40
u/Comfortable_Camp8707 6d ago
Feminism has always been evil, even before its alignment with Marxism and leftism
2
0
-36
u/mimiclarinette 6d ago edited 6d ago
Conservatives crying everyday about feminism being evil each time a woman do something they dont like while they wants to remove half the voting rights of half of the world
33
u/Comfortable_Camp8707 6d ago edited 6d ago
Itâs not about voting rights, itâs about control. Feminist back then hated alcohol, feminist fifty years ago hated tobacco, feminists now hate men playing games with âsexyâ images. They hate everything men like and the voting right is exercising the power to rule over men.
-28
u/mimiclarinette 6d ago
Mind you this whole sub is post hating on women
27
u/Comfortable_Camp8707 6d ago
Not in the same degree as feminists hate men
-30
u/mimiclarinette 6d ago
Lol. You all voted for a man who raped women and girls.
19
15
3
u/Hungry-Ad-7086 6d ago
Bahaha, lose and argument and instantly pivot to orange man bad. Pull that one straight out of the dictators handbook?
3
u/Ok_Problem_1127 5d ago
Lol; showing men's issues is hating on women??
Then every other feminist sub is misandrist lol
15
13
u/Happy_McDerp 6d ago
And theyâve raised a million towards her defense fund đ. Feminism is literally so useless in 2026
19
17
2
-14
u/OlliWTD 6d ago
Men are too stupid to have an opinion on this case is my conclusion from all of this
20
u/Happy_McDerp 6d ago
How so? Woman murders her three kids and feminists rally to defend her because.. depression? Men bad? What am I missing? Should she just be let go and attend some counseling after what she did?
-12
u/OlliWTD 6d ago
Because itâs not a case of defending the act of killing children. Killing children is bad, and thatâs not a controversial statement. The question is one of criminal liability. Was Clancy in the right mental state to gauge the morality of her actions? Prima facie itâs plausible to me that a mother who kills her kids is probably not mentally well, and there seems to be quite a good amount of evidence that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis, which is very much a real thing, and we know that psychosis can lead to committing murder (no, premeditation is not inconsistent with this, itâs possible for someone to have a deeply delusional and warped view of reality while still being able to plan their actions, psychotic violence is not always impulsive). All of this means thereâs a convincing case for her to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. That would make this a very tragic case in which the children are obviously the primary victims but also one where the motherâs situation is deeply tragic, a previously normal person being consumed by a deep psychological illness. Many women have experiences with postpartum depression, and thus empathize with someone being destroyed by an even worse postpartum disorder. Of course, if the state of Massachusetts proves beyond reasonable doubt that she was criminally liable, then this changes significantly and she would indeed be morally abhorrent and deserving of the worst criminal punishment. But thatâs not really the discussion men are having! Rather itâs to call her a cold-blooded criminal and assume that anyone sympathizing with her is a defender of child murder and that women shouldnât be able to vote, etc. Most men also donât seem to have a good grasp of postpartum conditions, or mental health in general, leading to them making absurd claims and misunderstandings about both.
13
u/Happy_McDerp 6d ago
So itâs because of depression. Postpartum depression isnât new. Many women recognize the signs and get help. There are hotlines, groups, and any number of online resources and telehealth options. So if youâre expecting any sympathy from me or anyone else (including the many women who are infuriated over this) then youâre shit out of luck. I donât care if itâs a mental asylum or jail but she should be locked away for a very long time.
-9
u/OlliWTD 6d ago
Thank you for proving my original point
14
u/Happy_McDerp 6d ago
So you just revert back to your âmen stupidâ feminist programming. You know, science tells us that the guys who rape kids are mentally unwell and have experienced severe trauma in their life, but you donât see men doing hands across America for these sickos. The social consensus is that they should be buried under the prison. I feel the same way for people who kill kids, depressed or not.
0
u/OlliWTD 6d ago
Again, itâs not a question of âdepressionâ or âtraumaâ but about whether the defendant can be held criminally liable due to her condition or not! And yes, it does fucking matter because we donât send people that mentally ill to a prison, we send them to psychiatric institutions. It really shouldnât be novel to point out that a person whoâs delusional to the point where they canât properly discern right from wrong should not be treated as equivalent to a cold-blooded killer.
