Saturday, November 21, 2015

Little Murderesses

Title: Little Murderesses
By: Robert St. Estephe
Written for: A Voice for Men
Dec. 7, 2015 (Nov. 21, first draft)
Word count: 4,439 + notes
Images: 5 images in body of article


“Patriarchy both creates the rage in boys and then contains it for later use, making it a resource to exploit later on as boys become men.” – bell hooks (Gloria Watkins) [1]

1. The slipperiness of History

This quote by Gloria Watkins represents a core precept of establishment “politically correct” dogma: little boys are rageful; little girls are not. This version of the standard  canard of feminist dogma is presented by a woman who has carefully branded her professional persona as prefect “outsider.” Yet she is, in reality, a woman who is in reality a consummate representative of official “correct” (or, orthodox) thought in this age of dominance of the public discourse by a purportedly anti-establishment network that constitutes today’s actual de facto “establishment.” [2]

Watkins has (as “bell hooks,” a pseudonym chosen to evoke nineteenth century slavery) branded herself for the marketplace as it currently exists: the politically correct establishment marketplace. There is money to be made in helping make ideological claims into apparent “truths.” And agendas into self-evident “solutions” worth endorsing. Ignorance of pertinent information surrounding any given matter makes it easy to trick people into assenting to the actions of powerful entities and to accept dogmatic bromides as established fact.

Buried in academic journals there is a whole lot of knowledge that, because it does not support the establishment orthodox narrative favored by powerful shapers of public discourse (whether these “influencers” be wealthy not-for-profit foundation, for-profit global corporation, global NGO, government bureaucracy, or indoctrination centers that in former times were properly called universities) – is unknown to the public and to all but a few non-scholarly writers, the sort of writers who educated persons usually pay attention to and look upon with respect as authoritative voices.

Beyond this buried away knowledge, there is also in existence an incredibly large amount of archival information – previously inaccessible data which is, literally every second, being digitally converted from long-unexamined print media sources – and which, like most good scholarly articles, simply does not get a look. This newly digitised information when examined turns out frequently to contradict the theories both academics and the general hold to be “settled,” therefore unchallengeable, and thus to be taken as obviously true descriptions of reality.

With a priori assumptions firmly in place, our consensus-obedient tunnel vision will, in effect, make us believe that evidence contradictory to the prevailing accepted theory simply cannot even exist. After all, all knowledge is accessible on the internet isn’t it? All you have to is just look it up, right?

The general acceptance of the notion that history (regardless of geographic region, regardless of genetic makeup of populations) is correctly represented as a clear linear “progress” causes many people to assume knowledge and facts of the past are mere incidental details, insignificant decorations of the big story that barrels strait forward. The paradigm of “progress” keeps things very simple. You can just look up the details on Wikipedia. No big deal!” This is the view of the dupe, the sucker, who had been perfectly set up to fall for the “consensus” con-jobs that are pushed by the and the architects of public policy and their establishment propagandists through their various cooked-up narratives that are in turn grounded in a ideologically distorted grand scale narrative.

Mountains of facts thus sit around in archives unexamined – and are supposed by the “experts” simply not to exist, being mere incidental details that are unnecessary to understanding reality – since the theory, the model, suffices to explain everything.

Such a presumed nonexistence of contradictory evidence presumption serves the purpose of reinforcing a convenient self-serving self-delusion: since, due to increasingly repressive political correctness strictures operating in the present day, there are few academics who would dare risk their careers by delving with concentrated seriousness (and to do so publicly) into the potentially “incorrect” truths (PC-narrative-threatening truths) that such archives would, when closely examined, so very inconveniently bring to the light of day.

Nevertheless this essay’s author has done just that: looked at unexamined data that touches on matters that are supposed to have long been “settled” by scholarly consensus. The essay at hand, “Little Murderesses,” provides you with a tip-of-the iceberg overview of some of what I consider to be the more explosive (scandalously “incorrect”) gleanings I have come across in my digital searches of tens of many millions of pages of text (through the miracle of the search engine) to date.

Following you will find seven selections from a collection of over 100 cases I have collected that I label “Youthful Borgias.” These are murder accounts which, for the general public and for most scholars as well, give a picture of reality that goes awkwardly and bluntly undermines generalities of received wisdom with regard to the topic at hand, namely female aggression, and which, more broadly, seeks to challenge the comfort one has in “settledness” of the historical record and one’s confidence in the authorities who peddle the standard narratives.

