"Hugh Anthony, who has 66,000 followers, has taken aim at 'modern-day feminists' who are 'satanic freaks … masking [alleged murder] behind psychosis.' Another man brags about dumping a woman because she empathised too much with Clancy’s postpartum psychosis. 'I can’t ignore or gamble my future children,' it reads, to the tune of 2,800 likes. Yet another, from Collin Rugg, a bloviating X provocateur with 2.8 million followers, claims that men are taking their wives’ support of Clancy to divorce court. He shared a video of an attorney who said he would help male clients strip ex-wives of their visitation rights based on their views about the case.... [Men] are whipped into a froth by manosphere types leveraging a tragedy against all women. [Women] are crassly using that tragedy to show the systemic brokenness of marriage and motherhood, bending the facts around their feelings.... Both sides of this tawdry tit-for-tat are incapable of making this catastrophe about anything other than themselves."
Writes Poppy Sowerby, in "Men and women are falling out over Lindsay Clancy. It’s sick/Content creators have hijacked a tragic murder trial and turned it into an ugly proxy war over gender politics" (London Times).

73 కామెంట్లు:
Republicans pounce! See all these men responding to crazy shit women said, did and organized around? Aren't they terrible people to notice women raising a million dollars for a triple child murderer and indicting her husband based on astrology? Misogynists!
As red flags go, sympathizing with a child killer—especially your own child—is a doozy.
Give this poor woman a break, she was just performing a post-birth abortion.
If the opposite had happened and men came to the defense of a man who killed his children . . . o wait, that would never happen. The behavior by these women is shameful.
Murderers Clancy, Kohlberger and Mangione are heroes are certain quarters. Been that way forever.
It's not a gender war. Murder is murder. And infanticide is infanticide, no matter how much nonsense you apply to it, Add in all the young women swooning over back shooting Luigi Mangione, and you have to wonder if there's something in the water that some women are drinking.
The people on both extremes represent a miniscule percent of the population. IMO the real question is why do we amplify their insanity?
…if you had to play If You Had to Argue there’s plenty of evidence modern sat feminists are satanic freaks, yes. In this case however I’d place blame on the Boston area medical community. She had two rows of a pharmacy swimming around in her system including a dozen psycho meds…
…I find it disturbing I can tell when someone is getting drugs from their psych team. Is it just me or is it obvious to everyone?
"Both sides of this tawdry tit-for-tat are incapable of making this catastrophe about anything other than themselves."
Says the woman who felt compelled to write an article about her feelings about all of this for the Times of London. With a byline.
In other news, killing your own infant and toddler children is not good and not excused. Not ever.
Not ever.
"it was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." Orwell 1984
The great feminization of modern society , especially in education, has been a complete and total disaster. We have a few generations of 'well educated' and well medicated women gleefully pushing Western civilization over the cliff.
Infanticide is not good for children and other living things.
Most of the commenters today are proving the author’s point.
A perceived "burden". Planned parenthood. Pro-Choice religion. Gendered differences. Diversity (e.g. feminism) or class-disordered ideologies. #HateLovesAbortion
Broad-brushing is a national pastime now.
I don't support Clancy, and I highly doubt that most women do. So why tar women generally? It's sloppy. Tar the women who deserve tarring and leave it at that. Otherwise, it's just typical axe-grinding over broader, yes, grievances; in other words, using a tragedy to further one's own set of knee-jerks.
As for Clancy, I have no problem with "just desserts" for her. My concern is for the murdered children.
"deserts"
Her posterity evolved short of her expectations. Entertaining abortive ideation, she extended her tentacles to wrestle their viability, it was her Choice to relieve the burden of Diversity, a hubris conception of gender differences, and class-disordered ideologies. RIP
Gender politics is a many tentacles conception of sex-correlated attributes (e.g. sexual orientation) and Diversity (i.e. color judgments, class bigotry). Abort. Sequester. #HateLovesAbortion
I can’t access this particular article but the comments that I have read criticize the women who are actively supporting Lindsay Clancy.