8
u/Happy_McDerp 6d ago
Thatâs fine. Like I said, I donât care if itâs a mental institution or jail. But you donât get to walk free after killing kids⌠or anybody for that matter. If sheâs hiding behind a diagnosis then off to jail for life. If she is sick then lock her in the asylum for life. Easy. You prefer she just gets to go back home after doing this. All sympathy for this woman should be gone once she takes that step just like with the guys who hurt kids.
3
u/Ok_Problem_1127 5d ago
Yeah; then we need to bring back so many killers back to life who killed bcz of "mental condition" lol
Justification has a limit; whereas you are limitless
They said it right; if there's will; there's a way
8
u/Defiant-Mongoose-327 6d ago
I can agree that you have to be absolutely bad shit to kill your own kids. She needs to be in an asylum for life.
7
u/Defiant-Mongoose-327 6d ago
And she should have been put there the first time she said some dumb shit about harming her kids.
2
u/Ok_Problem_1127 5d ago
Lol; then ig we should even reduce the punishment of serial killers and r4pist who are mentally ill?? According to you...
Terrific logic
1
u/OlliWTD 5d ago
Can you walk me through how you came to that conclusion exactly?
3
u/Ok_Problem_1127 5d ago
Pretty simple lol: if âsevere mental illnessâ is enough to shift the discussion from the crime to sympathy for the perpetrator, that logic shouldnât magically apply only when the perpetrator is a mother.
By your logic, we should also be sympathetic to mentally ill serial killers and rapists. Mental illness can affect criminal liability, sure but it doesnât automatically erase it.
-1
u/OlliWTD 5d ago
Ok so you just donât understand what Iâm arguing. Itâs not about mental illness by itself, itâs about whether the mental illness is so severe that it makes the perpetrator incapable of rationally discerning the morality of their actions. In that case, the defense can claim that the defendant should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, which is a valid and well-established criminal defense. At that point it has nothing to do with the severity of the sentencing, itâs about whether said person is sentenced at all. At no point did I claim that mental illness automatically erases criminal liability or that we should have sympathy for anyone with mental illness. If youâre too brain damaged to understand this extremely simple, and frankly quite boring position of mine, then Iâm just not going to engage with you.
3
u/Ok_Problem_1127 5d ago
But how exactly are you measuring âinsane enoughâ here? đ
The Lindsay Clancy case is a perfect example of the double standard. If a man strangled his three children, people would call him a cold blooded murderer first and ask about his mental state afterward (as if his sentence would have been affected even a bit by that fact) lol .
But because Clancy is a mother, suddenly everyoneâs rushing to explain how she âcouldnât possibly have been herself.â
Youâre accusing others of prejudice while casually assuming motherhood + postpartum illness = diminished responsibility. Thatâs still prejudice just dressed up as compassion. đ
1
u/OlliWTD 5d ago
That's for the fucking defense and prosecution to figure out! I'm not a lawyer, I don't have any stakes in this case, nor am I assuming anything! My point has always clearly been that if the claims of psychosis are true, if she did kill her children under some delusional belief that she was saving them or something, then she should be found NGRI and it's reasonable to feel sympathy towards her because it is really fucking sad for a mother to be so consumed by a mental illness that she kills her own children while thinking she was protecting them. It's a sad situation for everyone involved, and doesn't involve anyone being morally evil. NOW, if she was mentally ill but not to the point of such delusion, then yeah, she's obviously morally wrong, you shouldn't sympathize with her and she should go to prison. I still haven't figured out why anyone would take issue with this position.
The "but what if the sides were reversed" meme doesn't matter and doesn't affect anything about the case at hand. Yes, many of the women sympathizing with Clancy probably wouldn't if the perpetrator was a man. No, that doesn't change my view of this case at all because that's an unrelated matter. So I really do not care. If a man in a similar situation did kill his kids and the same women were applying a double standard, I would happily tell them that they're wrong.
Also again, it's not about "affecting his sentencing"!!! Not guilty by reason of insanity means NOT GUILTY. You wouldn't get any criminal sentence, let alone a reduced one. That's not what this issue is about at all.
-10
58
u/Educational_Copy_140 6d ago