After weeks of intense debate, Lindsay Clancy’s case was declared a mistrial. Due to one brave juror who refused to acquit a woman who murdered her three young children in cold blood, a unanimous verdict could not be reached.
As many people have noted, what was remarkable about this case was just how many people (mostly women) supported Clancy. Objectively speaking, there was little doubt about her guilt. And although a narrative arose that portrayed Clancy as a hapless victim of too little support and an unjust system, she enjoyed far more assistance with childcare than most mothers.
So why the effusive praise? Why did this case become such a hot topic for online influencers who either embraced Clancy as some kind of martyr of modern motherhood or devised ridiculous theories absolving her of a crime she confessed to committing? Why were the jurors so ready to bully the one male juror who voted against acquittal and unable to even entertain a contrary view?
There is a wide array of equally plausible theories, most of them pointing to toxic effects of modern feminism. However, if one takes another step back, the reasoning guiding Clancy’s supporters goes further than misplaced female solidarity. In truth, what this whole episode shows is the widespread failure of adults to apply basic logic.
Consider the line of reasoning being applied here. Most of Clancy’s fans conceded that she committed a heinous crime. But they chose to fixate on her various personal struggles—and even fabricate a few more—and this led them to conclude she should not be punished. The children she throttled are disregarded, the story becomes a matter of maternal mental health, and, because of this shift, the verdict now hinges on how a person feels about Clancy’s struggles—not the crime she committed.
The children she throttled are disregarded, the story becomes a matter of maternal mental health, and, because of this shift, the verdict now hinges on how a person feels about Clancy’s struggles—not the crime she committed.Tweet ThisNeedless to say, the conclusion to support Clancy by acquitting her of murder does not follow from the line of reasoning employed. Rather, a large group of people watching the case made a list of pros and cons, became angry about the list, and then tore up the list and complained that society is going to hell because our institutions don’t adequately support mothers.
This is happening with every complex issue that involves logical thinking. Whether they’re evaluating political candidates, controversial issues, theological concepts, works of art, or even romantic partners, most adults will short-circuit in their thinking and come to irrational (and usually dumb) conclusions.
Of course, there’s an obvious cause for this. The great majority of otherwise educated people are spending so much of their waking lives online, scrolling through social media and video apps. This constant barrage of stimuli not only erodes their ability to sit still and concentrate on anything off the screen, but it also shrinks their capacity for higher-order thinking.
This is shown most clearly in the decline of reading skills among adults today. As the writer who goes by the pen name The Doge Patriarch recently explained on his Substack, most people’s shortcomings in literacy are not due to low vocabularies or short attention spans but to poorly developed reasoning skills. As such, the majority of American adults read at levels one and two (out of five levels). Texts written at these levels are logically rudimentary, dealing with only a few ideas and presenting only one viewpoint. Secondary effects, nuanced perspectives, and connections to abstract principles are almost wholly absent.
A dwindling minority of readers can still read at levels three and above, where vocabulary and grammar must expand to accommodate greater complexity of thought. This kind of reading demands more work from the reader, who must have the verbal aptitude to decode and comprehend denser language along with the ability to trace the line of reasoning of multiple claims and arguments. It also requires a textual medium that can accommodate these functions—short videos on TikTok will not suffice.
I observe this daily in my own high school English classes. The stronger readers distinguish themselves by holding several ideas in their minds at once, enabling them to comprehend, analyze, and interpret the meaning of a text. My weaker readers (usually kids who are addicted to their smartphones) struggle to hold even one or two ideas, leading them to misunderstand, misinterpret, and usually hate a text. Moreover, they rarely take ownership of their deficiencies and end up blaming the writer for being confusing and me for picking the text.
Weaker readers struggle to hold even one or two ideas, leading them to misunderstand, misinterpret, and usually hate a text. Moreover, they rarely take ownership of their deficiencies and end up blaming the writer for being confusing…Tweet ThisWhile I do my best to help these weak students, many of them will inevitably move into adulthood with these same intellectual limitations. They will continue to pickle their brains by scrolling through Instagram and TikTok, suffer the consequences of this behavior, and then blame physical reality for its manifold complexities and mysteries.
Thus, they will be rendered perfectly vulnerable for every new moral panic and mass psychosis. All it will take is a coordinated online campaign to sway them on any issue for any reason. The way to win hearts and minds will be recognizing that the majority no longer has hearts and minds, just sensory organs and underdeveloped frontal lobes. No doubt, many pastors run into this issue when teaching the Faith.