BTW there’s a GoFundMe, “The Musgrove Family Fund,” which has raised about $1,086,803 toward a 2 million dollar goal. It was created for Lindsay Clancy’s parents, Mike and Paula Musgrove—not directly for Lindsay—and says it is intended for their travel, lodging, and living costs while supporting her through the case.
Liberal white women are the fifth horse rider of the apocalypse.
Men have a right to advise each other to avoid Clancy supporters.
The satanic outfit worn by the modern fem movement is the Margaret Atwood costume. That's how you know you are in the presence of a moron-demon.
"a bloviating X provocateur with 2.8 million followers"
Bloviating Times provocateur Poppy Sowerby has a paltry 2000 followers on X.
The internet drives people to extremes. We see that in politics. I could call it the "Princess Diana Phenomenon": massive, exaggerated grief when Diana died, and then a massive counterreaction from the stiff-upper-lip brigade. It's curious that the polarization is so strong with the (still alleged?) murderess while Dolly Parton only gets waves of love and admiration.
White leftist females are the Peggy Flanigan(D)
Pure evil.
I have great sympathy for Clancy, and I hope the jury finds her not responsible and commits her to a mental hospital for decades. That said, I have little sympathy for the crazy women who are claiming that Clancy’s husband is the real murderer. I would be very worried to leave a child with someone who is so delusional.
Human rites are an ethical practice in transhumane sects performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress. #HerToo
Her fetuses outside her womb, the burden of her babies could have been resolved with a selfie-abortion. A planned parent... hood without collateral damage.
It's a function of victimhood to support people who commit heinous crimes. You get undeserved support from your victim class if you are black or a woman, but I never saw a white male get support from other white males like that. They get support if it's a righteous killing involving self-defense or defending others, but not in cases of true criminal murder like this. Additionally, white males who do righteous killings are often attacked by those victim groups out of pure bigotry, with bad-faith arguments. With blacks, it's racism. With women, it's some kind of psychosis. How else do you explain serial killers having dozens of female suitors after their convictions?
We need to change the culture to support adopting out children. There is never a good reason to kill them when you can give them to a loving home and not ruin you own life too. It's a lot better to be a parent who gave away their kids to protect them than to be the parent that murdered them.
As someone with a lot of experience being a male, I can tell you that we absolutely adore and appreciate women who understand the differences between men and women and who enjoy and cherish being female, assuming they do not kill their children. It's not about hating women. It's about hating crazy and/or evil.
"The people on both extremes represent a miniscule percent of the population. IMO the real question is why do we amplify their insanity?"
Hear hear.
I read an essay by a statistician on Substack yesterday pointing out this fact. She ran the numbers, using the most conservative assumptions possible (that is, the assumptions that would result in the highest number of mothers - because she finds the protesting mothers to be the most disturbing - who think that a postpartum psychosis diagnosis equates to "All is forgiven" rather than to "Whatever may be true about your capacity, you killed your children and can never be free again*") and came up with (going from memory here) 1.4 million American mothers who "support Lindsay."
She didn't try to estimate how many of *those* women even know the facts of the case. If the pro-Palestinian protests are any guide, that number will be huge, and will whittle down *knowing* support for a filicide, however disturbed and drug-addled, to a small fraction of that already small fraction.
I'm wondering if this statistician did the same analysis for Karmelo; I'm assuming the results would be similar. I'd never encountered her before yesterday.
I do think that tiny fraction that loudly shrieks opinions that we are intended to be flabbergasted by is in fact bonkers, but why do we keep letting ourselves be flabbergasted instead of dismissing them as the tiny bonkers fringe? I don't exclude myself.