2. “Critical Theory” and Mass Amnesia

Back in the supposedly backward 1950’s the chilling effect of political correctness did not have hold. Cultural domination through “discriminating tolerance” (meaning strict intolerance of all that does not conform to neo-Marxian ideals) was only a glimmer in the eye of Herbert Marcuse, “father of the New Left” (and his buddies too, of course). See the cited Janet Fiamengo video [3].

In the cave man 1950s it was possible to openly and discuss violence, aggression and criminality and attempt to discover its empirical reality – including the violence of the female. In 1950 a ground-breaking study The Criminality of Women by scholar Otto Pollok was published, and to this day has not been matched in its ambitious scope and apolitical seriousness (unconstrained by utopianist ideology).

The 1950s gave us a remarkable artistic representation of female aggression. In 1954, one of the most unsettling artistic creations ever to have explored the subject of female aggression, William March’s quite shocking novel, The Bad Seed, came out. The book relates the story of an 8-year old female serial killer, a descendant of a serial killer grandmother. The Bad Seed was a sensation and was quickly followed followed by a play adaption later that year and by a movie in 1956. Though it must be noted that the ending of the story was had to be significantly altered in order to satisfy the Motion Picture Production Code censors. In the novel and play the little demon goes unstopped while in the movie her homicidal career comes to an end with her own, accidental, death.

Few realize that March’s fictional little murderess, Nancy Kelly, has quite a good number of parallels in real life. We shall explore a few of them here.

3. Seven Completely Forgotten Little Murderesses 

The names of nineteenth century figures Lizzie Borden and Jack the Ripper are still widely known more than a century after they erupted on the scene, not because such types of criminals were unprecedented, but rather because each was an unsolved mystery which made for reams of newspaper copy over a long period of time, building up the story in the public mind so that the stories achieved iconic status. Yet before Lizzie Borden there were plenty of Little Murderesses  – including at least three other nineteenth century little killer Lizzies. [4] There have been many criminals who committed more sensational crimes that, because there was no long public investigation and trial and because the crimes did not become legendary “unsolved mysteries,” their stories have been quickly forgotten.

Let us look at seven original newspaper texts telling the stories of Little Murderesses. The collection includes, by the way, a forgotten story of a “Lizzie” that is infinitely more shocking than that of the famous Lizzie.

A. 8-Year-Old Murderess from Missouri, 1867

We begin with a case that quite perfect challenge to Gloria Watkins’ feminist formulation of boy-rage: the death of the four-year-old Martin boy at the hands of his eight-year-old sister. Murder motive? Rage, plain and simple.

FULL TEXT: A little daughter of a Mr. Martin, of Cassville, Parry county Mo., only eight years old, deliberately shot and killed a brother of four years on the 4th of July. She said she killed her brother “because he pulled her flowers and declared “if the other children pulled any more of them, she would shoot them too.” Her father found the infant murderess besmeared with blood, dragging her mangled and bleeding brother from the room into the yard, when she let go her victim, and turned and glared with a savageness said to be truly frightful. A physician intimates that the girl was insane. [Untitled, The Evening Star (Washington, D. C.), Jul. 29, 1867, p. 4]

We can at least begin to get a vague notion of the pervasiveness of female aggression – which, from time to time, might result in fatal consequences by noting some events that took place in the four-month period, March through June, 1885.

B. 4-Year-Old Lizzie Lewis – Port Jefferson, New York, 1885

The next case, involving the deliberate and planned – incredibly violent – murder of a baby by a cruel four-year-old girl (that’s right, four!) offers an intriguing new morsel of grist for the “gender and empathy” and “gender and violence” mill. The Lizzie Lewis case is, in my humble opinion, is one that particularly worthwhile for readers to make a note of for future use. Read on and the reason for I think so will become glaringly obvious.

FULL TEXT: The New York Tribune of yesterday says An attempted child murder occurred in Port Jefferson, L. I., on Wednesday. The would-be murderess is a little toddler of four years, while her victim breathed its first a little over six months ago. The condition of the baby sister last night was such that its recovery could not be assured, and should it live it will be disfigured for life. On the west side of Port Jefferson Harbor stands a small frame dwelling house occupied by Madison Lewis (colored), his wife and three children, the oldest a boy of six years. Lewis is a laborer and leaves home early every morning to work on one of the farms in the neighborhood. His wife washes for the farmers. Early yesterday she left her infant sleeping in a cradle in the bedroom. Outside her four-year-old daughter Lizzie, and her son Henry were playing. After bidding them to take good care of the baby she hurried on to her work Lizzie suddenly jumped to her feet and lisped : “Lets till baby, will we?” [sic]

The little boy followed her into the house and into the room where the baby was quietly sleeping. Placing a chair in front of a shelf on which lay the knife that her father uses in dressing fish, Lizzie obtained it, and toddled over to the side of the cradle, saying to Henry: “Watch me.” Lizzie was laughing, while the boy, half frightened for fear she was in earnest, said, “Don’t hurt her, Lizzie, or she’ll cry.” Reaching the cradle they both stood by it watching the sleeping babe, when suddenly Lizzie’s arm was uplifted and fell, the knife penetrating the infant’s eye. The blood spouted and the baby screamed, while the boy, now thoroughly alarmed, rushed from the house screaming and crying. Lizzie did not mind the blood, but as the baby screamed and cried it seemed to add to her delight, and she kept on slashing and cutting until satisfied, when she threw the knife into the cradle and started for the yard.

