It could be that the tragedy is being used properly as an opportunity to raise public awareness of postpartum mental illness, psychiatric medication abuse and the inadequate treatment of women in crisis. There is always the pernicious “Hasn’t she suffered enough?” rationalization, which in this case resonates as a real life version of the old joke about the man who murdered his parents asking the court for mercy because he’s an orphan.
I tend to think that while there may be some legitimate issues to raise in the context of the crime, the contrast between the public reaction to the Smith case and Clancy’s suggests that what is primarily going on is cultural rot.
The value of children in American society has been relentlessly eroded by progressives, most recently exemplified by Massachusetts legalizing abortion right up to the moment of birth. Abortion advocates, who have become even more radical and deliberately immune to arguments that innocent unborn children have a right to live, embrace an ideology that views childbirth and motherhood as a form of slavery, as depicted in “The Handmaiden’s Tale.” The climate change extremists argue that children are an environmental threat. Opponents of law enforcement, prisons and personal responsibility are reaching a sick, bottom-of-the-ethics-barrel mindset that even the most heinous crimes imaginable shouldn’t warrant imprisonment or serious punishment. Moreover, DEI and intersectional cant dictate that all women are victims of an oppressive patriarchy. Some of Clancy’s fangirls insist that her husband was the real killer, a theory devoid of any evidence at all. A man who killed his own children would never attract such sympathy.
There is also the observation, made by many in the conservative media and seemingly supported by voting statistics and (yecchh) polls, that women of child-bearing age are an increasingly radicalized demographic in the U.S.
Both explanations of “What’s going on here?” may well be true. However, the lack of universal focus on the young victims of the tragedy rather than its perpetrator still should sound ethics alarms. RedState, the conservative website, wrote, “We need to rebuild a culture that treats children as precious, motherhood as vital, mental illness as requiring serious treatment, and victimhood as something that is not universal.”
Yes. I will add, “and hold the party and ideology responsible for tearing down that culture accountable.”
Ethics Alarms 
Jack asked, “What’s going on here?”
A huge swath of our population has been intentionally indoctrinated into accepting moral bankruptcy as an acceptable social standard, that’s what’s going on here. As far as I’m concerned, there really is no other explanation.
An excellent and sobering two-sentence summation, Steve.
1) bluntly: if Lindsay Clancy was a complete battle axe and not an attractive woman that bored progressive wine moms can envision themselves being, she would have exactly none of the support she’s been getting.
2) we are past the bored progressive wine mom stage of support and have moved on to the sexless progressive handmaid LARPers. Next phase is topless Frenchwomen parading through Paris.
Oh. Lindsay Clancy has AOC eyes.
Be warned men.
It might be exacerbated by the attractiveness factor, but I’m definitely seeing a trend emerging among the terminally online regarding gender-based violence.
When a man murders his family, it’s indicative of what’s wrong with men–they’re violent, impulsive, and uncontrollable. When a woman murders her family, I see a growing number of people who attribute it to anything but womanhood, or even just humanity in general. She was a victim of depression or mental illness, she was a victim of physical abuse (this almost always gets brought up even with no evidence to suggest it), the system failed her, etc.
I think what we’re seeing here is simply the very Marxist idea of turning everything into the political. The people interested in doing this are the same ones who will ignore the negative implications of the spectacle (women commit violence too, discourse has devolved to the point that many now see political violence as acceptance, etc) and find a way to shoehorn it into their desired political outcomes.
You do know that what your describing is how modern psychology treats the issue, don’t you? If a man were to murder his family, the therapist would focus on his anger hand how it hurt others. If a woman murders her family, the therapist would focus on what she was feeling and how society made her feel that way.
A man with cluster B personality issues is a psychopath. A woman with the exact same symptoms is now called an ’empath’.
Susan’s Smith’s allegation that a black man kidnapped her kids kinda undermined her insanity defense. It made her look like she was hiding something, almost as if she knew that what she did was wrong.
-Jut
Where’s the study that demonstrates feminism has made progressive women the most unhappy cohort (by leaps and bounds) in the United States? And that’s even with our culture geared almost entirely to cater to the demands of feminism.
At least some of these women will rally around just because there is a woman on trial, and women are oppressed, can’t get a fair trial, etc.
It is hogwash, and she would have a really tough time if I were a juror.
The one thing that may catch everyone up is the sheer number of prescriptions she had. Something like a dozen drugs and multiple prescribers.
Still not innocent, but perhaps the jury is more sympathetic than I.
That’s pretty much along the lines of the point I’d like to make. Lindsay Clancy admits that she killed her children, and the entire defense is essentially insanity due to the depression and subsequent drug prescriptions she was given. I can’t really explain the sheer amount of support for her in general, but a subset of people defending her are women who 1) feel the issues around post-partum depression are ignored or not given due attention, and 2) feel that the treatment people receive anymore from doctors is a cocktail of medications that ultimately make matters worse.
