The overwhelming support and sympathy from women toward Lindsay Clancy may be the biggest self-own for women’s rights since we started voting over 100 years ago.
The Massachusetts woman standing trial for the heinous and uncontested slayings of her three children has been met with scorn and condemnation by most people. Yet huge crowds of women have turned up outside the courthouse to show their support for Clancy. Many thousands more have taken to the internet in support of Clancy, who strangled her children aged 5, 3, and 8 months.
Self-proclaimed TikTok detectives have accused the husband of framing Clancy for the murders, citing concrete evidence like… intuition and astrological signs. Other women have attempted to disprove Clancy’s suicide attempt by dangling themselves out of windows and building Bratz doll dioramas to support their theories that her husband orchestrated the murders.
Notably, Clancy has never made any such claims, and the defense instead concedes that she spent roughly four minutes killing each child with exercise cords in the basement of her home. The trial is simply meant to determine whether the killings were premeditated or induced by postpartum psychosis.
Although some women bent over backward to blame anyone but Clancy, others embraced her decision and even related to it. Several women filmed themselves crying, throwing ice cubes in bathtubs in an apparent fit of rage, and rocking their sleeping infants with captions like, “Same, Lindsay.”
If any man on the internet said women are too emotionally volatile to make basic moral decisions like not murdering people, he would be widely panned as sexist — but Clancy fans are making that exact argument. If that’s the standard they want to be judged by, fine — but if you’re too hormonal to know you shouldn’t kill your kids, you’re probably too hormonal to vote.
Voting in America initially was not regarded as a universal right, but rather a privilege first granted to male property owners and eventually to black men, women, and other racial minorities.
John Adams made the restrictionist argument in a 1776 letter to James Sullivan, writing that men who were “wholly destitute of Property” were consequently “too little acquainted with public Affairs to form a Right Judgment, and too dependent upon other Men to have a Will of their own.”
“Such is the Frailty of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgement of their own,” Adams added. “They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds to his Interest.” In other words, without skin in the game, it’s impossible to have a fully free and informed opinion.
Voting was later expanded to include all men, who had plenty of skin in the game. They paid taxes, were eligible for the draft, and fought the country’s wars. For this reason, President Richard Nixon signed the 26th Amendment into law in 1971 during the Vietnam War, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, which was the draft age.
Women made similar arguments. They weren’t eligible for the draft or fighting in our wars. But they contributed to the war effort, paid taxes, were affected directly by marriage and family law, and performed responsibilities of citizenship such as working and raising children.
Above all, suffragettes argued that women possessed the same intellectual capabilities to exercise political judgement as men, and therefore they should be granted the same political privileges as their husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons.
Unfortunately for women, Lindsay Clancy truthers are now doing their best to prove those suffragettes wrong. Women’s constitutions and hormonal balances are so precarious, they argue, that women should be exempted from our criminal laws and ruled incapable of making moral judgments. Sounds oddly reminiscent of the “sexist” men they claim to detest.
It’s highly unlikely that a majority of women would condone Clancy’s actions, but a nonzero amount do, and those women don’t hesitate to assert that they speak for “all women.” These women who say, “Same, Lindsay,” and insist that she is “one of us” are ironically saying that women, as a whole, cannot be trusted to control their emotions.
If Clancy fans need more evidence that women’s emotions can sometimes lead to suicidal or homicidal conclusions, they might note the high numbers at which women vote for self-destructive policies such as unfettered mass migration or transgenderism. The perverted sexual ideology that erases women and violates their children was enabled by overwhelming sympathy from women. Women openly embrace the same migrants that pour into countries only to rape and murder those who were most sympathetic toward them.
As reductive as the argument stating that “women are just too emotional” may be, hysterical Lindsay Clancy fangirls are making that exact case. By insisting that Clancy represents all women, they’re arguing that it’s not just Clancy who is unable to regulate her emotions, but all of us. It’s not just Clancy who is capable of killing her children; it’s all women.
This dangerous, self-inflicted analogy has become a more convincing PR campaign against women’s suffrage than anything you could find in the most obscure corners of the manosphere. If society takes women at their word, I will have no sympathy for them.
