by George C Michalopulos
I realize that this title is inflammatory to the fairer sex, but what else are we to think about the absolute madness that has surrounded the Lindsay Clancy mistrial? There is no reason to rehash the particulars of this trial, as they are depressing as they are horrific.
We know the aftermath: a lone, brave juror couldn’t bring himself to agree with his colleagues, the nine harpies and two castrati who, for some reason, thought that Mrs. Clancy was “not guilty” by reason of “post-partum psychosis.” The man, a Catholic of Haitian background, could not agree because Clancy was not post-partum –her last child was born eight months prior to her Medea-esque rampage. Not only that, but her husband was an excellent provider who hired nannies to help her out. There are tens of thousands of women who give birth and, because of “women’s liberation,” are forced to go back into the workplace after only two weeks of recuperation. My own wife was one of them.
Oh sure, the liberal will intone at this point that some states mandate six weeks maternity leave, other tack on paternity leave as well. In the social democracies of Western Europe, new mothers have a panoply of perks which most Americans can only envy.
This was not Lindsay Clancy’s problem. She had care that would rival that of a European baroness. And yet, for some reason, she planned a series of crimes that were even more premeditated than the Tate-LoBianca murders committed by the Manson Family.
Nor can we blame Big Pharma. Yes, we are heavily medicated with psychotropic drugs –American women especially–but even in this regard, she went out of her way to “doctor-shop”. Nobody held a gun to her head and told her to commit the fraud that was necessary to acquire this trove of medications. She was not a manual laborer who became addicted to opioids due to injuries or a combat veteran who is suffering from PTSD.
She was none of these. She was a labor-and-delivery nurse, a highly trained professional living in a lovely house in a nice, leafy New England suburb, not a homeless person who had no prospects in life.
I could go on; her evil is manifest to anyone who has a functioning moral compass. Instead, I want to draw your attention to the outpouring of rage from tens of thousands of women on social media whose minds are so broken that they have embraced her as a paragon. This is nothing but shocking and depressing.
Shocking because it’s axiomatic that the default position of women is compassion –not murder–or so we have been led to believe. This public rage turns that supposition on its head. Depressing because a society cannot long survive if an average man looking for a mother for his future children has to wonder if said potential mother is also a would-be murderess. It’s already bad enough to be a young man today with a legal system already primed against fathers in general.
And now this.
These are worthy topics for discussion. If not addressed and solved, our nation is not long for this world. Perhaps it shouldn’t be. But that is a story for another day. Right now, we must address the elephant in the room: the emotionalism of women and whether they are capable of the full rights of citizenship.
One would not think so given the thousands of mostly younger women who are shouting at the top of their lungs that they are “emotional” and not bound by the social restraints that make civilization possible. That we, as men, cannot fathom what it’s like to be a woman, to be prisoners of our bodies, to be –dare I say it?–hormonal. To this, I would agree. As a man, I have absolutely no idea what it’s like to go through menarche, to have monthly aches and pains, to undergo pregnancy and childbirth. I will never know what it’s like to go through menopause. And no other man will either.
That’s why until the twentieth century, women had no say in the public square. They were always under the protection of their husbands or their closest male relative. In most societies, women were not allowed to leave their homes unless they were accompanied by their husbands, sons or brothers. They were certainly not allowed to vote or serve on juries or councils.
They couldn’t transact business or make deals. Their testimony in court was always considered suspect. They were not expected to go to war or, more importantly, have any authority over men as to whether they should go to war. In other words, they had no civic authority because they had no moral agency. As shocking as this sounds to modern ears, the harpies we see on Tik-Tok are making this case in glorious Technicolor.
The liberal niceties of polite society are being exposed for all to see thanks to their antics. In other words, they are making the case for patriarchy for us. That they are unwittingly doing so is the cherry on top of this spectacle. All of a sudden, that which is called “toxic masculinity” is looking all the more attractive. In previous days, this was considered normal. That they don’t realize what they’re doing is ironic at the very least. Because now, “repeal the 19th” is gaining traction online.
Is there a possibility that we can see the day when not only are women stripped of the right to vote but are forbidden from standing for office? One can look at the algorithms and wonder.
Allow me to take my tongue out of my cheek: these things will never happen. I for one, would rather they didn’t. But society in general –and men in particular–should never again be subject to the whims of insane women who can’t see the contradictions of their beliefs and actions.
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised; feminism is the goddess that failed. It could not be any other way.
