After the Lindsay Clancy trial ended in a mistrial, one female juror who voted “not guilty” embarked on a press tour. Her objective apparently was to cast herself as a feminist hero and the lone holdout juror as a strange, stubborn man. According to Juror Paula Devlin, the women on the jury saw the case as a “turning point” and a way to “make it better for other women.”

“[W]e knew that we had a chance to get a conversation started that could change something, that could maybe stop this from ever happening again,” Devlin said in another interview.

The fact that the nine women on the jury thought acquitting a self-identified murderer was worth it to get a “conversation started” is exactly the kind of thing folks in the “manosphere” have been warning us about all along.

For those unfamiliar with the term, “manosphere” is a catch-all name for men who organize online to oppose modern feminism. While this definition in itself is so broad that it could incorporate even many women (this author included), the more newsworthy segments of this informal group believe women are inferior beings, that women should adopt modesty standards consistent with Sharia law, and that men, even married men, should be allowed a plethora of sexual partners while a woman must still remain pure. These more extreme segments of the manosphere include the notorious pimp Andrew Tate.

The Clancy case has captured national attention not only for the gruesome details of the murder, but because Clancy and her supporters showcase the worst way in which femininity can be perverted. Clancy, allegedly, turned from her natural instincts to cherish and protect, choosing instead to harm and kill the very little ones she had a duty to protect.

Clancy’s actions are a real-life display of what pro-lifers have been warning us would be the natural result of a culture that embraces abortion. If feminists would support a baby’s murder in the womb because he is inconvenient to his mother, what would prevent her from supporting a toddler’s murder if her mother happened not to like her? Apparently, nothing.

It’s not hard to see why a man who watched the events of the last few months unfold would come away with the notion that women are vapid flakes intent only on their own self-aggrandizement, willing to destroy and kill whatever lies in their selfish path. Indeed, the only real way he could resist this feeling would be to log off the internet and begin acquainting himself with some real women who are as appalled as they should be by this murder.

So far, there has been no public opinion survey to gauge national feelings about the trial. To say that “women support Lindsay Clancy” may or may not be necessarily true. Very likely, spending a bunch of time reading online opinions about the trial is going to only present one possible story about female sentiment regarding Clancy, namely, that they overwhelmingly support her.

But whether or not the majority of women support Clancy, it is at least a large enough subsection of the population that a jury almost acquitted her, and a member of said jury feels unashamed going on national TV to explain her rationale. Feminists are unprepared for the woman hatred lurking on the outskirts of society, which will soon unleash brash displays of their own heartless misandry. After the way women have acted during Clancy’s trial, it’s going to be nearly impossible to convince anyone that the worst segments of the manosphere are wrong at all.

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal. 

Image credit: X-AF Post/CBS