In the case of Lindsay Clancy, she went for treatment for post-partum depression after the birth of her third child. She was prescribed and antidepressant which immediately made her symptoms worse. The psychiatrist she was seeing, following her training and the common practices of the field, said the worsening condition was due to the drugs not being effective yet, and upped the dosage. For the next 4 months, Lindsay was given 13 different drugs with increasing dosages to try to handle her deteriorating condition. The forensic psychologist called for her defense described her state when she killed her children as a psychotic break characterized by mass hallucination. In that state, the defense argues, she could not have known what she was really doing. I think I read something (so don’t quote me on this point) that she was hearing a voice that made her think killing her children was the way to protect them.
The prosecution is arguing that Clancy’s actions, phone records, and internet searches ahead of killing her children and then attempting suicide show obvious signs of premeditation, so it is anyone’s guess what truly transpired. We’ll see what the jury decides. The outcomes for Clancy are either life in prison or life in a psychiatric ward, so either way, she’ll be removed from the public.
The reason I’m at all willing to offer some sympathy to Clancy is that I’ve struggled with depression since junior high, and I’ve been given some medications from time to time. I’ve never liked being on any of them, so I’ve never been on them for very long. But some medications will strike you like a thunder bolt. I had one that left me hot, nauseated, and feeling out of my mind the first couple of days I was on it. We switched to taking the meds at night, and I still felt out of sorts. And this was on the lowest dosage they prescribe. The doctor I spoke to gave me the typical rundown you’ll hear from many people: a quick, 15-minute appointment, prescription of one type of drug, weekly evaluation of how the drug is working, and either adjusting the dosage up or changing to a different medication if the current one doesn’t seem to be working or has weird side effects.
I don’t believe this is at all healthy. I understand antidepressants seem to help a great many people, but doctors seem to only throw medications at people without much more thought than “one of these will probably work, so we just have to find the right one with the right dosage.” And this, in my mind, is ridiculous. And it should terrify us that so many of these antidepressants and antipsychotics have potential side effects of increasing depression and/or causing suicidal ideation. Yes, occasions of people actually going fully overboard on these medications are rare, but shouldn’t we be far more hesitant at pumping people full of medical cocktails in the hopes this numbs the bad feelings they’re having? Shouldn’t we spend more time addressing the underlying issues?
Back to Lindsay Clancy, I can’t imagine what state of mind she was in by the time she killed her children. But my experience is that you spend 3-4 weeks minimum on a single drug before deciding to move to a different one, unless that drug shows immediate side-effects that need to be counterbalanced. And some of those meds require weeks or months of weaning off, or else there’s the risk of a psychotic episode from the withdrawals. And she had been prescribed 13 different drugs in an 18 weeks stretch. That in itself seems criminally negligent on the part of her care providers. I’m more than willing, from those details alone, to believe she was truly out of her mind when she killed her children and tried to kill herself. And from that standpoint, I’m willing to give her some sympathy.
That being said, even if she were truly out of her mind, she needs the pysch ward. There’s not getting around that.
Thank you for this perspective and thoughtful input. I hope you are feeling healthier these days.
The same bunch supporting Lindsay Clancy didn’t seem to have much sympathy for a frustrated mother, Shiloh Hendrix, who merely yelled at a kid.
Shiloh was not suffering from post-partum depression. She was suffering from post-psychotic white privilege syndrome.
jvb
Eventually only the sane, rational, law abiding, white, heterosexual, traditional by any standard, Christians or Jews will be responsible for all legal, social and individual wrongs…facts be damned.
Would these people simped for Elliot Rodger or Dylann Roof?
I think there’s a massive, “Who are we to judge?” vein running through current day leftyism. It’s part of the attack on law and order intended to usher in the revolution. Somebody’s organizing those protests outside the courthouse. They’re not spontaneous.
It’s also a major reason why I have only five commenters and the average blog traffic of curling website. The whole idea of a third party rendering ethical judgments is anathema to a majority of the nation.
When did this happen and did broadcast television have anything to do with it? I am very interested in the impact television shows (not news shows) – both drama and comedy – have on shaping American opinions, particularly our mores and values.
I think it started in philosophy and in the academy. The post-World War Two invasion of the academy by the French deconstructionists, who were simply old school European Communist/Marxists. It spread from there, into entertainment, of course.
I have to break down any comment by the groups involved:
1. L. Clancy – She’s on trial. She did the deed. By her plea, I would say that’s an admission of being the one to have done the deed, her defense is not that she didn’t do it, her defense is that there’s disagreement to the severity of the charge due to her mental health.
That is a proper question and should be settled by the courts / justice system.
2. The Parents and their Fundraisers – As I had heard it, money was being raised to support her parents through this and provide them with a place to stay because 3 years of motel rooms adds up.
It is a noble enough goal for the parents to attend the trial and confront the facts and reality of what is determined regarding your child. The people legitimately raising funds and supporting only this goal are probably showing some kind of exemplary ethics in being able to overlook the “Ick Factor” of the case and demonstrating a duty to care. How much easier would it be for the parents to not confront reality and wipe their hands of their daughter?
