Just one year ago, a woman was brutally slaughtered by a stranger aboard a train in Charlotte, North Carolina. Had it not been for the likes of the late Charlie Kirk, Iryna Zarutska’s tragic death would have gone virtually unnoticed. Somehow the brutal stabbing of a helpless and harmless white woman on a train wasn’t enough to stir up the feminists into fighting for laws to keep other women safe, despite Zarutska being the supposed archetype of the woman feminists should exist to protect: young, defenseless, harmless.
But feminists found their champion roughly one year later in Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mom on trial for slaughtering her three young children. Women have waited outside the courthouse where the trail is taking place, they’ve flooded social media with bizarre theories justifying Clancy’s heinous actions, and they’ve even gone so far to suggest Clancy never even committed the killings despite admitting to it. According to the so-called feminists, Clancy is the victim of the never-ending demands of motherhood and a society that fails to support women and mothers. The three dead children are merely footnotes in the story.
But the difference in response by so-called feminists highlights the fact that feminism has never been about protecting women or actually empowering them. Feminism has always been merely another tool of the left to usher in radical social transformation. Feminism cares not about true suffering, innocence, helplessness, or anything of the sort. Instead, feminism just cares about how useful a particular person or incident is in promoting left wing ideology.
Take Zarutska’s murder for example. Zarutska was stabbed by Decarlos Brown, Jr., a homeless black felon with at least 14 prior arrests who was back out on the streets. Video footage of the killing showed Brown saying to himself, “I got that white girl.” Her death was as much racially charged as it was a direct result of Democrats’ soft-on-crime policies. Therefore, focusing on her death would threaten the left-wing narratives about race, crime, and public safety, so in turn her womanhood meant nothing to feminists. It didn’t matter that she was an innocent female victim to policies that endanger other females too. What mattered was whether her death could be used to advocate for a left-wing cause, and since it could not, her death was ignored by the movement that should’ve been at the forefront in the fight for justice.
Clancy, on the other hand, could have her killing spree turned into an indictment about how awful motherhood is, mental health treatment, and society’s supposed burdens on women. For so-called feminists, Clancy’s womanhood could be weaponized to blur good moral judgement and instead focus on the left-wing narratives of motherhood, mental health, and society.
In fact, another example of how feminism has no real convictions is the case of Shiloh Hendrix. While at a Rochester, Minnesota, playground with her son last April, an 8-year-old Somali child allegedly ran to Hendrix’s diaper bag and stole something. Hendrix reportedly shouted at the child and called him the n-word. A fellow Somali bystander, Sharmake Omar, began following and recording Hendrix and asked if she called the child a racial slur. Hendrix confirmed she did, and then called Omar the same slur as well. During this interaction, Hendrix is seen walking away from the Somali nationals. (Notably, Omar was charged in 2022 for allegedly raping and sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl. The charges against him were later dismissed “in the interest of justice.”)
Hendrix was later found guilty on one count of disorderly conduct toward Omar and was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, placed on probation, and ordered to complete community service.
The same people who will say that you need compassion, context, and protection for the Clancy types of the world are the same people who were either silent on Hendrix or supportive of jailing Hendrix. Her sex couldn’t save her because for the left — and feminists — race is a higher priority than sex. The same movement that is trying to downplay Clancy’s actions by coming up with conspiracies and bizarre justifications are the same people that could not find any context — like Omar stalking and following a woman with a baby — sufficient enough to mitigate Hendrix’s use of an offensive word.
Taken together, these three women prove that womanhood has no real value when it comes to feminism. Zarutska’s womanhood was ignored because recognizing her victimhood would lead to scrutinizing left-wing policies on race, crime, and public safety. And Hendrix’s womanhood was ignored because race is a higher priority for leftists than sex. Meanwhile Clancy’s womanhood was elevated because it helped peddle the narrative that womanhood and, by extension, motherhood and mental health, are problematic.
Whatever the outcome may be of Clancy’s trial, so-called “feminists” revealed themselves to be nothing more than left-wing sociopaths who care little about womanhood and more about their ideological escapades.