* Heinlein addresses this point in Starship Troopers. A member of the protagonist's unit is apprehended after having kidnapped and killed a very young child - he doesn't say what else the guy did, but it's there between the lines. The guy is sentenced to death. As with so much else in ST, Heinlein has the protagonist examine the moral foundation of this sentence, and he concludes that if the guy is a psycho, he can't be allowed contact with other people ever again, and if he isn't, or if he "wakes up" one day to what he's done, how could he ever live with himself? Hence, in Heinlein's analysis via Johnny Rico, capital punishment is appropriate.
Is the writer's real name actually Poppy? I mean, what does it say on her birth certificate. I have never met a Poppy in real life.
Could we mount such a defense for an "assigned male at birth" woman who takes the life of her acquired young children?
Homicidal empathy.
“1.4 million American mothers who ‘support Lindsay.’”
That’s about 2%. That’s huge. Yikes.
Let’s be conservative and say 1%. That’s still huge.
SpaceCityGirl said...
Most of the commenters today are proving the author’s point.
The point being that men value the lives of their offspring more than women? She had other options. She could have just walked away.
Fatal femininity.
“She could have just walked away.”
She could have called 911- before killing child 1, before killing child 2, before killing child 3
This case is the tip of the spear for the Death Cult - the cohort that thinks abortion up to the point of birth is a cherished right, that abortions of convenience are a simple modern pragmatism, that children can be carved up to fashion themselves surgically into approximations of the opposite sex as a lifestyle choice (no reproduction possible, or even orgasms), that the family unit is an outdated societal construct, that women don't need men. It goes on and on - but here we have the spear point: A mother should be allowed to murder her children without consequence.
That is the message, and it's of fundamental importance to the cause - thus explaining the energy being poured into it. It seems odd: Trying to breathe life into the proposition that there's a moral right to introduce death to your children.
Feminism is so awful that Poppy cannot complain about women except in the context of complaining about men.
Abortion field. Mass murderer. Planned parenthood. Empathetic derangement.
--- How else do you explain serial killers having dozens of female suitors after their convictions? [Bago]
Something in their internals is telling them the sex with a serial killer would be insanely good. Especially if she can cure him with love. Or -- perhaps -- amplify it with additional hate.
They would deny this process of "thinking" with horror and anger if asked, and inform you that you don't understand the higher motivations.
"The people on both extremes represent a miniscule percent of the population. IMO the real question is why do we amplify their insanity?"
What is the opposite "extreme" of premeditated infancide, Mark???
Support for Clancy is monstrous. Women so engaged may be a danger to their children. Condemning it and them is not resentment. It is a call for sanity.
“What is the opposite "extreme" of premeditated infanticide, Mark???” (10:36) Why, it must be pointing out that strangling three of one’s own children is illegal and unacceptable under any circumstances and that people who defend it are warped. Her trial, BTW, is in Massachusetts, a warped state. Lucky her.
“BTW, is in Massachusetts, a warped state. Lucky her.“
She’ll be evaluated every year after the initial 6 months.
. . . if found not guilty by reason of insanity.
"The awful thing about life is this: everyone has their reasons."
"Burdens" of evidence.
Rrsafety has to be a fake commenter. Don't remember the name here until now.
“ 'I can’t ignore or gamble my future children,' it reads, to the tune of 2,800 likes”
@Althouse, would you or “Poppy” care to explain what is wrong with this statement? Do you believe that men don’t love their children? Are you that insane yourself?
What would you think if you had a friend who was a mother of young children and supported Clancy? What would you think of yourself, if she later harmed her kids. What if she was your mother or wife? There is no way around the fact that this thinking is dangerous to children around such people. It's worse than trusting a pedophile with them.
Mark Twain short story about lionizing murderers.
The load of heavy-duty mentally corruscating pharmaceuticals is overwhelming. Without those distorting her reality night and day, would there have been even the slightest probability of Clancy committing those crimes?
“Without those distorting her reality night and day, would there have been even the slightest probability of Clancy committing those crimes?”
In which case, after detox, she should be free to go?