3. The Grifters – Ostensibly, there must be online grifters that have their own interests in play. They find hot button issues to sell some t-shirts and signs and whatever else will turn them a profit. They’ll lie about donating money and they’ll fan the flames to market and sell their wares.
These people are scum and not real people. They likely use AI generated video characters to fan these flames and profess their own special kind of virtue.
4. The Protestors / Defenders / Supporters – Providing financial and material support to someone they have no prior connection.
These people are deranged and one has to question where they came from and who has time to commit to such folly at a time when everyone and their mother is complaining about the cost of things. Why would anyone protest due process? She’s making her case in a court of law and the fair process will play out resulting in a judgment. This isn’t an area for “opinions” and to influence an outcome. Its meddlesome and the act of a narcissist that believes in one’s own “greatness” or “importance” over that of an impartial judicial institution.
I hope someone is using AI to identify each of the people at these protests. Every single teacher there needs to lose their teacher certification. I’m sorry, you don’t get to advocate for the premeditated murder of children when you have other people’s children in your care. The same thing goes for the nurses in that crowd.
It is kind of like a bunch of anesthesiologists protesting to make it legal to have sex with people under anesthesia without consent. It doesn’t prove they are going to do something wrong, but you have to wonder…and you want their licenses revoked.
Here’s a pretty good deep dive on the case:
https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/the-axioms-of-motherhood
I expect our host will appreciate this part, which will be a hard pill for many to swallow:
I am not in favor of protests outside courthouses in criminal trials. It is the task of the jury to sort out the facts, and make a decision on whether the defendant is guilty. The jury will be presented with the relevant evidence in due course to reach the verdict. The protesters are being presumptuous in having already reached their verdict without all the relevant evidence. The protesters mind has already been made up; I presume based on ideological axes to be grinded.
It is not the first time that a mother kills all her children, with post partum depression being offered as the cause. In 2001 Andrea Yates killed her five children in a bathtub. The prosecutor sought the death penalty, but she was convicted to life without parole. The verdict got overturned in 2006 due to false witness testimony, and in a subsequent trial she was declared not guilty due to legal insanity. Legal insanity is a very high hurdle to clear in a criminal case.
I understand that there is empathy for mothers with postpartum depression. I cannot muster any sympathy for a mother who kills her own children. In a culture that values life empathy for such a mother cannot override the horror of the murder of her children; don’t these children deserve much more empathy?
I’m puzzled by your last question. When we give much more empathy to the deceased, what does that call on us to do?
It seems like the priority in such a case is figuring out what process was happening in the mother’s brain that led to her killing her children. Do we ascribe the act to her real self, or to a malfunction? Was it neurologically possible for her to decide not to kill anyone? What, if anything, do we think she should learn? Under what circumstances, if any, would she be able to earn trust?
Perhaps more importantly, how do we prevent such actions in the future?
I’m temped sorely to apply an absolute standard here. You kill babies and children intentionally, I don’t care why. It’s an absolute breach of civilization’s foundational rules. The full measure of punishment is required.
I agree that child murder is a bad thing that we don’t want people doing. As far as its prohibition being one of civilization’s foundational rules… how much do you know about the history of your species?
A lot of human civilizations didn’t think that killing children (or adults, for that matter) was always bad, and I don’t think that’s the main reason many of them were conquered by other civilizations, who were pretty blasé about murder themselves. I am glad that the surviving civilizations decided to dial back the murder, though.
I guess my point is that you can assert that you have concluded that something is absolutely unethical under any circumstances, but you can’t accurately describe your own ethical judgments as “civilization’s foundational rules.”
I’m puzzled by your last question. When we give much more empathy to the deceased, what does that call on us to do?
The children who have been killed deserve justice. I will leave it up the the jury how that justice looks like.
Perhaps more importantly, how do we prevent such actions in the future?
That question cannot be addressed in a criminal trial. Given human nature evil will always be with us. So will mental illnesses. Now we can have a discussion about how our society deals adequately with mental illness, but that is a whole different conversation; and not one the
So many people on the left have been brain washed into hating “The System.” “The System” is responsible for all evils, oppressions, feelings, and badthink. It’s nebulous enough that you don’t need to pin it on any actual law, system, person, or specific example. It simply exists, impacting every aspect of our lives, and responsible for all that is wrong with the world. It can be the patriarchy, white people, colonialism, judeo-christianity, heteronormalism, or capitalism – or any combination of the above, depending on which gives you the most clout.
And if you can frame anything you do as striking against “The System,” then you are striking a blow for oppressed people everywhere, and therefore, to be lauded. There is no crime, no evil that is greater than those committed by “The System,” so the more it is hurt by your act, the better.
Much like school shooters, we’re going to see copycats soon, I’m afraid. There’s no such thing as bad attention, and if you can strike a blow against evil, you’re a hero. If “The System” punishes you for striking a blow, it just means you’re a martyr, and that much more justified.