Mrs. Lewis, who had been informed of the occurrence by her son, hurried home. Lizzie met her at the gate, and clasping her little hands together, on which were spots of blood, exclaimed: “Oh, mamma, dust see baby, all tut up,” [sic] and she laughed and toddled into the room behind her mother, who, when she gazed into the cradle and moved back the blood stained blanket, realized the truthfulness of Lizzie’s words. Without waiting to question her daughter, she clasped the little bleeding baby to her breast and hurried across the street to a neighbor’s house and leaving the little sufferer to be cared for hurried to the village for medical aid. The face was a mass of cuts and stabs from which the blood was flowing. Lizzie has always evinced a hatred for the baby, and frequently told her mother that it should be cut up. [“Probable Murder By A Little Girl, - Deliberately Setting Out to Kill Her Infant Sister.” Reading Tribune (Pa.), May 22, 1885, p. 1]

C. 9-year-old Mary Cooper, Scottsville, Virginia, 1885

Pure rage is the motive, yet again, in the slaying of William Barret, aged seven. The Mary Cooper case offers a quite perfect challenge to Gloria Watkins’ formulation of rage – as being just a boy thing.

FULL TEXT: Richmond, Va., March 25.—The murder of a child reported from Scottsville some days ago has been fully confirmed by the confession Monday night of Mary Cooper, the 9-year-old girl who committed the crime. The victim was Melville Barrett, 7 years old, and a cousin of the young murderess. The two children lived with their uncle near Scottsville, in Albemarle county. The girl was suspected of the crime, but the only evidence to support the suspicion was the statement of a little 5-year-old sister of the girl.

Strong circumstantial evidence points to David Cooper, the uncle of the children, as the murderer, and he was taken to jail, though the smaller of the girls stated from the first that her sister killed the boy “for eating her egg.” The girls were to be taken to the court house Tuesday to testify before the grand jury, and in talking to Mr. Bledsoe and others Tuesday night the elder of the girls acknowledged that she killed the boy, saying she and her sister persuaded him to get on a chair ostensibly to put up a swing; that when the rope had been attached to the ceiling of the cabin she made a loop into which he was made put his head; that then she knocked the chair from under him and struck him several severe blows over the head with a shovel. [“Precocious Depravity. - Murder By A Nine-Year-Old Virginia Girl. - She Hangs Her Seven-Year-Old Cousin for ‘Eating Her Egg,’” The Daily Journal (Freeport, Va.), Mar. 25, 1885, p. 3]

D. 10-Year-Old Rebecca Samuels, Barnesville, South Carolina, 1885

This South Carolina girl was a repeat offender. By the age of twelve she had two homicides (apparently) to her credit, having started killing at the age of ten.

FULL TEXT: Barnesville, S. C., June 27. – Rebecca Samuels, 12 years old, has been convicted of the murder of Lucy Graham, a six weeks’ old infant that she was nursing. She soaked the child in a pot of concentrated lye. The only cause for the crime is that the prisoner killed the child to escape daily nursing it. This is the second crime of the same kind she has committed within the past two years. She appeared to be totally unconscious of what was going on during the trial, and twice went to sleep in the dock with her head resting in her hands. She has an innocent face, and is not apparently in the slightest degree affected by the result of her trial. She has not been sentenced. [“A Nurse Girl Soaks an Infant in Concentrated Lye. – A 12-Year-Old Girl’s Crime.” Salt Lake Evening Democrat (Ut.), Jun. 27, 1885, p. 1]

E. 6-Year Old Bottoms girl, Kentucky, 1892

The six-year-old daughter of Kentuckian Mose Bottoms of Kentucky not only killed a baby deliberately but was quite vocal about being interested in repeat performances.

FULL TEXT: Danville, Ky., June 4. – The 18-months-old baby killed by its demon 6-year-old sister, both daughters of Mose Bottoms, colored, at Atoka, five miles west of here, was buried in the colored cemetery near Atoka Friday morning in the presence of a large concourse of colored people, a few of the whites who live in the neighborhood being present.