TechnoFog did a post on this (fairly negative towards Clancy). MA is one of the few states, if not the only, where an assertion of mental incapacity requires the prosecutor to prove criminal culpability to the jury rather than the defense provide supporting evidence as in an assertion of self-defense. The jury also has a smorgasbord of charges including manslaughter so they might go for a middle ground guilty verdict.
As Eva Marie notes if confined to a mental institution she'll be periodically evaluated and as soon as she's not hearing the voices there will be no reason to keep her.
Compare the female reaction to Lindsay Clancy murdering her three children to the male reaction when Travis Decker murdered his three daughters.
This media discussion is so bizarre. It's a very contorted view of why women are supporting Lindsey Clancy. I've been watching the videos on tiktok. These women are analyzing photographs of the crime scene, analyzing the timeline, reviewing testimony for inconsistencies, finding gaps in the investigation, etc. The conversation about these women is not grounded in the reality.
They're looking at the case and finding legitimate holes in the logic.
“The load of heavy-duty mentally coruscating pharmaceuticals is overwhelming.”
It’s unknown how many of her medications she took and for how long. Pill count evidence and testimony indicate that some medicines were barely used and that usage was erratic.
@Lindsey: to get another point of view from these videos, take any of the claims and ask your favorite AI how valid they are.
There seems to be a school of thought founded on the belief that an overwhelming desire for a mother to strangle her children is one of those things that just happens to otherwise good people. I try to empathize. But wouldn't something click into place after you strangled one? After you strangled two? Maybe there are some kinds of mental illness that aren't exculpatory.
What's different between killing own children vs discuss with Dr what to do with child on table and make comfortable
Eva Marie +
"That’s about 2%. That’s huge. Yikes."
Yes, that statistician was deliberately trying, statistically, to make the number of mothers supporting this woman as large as possible, to prove (to herself, she said, angry at herself because she's been doing the leftist thing of seeing the behavior of a small fraction of a demographic and extrapolating it to the entire demographic) that what she was actually seeing was wild amplification of a very, very, very minority viewpoint.
I was adding the context that, as the unfortunately named Linds*E*y, above, points out, a not-insignificant fraction of that minority of "supporters" likely doesn't even know what the facts of the case are, but believe they do, because they're seeing the wild amplification of conspiracy theories about the husband, for example, and believing them because they're all over their feeds.
I myself freely admit that I didn't know what the facts of the case are because I've been avoiding it. My husband hasn't, and I do believe him (because I know the sources he goes to and they're not social media - so they're biased news, but they at least purport to be news) when he tells me that it's pretty incontrovertible that she is the murderer. I take his secondhand reporting onboard, plus the sheer Occam's Razor-ness of it all.
It seems to me that the media has hijacked a tragic murder trial and turned into massive ratings, clicks and views.
I've been purposely trying to avoid this. I've never understood why people get so invested in stuff like this. It's a criminal court case, not a Supreme Court decision. It doesn't affect you in the least. And I've been on enough juries to know that it's not always justice that prevails. A lot of the time the verdicts swing on the quality of the lawyers.
"I've never understood why people get so invested in stuff like this."
In this instance, and frankly I'm not sure why the Karmelo Anthony case didn't grow a similar pair of legs (I know it tried), I think it's because of social media amplification of a point of view that is bewildering and inexplicable given reported facts. And that social media amplification leads to protests (mass or individual-and-uploaded) in support of people who have committed appalling crimes*, and the further amplification of those protests leads the rest of us to think that there is a groundswell of support for these points of view.
From there, we get both bandwagon-jumpers who perceive that ersatz groundswell and decide that this is society's moral direction now so they'd better get on board, and also pearl-clutchers who (rightly, ISTM, if what they perceive were real) perceive that a large and growing number of their neighbors now have no moral compass.
Mark spoke up early herein to urge us all to resist both of these impulses, and I agree with him.
