A couple of current events have come to the forefront of our collective social consciousness, and they raise the question of whether they are momentous or merely transient. The first event is the mistrial of Lindsay Clancy. The second is the escapades of the Cornell 7 plus one.
Read more Our Brothers to the south, not the east
The poles of the Lindsay Clancy affair span from a novel legal theory that postpartum depression can induce a temporary murderous psychosis to the general realization that women can’t control themselves under hormonal fluctuations, and so they can’t be responsible for their thoughts or actions.
Kevin Reddington is the execrable defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy. Like too many of his predecessor attorneys, he has invented a novel legal theory that undermines the rule of law by eviscerating its plain meaning. His theory is that a woman can’t be held criminally responsible for her thoughts and actions because she is a woman under the influence of her hormones. For the sake of a constitutional republic and the rule of law, it is hoped this is a passing legal anomaly. Considering the horror of her crimes, it would perhaps have been closer to the truth for him to have argued she can’t be held responsible because the devil made her do it (with apologies in remembrance of Flip Wilson).
Lindsay Clancy’s actions belie her attorney’s legal theory. She confessed to murdering her three innocent young children. The murders were planned in detail. She sent her husband away on an urgent errand so she would have the time she needed to commit them. She strangled each of her children, in turn, which took several minutes each.
The most likely legal recourse now is mandatory commitment to a mental institution. The psychiatrists will find nothing wrong, and, after too short a period, Lindsay Clancy will be released back into civil society. She won’t have been forced to be sterilized, so we may get to experience a sequel in a few years.
The momentous side of the question asks whether women are equal to men. Do women have agency? Are women sane, rational, and reasonable? Are women responsible for their thoughts and actions? Do women accept the consequences of bad (and even horrific) decisions they make?
Must we revisit whether women should be seen but not heard? Should the 19th Amendment be repealed so women lose suffrage? Can women be trusted to be even-tempered when undergoing hormonal swings? Are women creatures of mind or just emotion?
The poles of the immoral Cornell 7 plus one orgy range from the critical theory that women are always victims of men (and they can change their minds a thousand times, but they are always right) to the idea that women can’t ever provide consensual approval because they reserve the right to revoke it ex post facto.
Read more Tear down that woke
Graphic: X Post
Letitia James is the political hack appointed by the tyrannical New York governor Kathy Hochul to persecute the Cornell 7. If by nothing else, the process will be the punishment. In a recent debate for state attorney general, Letitia James said, “You don’t have to study the facts and the law. All you have to do is study what they do.”
The Cornell 7 Jane Doe has not been doxxed yet. The Alt-media are too respectful of her privacy. Of course, the Lugenpress are enthralled by critical theory’s contention that oppression and hegemonic power are exercised by men over a helpless woman. Never mind that her sworn testimony has changed multiple times. There is still no word on whether Jane Doe will be indicted for obstruction of justice or submitting false reports.
The Cornell 7 have been doxxed. Unfortunately for the prosecution, especially the virtual trial the Lugenpress will run, critical theory intersects with the oppressors. One of the men is black. So, he is himself a victim of sorts of the white supremacist hegemony? Perhaps he was dragged to the orgy and forced to participate. Nevertheless, all the men bear the irredeemable sin of being male oppressors. This will have to be good enough.
Jane Doe got inebriated at her sorority, left to go to a bar for hours, and then decided to visit a fraternity which happens to be full of men who wish to accommodate a horny young woman. Having put herself in a mindset compatible with her feminist theory that sex is purely for pleasure, and women can engage in sex in any way, just as a man can, she went down a path she later regretted.
Contrary to her early testimony to authorities, she completely reneged later on her tale and now is contending she was raped. It turns out she had no agency. Clearly, she was not responsible for any of her actions. She refuses to bear the consequences of what she knowingly did. Now, we test again the tenet that a woman can change her story and the change must be believed. It remains to be seen if the question will be asked in a legal forum. Did she lie initially to the authorities, or is she lying now?
Intellectually and morally speaking, are women as strong as men? Are they responsible for their thoughts and actions even when they place themselves in risky situations? Do women mean what they say? Does it matter what a woman ever says? Must women be escorted either by a man or in a pack of women? Should unmarried women be chaperoned in public by a brother or father? Have we come to the point, as Islamofascists are advocating, that women be placed in potato sacks and peer out at the world only through a slitted hood? For their own protection, of course.
Parents know they must take responsibility for their small children. Children can’t be trusted to make good decisions. If children can avoid it, they won’t be responsible for their actions. Must women be treated as children (well, hopefully not as Lindsay Clancy’s children)? Or should women be accorded respect and be treated seriously for what they say and do? Do women have agency, or not? It is too soon to know whether these two events are mountains or molehills.
Read more A New Book Reveals How DEI Is Helping To Kill Opera