To say that the whole community is horror-stricken over the terrible deed conveys but a mild idea of the situation. The youthful murderess expresses no regret for her act, but says she always intended to kill the baby, and would have done so long ago had she not been watched so closely that she could not.

She is fairly intelligent, and never manifested any special viciousness until a desire to harm her baby sister was first noticed when she mashed the poor little innocent’s finger and toe-nails off with a hatchet ten days ago. She experienced more pleasure in thinking and talking about what she had done than pain over the severe whipping she received for her unnatural act.

When the fifteen-year-old colored girl, who had been watching the children all day to keep the eldest from harming the baby, returned to the room she found the murderess in great glee, and still swinging the deadly club in her hand, while at her feet lay the lifeless form of her victim.

Her father, an honest, hard working colored man, is almost heart broken over the horrible affair. He lost his wife seen after the birth of the murdered infant, and since then, having to go out to work, the children have been badly cared for. When asked this morning if she would like to kill any one else, she answered that she would like to kill some mere babies.

It is not known what will be done with her, as she is too young for a criminal prosecution to be thought of it is probable she will be sent to a school of reform, as it is generally feared that if permitted to go at large she will develop a murderous propensity equaled to no child of modern times, save, perhaps Jesse Pomeroy [4], whose terrible murders of twenty years ago are still remembered with horror. [“Another Demon – Kentucky Produces a Veritable Female Jesse Pomeroy, – Who Chuckled With Glee After Murdering Her Baby Sister. – She Says She Is Glad She Killed the Infant, and Wants a Chance to Butcher Some More – Community Horror-Stricken Over the Deed.” Public Ledger (Maysville, Ky.), Jun. 4, 1892, p. 3]

F. 14-Year-Old Repeat Murderess & False Accuser, Ohio, 1895

Anna Bell was another South Carolina girl with a habit for murder. She started killing at the age of 11 and by the age of 14 she had developed a full-fledged criminal personality.

FULL TEXT: Cincinnati, O., July 20.- A Special to the Post from Columbia, S. C., says: A report from Fairfield county says Anna Bell, a 14-year-old negro girl, killed a 3-months old baby and then hanged a 9-year-old boy over a well and burned him with a poker because he refused to agree to say that he had killed the child.

The girl had been sent to the house to cook dinner by the parents, who were working in a field near by.

In a few minutes she called the parents and told them the boy had killed the baby.

The boy was found suspended over the well, and he told the story of the girl’s crime.

The same girl, two months ago, was found disinterring a corpse to rob it of a breast pin.

Three years ago she killed another baby, but was cleared at her trial because of her age. [“Ferocious Anna Bell – Has Killed Babies, and Has Robbed a Dead Body.” The Sunday Post (Boston, Ma.), Jul. 21, 1895, p. 1]

These are cases of girls committing a savage murder and blaming the crime on a boy: 13-year-old Carrie Sampson of Tallahassee, Florida whose torture and murder of a baby in 1899 was amazingly in its vicious violence; and Nellie Corneilson of Wichita, Kansas who in 1902 tried to put the blame on her little 5-year-old brother for slitting their 3-year-old sister’s throat from ear to ear with a razor. [6]

G. A 11-Year-Old Female Serial Killer who Committed Suicide, Ireland, 1907

We close our story collection with one of the most remarkable serial killer cases of all time. The main points of Irish lass Mary Maher’s story are shown in the following excerpts. Three successive premeditated murders, and another almost successful attempt, are mind-boggling enough for an 11-year-old, but the child’s suicide following her discovery as a killer puts this in a class apart.

Oh, I almost forgot to note … that this story is one of strictly female on female domestic violence.

EXCERPTS: A mysterious series of tragedies, which have created considerable sensation in Dunkitt, County Kilkenny, Ireland, would (says the “News of the World”), in the light of a terrible sequel, seem to have been the awful handiwork of a little girl of 11 years. Mary Maher, the girl in question, committed suicide, and in her tragic end the police think, lies the true solution of the fate of her three sisters, Katie, Bridget, and Statia, aged respectively 1, 3, and 4 ½ years, who died in quick succession without any apparent cause.

Before taking her life, Mary Maher had tried to murder her only surviving sister, Maggie, aged 8, by strangulation. In the grim annals of crime no parallel exists to the formidable indictment which is presented by an official list, or diary, of events. Summarised, the shocking story is told in these words:

August 21, 1906.— Katie, a 12-months-old baby, in good health, dies suddenly.

August 27.— Bridget, aged 3 years, succumbs mysteriously.

