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?
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.'
Delete