The Lindsay Clancy Case Shows Why Civilization Must Reject Feminine “Ethics”
The jury system cannot survive moral illogic and the refusal of objectivity
Janice Fiamengo, Sep 26, 2026
It’s difficult to assess the prevalence of the Clancy phenomenon, in which a female-dominated consensus, sentimental and vicious, formed swiftly around the alleged suffering and humanity of a woman who killed her three children in a premeditated act.
A YouGov poll from early in September showed that the difference between men’s and women’s reactions to the trial was not as stark as one might have expected from the public furor (women were more likely by about 10 points to support a verdict of not guilty).
But it’s fair to say that the thousands of women—and a few men—expressing impassioned identification with Clancy represent at least a troubling minority whose voices are dangerously amplified in our public culture. Their self-righteous emotionalism corrodes the priority of reason in public life, especially the commitment to equality before the law.
The centering of women’s suffering has a long history. Here, I focus on one relatively little known, but powerful, influence that highlights the connection between feminist rationalizations of abortion and Clancy supporters’ tacit acceptance of child-murder.