* Lindsay Clancy is and should be presumed innocent while the jury is deliberating, but nowhere does it say that we have to ignore factual reporting, such as that she hasn't denied killing her children. So the presumption of innocence is kind of a cocktail party conceit in this case, it seems to me.
“Lindsay Clancy is and should be presumed innocent”
What the hell. Lindsey Clancy has admitted to killing her children. Her trial is not to determine whether or not she killed her kids. No one disputes that - not her, not her defense team. The trial is to determine whether or not she was insane when she choked them to death.
The drugs Clancy was taking -- whether it was one, two, or the half-dozen that she was prescribed -- are extraordinarily powerful and volatile. And our medical scientists do not fully understand how the brain works, nor do they understand, except in the most rudimentary ways, how these drugs work inside that dark frontier. The dose that worked last week is suddenly producing horrible results this week. Or is it just the patient's mood? Or is it the variance in mental illness?
Taking more than one of these pharmaceuticals at a time is going to be disastrous, sooner or later. But coming off them might also be. Not necessarily murderously disastrous, but quite possibly suicidally disastrous. It will also take a terrible toll on those around you. And the eventual loss of those relationships is a whole other level of destruction.
I am with rrsafety on this case, in at least general agreement. Clancy was sleeping three hours a night because her mind was racing -- not just for a few days, a few bad days; not even just for a few weeks; but for months, if I remember what I read of their court filings. She says she repeatedly told her drug dispenser (ggrrrr, what a miserable set-up we tolerate) that she felt a disaster in the making. Eventually she spelled out that she feared suicide and she feared taking her children with her.
Would that have happened without the misery of these pharmaceuticals lighting up random synapses like fireworks every day and night? The thing that is supposed to cure anxiety ends up, in some if not most cases, multiplying it by several fold. Yet we trust the doctors or, in Clancy's case, a nurse-practitioner I believe, to "understand" and calibrate for intricacies that science can't yet figure out -- and mix and match a batch of mind-bending, emotion-storming chemicals for a mentally or emotionally disturbed patient. And then renew a few of the prescriptions a month later.... and again. And again.
These things are currently being taken by one in six adult Americans, supposedly., with that percentage rising in the younger cohorts. If neither you nor your loved ones are among that group, consider yourselves blessed.
And to whoever questioned who rrsafety is, as though he or she did not belong to the imaginary club here and therefore need not have his opinion taken seriously -- sheesh, get over yourself! I do recognize that screen name, but what the person says in the comment is what should be addressed (outside the trolling of a few).
Let me give a more precise Perplexity approved explanation:
“Lindsay Clancy has admitted killing her children, and neither side disputes that she caused their deaths. But she has pleaded not guilty to murder. The main issue for the jury is whether the prosecution can prove she was criminally responsible when she killed them, despite her insanity/lack-of-criminal-responsibility defense.
If the jury accepts that defense, the result would be not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, generally followed by psychiatric commitment proceedings—not an ordinary murder conviction and prison sentence.“
1. “She says she repeatedly told her drug dispenser (ggrrrr, what a miserable set-up we tolerate) that she felt a disaster in the making. Eventually she spelled out that she feared suicide and she feared taking her children with her.“
2. “These things are currently being taken by one in six adult Americans, supposedly., with that percentage rising in the younger cohorts.”
response to #1: She murdered her children. - Well yes she’s a murderer but she’s not a liar. I don’t trust anything she says.
response to #2: One out of 6 adults is not murdering their children.
Eva, you are the absolute mistress of the non-sequitur.
"Continue reading
Enjoy unlimited digital access.
$1 for 6 months."
No thanks.
Let me just add:
Lindsay Clancy was a registered nurse and worked as a labor-and-delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital for approx. 7 years before the January 2023 deaths of her three children.
Education: At Quinnipiac University, she earned a B.S. in biology in 2012, where she made the Dean’s List for several semesters.
She then completed an accelerated nursing program at Massachusetts General Hospital. She was described as a straight-A student and was highly regarded as a skilled nurse.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.