Fortunately, the remedy to this widespread intellectual flattening is relatively simple (though difficult in practice): ditch these apps and read more. This will strengthen the mind and enable logical thinking, which will, in turn, lead to more constructive discussions and actual solutions to problems. It will also lessen the potential for sinister or stupid ideas to spread so quickly. Plus, as I tell my students, it will also make them happier and more successful.
If today’s Catholics hope to preserve common sense, a shared culture, and a high standard of living, this is where to start. Reading will save civilization; staying illiterate will destroy it. Hopefully, even my level one and two readers should be able to understand this.
I have followed this case very little, but I see very little discussion of the issues of mens rea and actus reus. Some claim her guilt is obvious, that the question of whether she committed a crime or not is clear, but guilt, and to have “committed a crime” requires not just the act, but the intention in most legal structures of the west. This nuance comes largely from the thinking of Aquinas. Is it obvious that the mens rea has been fulfilled in her case? Was she unable to know that what she was doing was either legal OR morally wrong (or felt morally justified in her actions) due to the effects of psychosis? I haven’t followed the case enough to make an informed opinion on this, but this nuance seems absent in many commentators, perhaps because of the heinousness of her acts. The recognition that acts committed due to true psychosis do not confer guilt in the same way is not new, it goes back centuries. There is some evidence that in ancient times there was this recognition. It is not a women vs men issue, it has been in common law since long before women were formally involved to any significant degree in jurisprudence or meting out justice. To me this is the real and only question, yet I see few of the strongly opinionated commentators unpacking these issues in this case.
IMO her detailed planning, including making sure that her husband was not home to interfere with executing them should be enough to rule out insanity as a defense.
This very, very much is a female thing, more so than anything else. It is not really “toxic feminism”, so much, but just a plain female thing.
Everything that is going regarding this trial was described in exact detail almost a year ago in the greatest thesis ever written on the way how females think and behave, in Helen Andrews’ “The Great Feminization”:
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/
Andrews was/is not a prophet – she is just an honest and courageous woman who was the first to expound this (something that most men instinctively know, but rarely admit these days for fear of reprisal from the women in their lives). Her article is NOT a rejection of feminism/woman’s rights/etc., but rather goes into what happens when women completely take over organizations that had previously been run by men. Women tend to run things in groups, rather than as individuals, and tend to make decisions based on emotions, feelings, grievance redressing, etc. instead of based on facts, reason, and logic – most especially when they are in a group (as individuals they may apply reason, but rarely as a group). It is one thing to run daycares, kindergartens, and even elementary schools based on feelings. It is a whole other matter to run judicial bodies, the legal profession, policing and security, jails, the military, and immigration policy based on feelings. “oh, this person committed murder, but they had a hard life, they should not have to go to jail, it is just not fair that they had such a hard life” or “yes, this person may traffic in children and drugs, but they grew up in poverty in their country of origin – let’s let them in and maybe they will improve themselves here”. Late in the article Mrs. Andrews has this good, and relevant quotation: “The rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.”.
If men had 100% control of the law and judiciary in this case this woman would be publicly executed, as a warning to other women who actually think this is ok. Yeah, that may be “hard” and “not nice”, but that is how civilization and order were created. During the Westward expansion, one of the first things built in a new settlement was always a gallows. Things like schools came later. A settlement had to have adequate defense from both external AND internal threats, before it could develop into a town, have schools, and become civilized.
Islam is evil, as is the civilization that it produces. But it is also incredibly strong, primarily because it lacks any kind of feminizing force. Women are considered property in Islamic society, and the sands of the Middle East are filled with the bones of women who displeased their fathers, husbands, etc. That is terrible and evil, but also illustrates why Islamic culture is so strong and dangerous – rendered more dangerous by the feminizing forces of the West, weakening our defenses against threats like this.
If we cannot secure justice for three innocent children, because there are so many woman worried about how this particular women feels, and what she may or may not have went through, how can we protect ourselves from threats many orders of magnitude higher, which require a lot more “stomach” to fight?
Excellent article. I frequently run into people who will not confront the logical implications of their positions, especially on morality. On issues like abortion, IVF, same sex marriage, etc. they respond with emotional arguments rather than logical ones.