firestorm around this is that 1) women who are even now circling the wagons and saying, while it's a tragedy the children were murdered, the fact it only the woman ultimately matters, and 2) more jurors giving the impression that they went straight into the trial for the purpose of ensuring the verdict conforms to point #1. The ultimate next phase in the Left's group identity template for existence.
DeleteAnd now the media hunts for the lone voice of justice.
ReplyDeleteThat would explain why a growing number of minorities are beginning to question just how much the Left actually cares about their particular minority groups. This, plus that 'who needs morals when they get in the way of winning' strategy. I'm sure you recall when people who tried to point out the criminal behavior of George Floyd they were smacked down as the racists they were. Now look at this. Because Floyd could be used to advance the anti-Western objectives of the Left. But this juror? He got in the way of the anti-Western objectives (in this case, murdered children being less important than the oppressed demographic group of women). In game terms, this is called cheating, but since the Left owns most of the outlets to call it out, don't expect it to go away any time soon.
DeleteThere are personal rights. There are civil rights. I'm not sure you can say that there are such things as 'women's rights'. You could say that personal rights and civil rights should not be much different for women than they are for men. (Much of the legal-formal distinction was dismantled between 1840 and 1920).
ReplyDelete==
One difficulty we have in discussing such matters is failing to distinguish between rights and obligations and failing to acknowledge that the proliferation of 'rights' threatens liberty.
I seem to recall that argument way back in the day of the ERA movement - the Equal Rights Movement. I was pretty young then, but it seems that women's rights activists were wanting it for a particular set of rights guaranteed for women. While the argument was they already had rights by virtue of being US citizens. I hadn't thought about that for years, but it seems it was brought back up a couple years ago during Biden's presidency. That certainly seems to be the mentality here - that ultimately it's about women, full stop. Everything else, including the killing of kids, is subordinate to women who are the ones who matter. I notice that when the MA governor came out and spoke to this, regarding the whole postpartum topic, she said we must see to it that women are cared for, that men are cared for, that families are cared for. I noted - and my wife noted - that she didn't say that children are cared for. That was left to be assumed to be part of the overall family, just not by name.
Delete