Feminists Ignore Women Like Iryna Zarutska, Rally Behind Lindsay Clancy, Federalist Argues

A new column in The Federalist argues that mainstream feminism has abandoned its stated mission of protecting women, instead rallying only around cases that serve left-wing political goals. The piece, written by an author who draws sharp contrasts between three high-profile cases, contends that the left’s reaction to women in crisis reveals a movement driven by ideology rather than genuine concern for female victims.

The column centers on Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother currently on trial for the deaths of her three young children. According to the author, so-called feminists have rallied around Clancy, waiting outside the courthouse, flooding social media with theories justifying her actions, and even suggesting she did not commit the killings despite her own admission. These advocates frame Clancy as a victim of the relentless demands of motherhood and a society that fails women, with the three dead children reduced to footnotes in a broader indictment of maternal expectations.

But the author argues this outpouring of sympathy stands in stark contrast to the reaction, or lack thereof, to the murder of Iryna Zarutska, a young woman stabbed to death on a Charlotte, North Carolina train in 2025. The column notes that Zarutska’s death received little mainstream attention until the late Charlie Kirk amplified her story. The alleged attacker, Decarlos Brown Jr., was a homeless felon with at least 14 prior arrests, and video footage reportedly showed him saying, “I got that white girl.” The author contends that Zarutska—young, defenseless, and harmless—should have been the archetypal victim that feminism exists to protect, yet her death was largely ignored by the movement.

The difference, the column argues, is political utility. Zarutska’s murder, with its racial undertones and connection to soft-on-crime policies often associated with Democrats, would complicate left-wing narratives about race and criminal justice reform. Therefore, her womanhood meant nothing to feminists who prioritize ideology over individual suffering. In contrast, Clancy’s case offers a convenient platform to criticize motherhood, mental health care, and societal pressures on women, making her a more useful symbol for the left, regardless of the tragic loss of her children.

The column also cites a third case: Shiloh Hendrix, a Minnesota mother who was convicted of disorderly conduct after a confrontation at a Rochester playground in April 2025. According to the column, Hendrix shouted at an 8-year-old Somali child and used a racial slur after the child allegedly stole from her diaper bag. She then used the same slur against a Somali bystander, Sharmake Omar, who was recording her. The column notes that Omar had previously been charged with raping a 16-year-old girl, though those charges were dismissed “in the interest of justice.” Hendrix was fined $1,000, placed on probation, and ordered to complete community service.

The author argues that the same feminists who demand compassion and context for Clancy were silent or supportive of jailing Hendrix. Her sex could not save her, the column says, because for the left, race trumps sex. The movement that concocts conspiracies to downplay Clancy’s actions could find no mitigating context for Hendrix’s use of an offensive word, even as she was being followed by a man with a history of serious allegations.

A Pattern of Selective Outrage

Taken together, the column argues that these three women demonstrate that feminism has no real commitment to womanhood itself. Zarutska’s victimhood was ignored because it would lead to scrutiny of left-wing policies on crime and race. Hendrix’s womanhood was dismissed because leftists prioritize race over sex. And Clancy’s womanhood was elevated because her case supports the narrative that motherhood and mental health are inherently problematic.

The author concludes that feminism has “always been merely another tool of the left to usher in radical social transformation,” caring little about true suffering or innocence and instead measuring a person’s worth by their usefulness in advancing left-wing ideology. The column ends with a sharp condemnation, describing so-called feminists as “left-wing sociopaths” who have revealed their true priorities through their disparate responses to these cases.

It is important to note that this is an opinion column from The Federalist, a conservative publication, and it presents a pointed critique of modern feminism. The cases it references are drawn from public reporting, and the column’s framing reflects a particular ideological perspective. Readers should weigh the arguments presented against other sources and viewpoints.

Source: thefederalist.com — https://thefederalist.com/2026/09/02/from-iryna-zarutska-to-lindsay-clancy-the-left-only-likes-women-if-theyre-politically-useful/