September 8.— Statia, 4 ½ years old, found dead under singular circumstances.

October 17.— Mary Maher, aged 11, attempts to murder her only surviving sister, Maggie, 8 years old, by strangulation.

October 24.— Mary avoids arrest by committing suicide.

[. . .]  While her parents were away, Mary made a determined effort to kill her only surviving sister, Maggie, aged 8. Maggie has narrated her terrifying experience in the following statement:—

Mary put John out, locked the front door, tied my hands together with bootlaces, and brought me into the bedroom. She then told me to say my prayers. Mary next put gloves on her hands, and told me to make no noise. She knocked me on my back, got on top of me, put one hand on my mouth and another on my neck, and tried to choke me. I could not roar. I next found myself in bed; one of my teeth knocked out, and others loosened the door open and Mary gone. The bootlaces were off my wrists; I was bleeding from my throat.” [. . .] [“11-Year-Old Murderess. – Irish Child Kills Three Of Her Sisters. - Sensational Revelations.” Evening News (Sydney, Australia), Jan. 10, 1907, p. 2]

4. 100-plus Little Murderesses online

The extent of our deliberately inculcated historical cultural amnesia is staggering. Take a dip into the myriad horrors of Youthful Borgias: Girls Who Murder – The Forgotten “Lizzie Bordens” for a fuller picture. The post is partially reverse-inspired by Prof. Michael Kimmel, an ambitious fundamentalist social constructionist bent on implementing Soviet-style re-education regimens on the entire male sex – and includes some introductory remarks about this odious gender-Frankenstein.
For a quick and convenient one-post overview of 29 cases of Little Murderesses who were serial killers or would-be serial killers, see Serial Killer Girls.

All of the past we are told about, and all of the social theories, must be looked at with suspicion. It is, I argue, an absolute necessity for serious non-feminists to seek out consciously non-feminist and non-constructionist professional scholars (which do actually exist in small numbers within what remains of the academy) as sources in order to avoid being passive and gullible consumers of the establishment ideology-driven historical consensus. [7]

5. Amnesiac Hell: A Road Map

“If this book [Women Who Kill] leaves the impression that men have conspired to keep women down, that is exactly the impression I mean to convey …” – Ann Jones [8]

Historical amnesia matters – in a very big way. It has always mattered, and that is why authoritarians invest so much energy in creating distorted historical narratives, descriptions of the past which will serve as a fake-facts foundation that will serve as a justification for their forward-looking agendas.

For the moribund university (asphyxiated by the downward pull of irrationality, dogma-peddling and censorship) and for pretty much all of education in this late stage of “critical theory” intellectual decay, violence is a simple thing to explain: it is all about “the Patriarchy.” And of course, the target is – in any important and significant sense, that is – is female, of course; and the perpetrator – in in any important sense that is – is male, of course. Thanks to twisted “class warfare” ideologues like Ann Jones, we live in a not-quite-completely-realized idiocracy, with the prospect of full idiocracy not very far down the road.

Bilious hawker of the simple us vs. them identity politics as delineated in her famous and oft-reissued 1980 book, Women Who Kill, a classic of Hegel/Marx-derived feminist paranoid delusion, Anne Jones sees all violence by women as a heroic act of class struggle against the great oppressor. For feminist Jones, violence by women is “dialectical” – mere episodic, yet connected, dialectical dots – or interconnected collective sallies forming part of a seamless linear connect-the-dots grand abstract meta-history, a cosmic metaphysical myth with no room for individual agency, accountability or other annoying specifics of reality.

“Critical theory” the set of assumptions and tactics cooked up by Marcuse and his Frankfurt School pals has killed off, or at least nearly killed off, Western education and honest scholarship. But that was, of course, the plan. It was malice aforethought: a premeditated culture-murder scheme.

Gloria Watkins sees rage in boys. She sees no rage in girls. Ann Jones seeks rage and violence by women against men as justified (as a political act in a Great dialectical struggle). Carol Gilligan designs social engineering agendas to make boys more like girls though fundamental changes in child rearing. Claiming that masculinity “impedes their capacity to feel their own and other people’s hurt, to know their own and others’ sadness.” [9]

If only all of us be just like little girls: all sugar and spice and everything nice. Right?

Political correctness, or whatever you want to call it, and its philosophical underpinnings rots the mind – and modern feminism, its idiot daughter, is a sick cult bent on coercive change, claiming justification through the authority of unscientific theories standing upon distorted accounts of history.

Let us rebut the lies, the endless list of lies – and do it with non-violent microaggessions and macroagressions; with focused and necessary and rage – fueled by fact and reason – against the damaging frauds, and with justified disdain for the pompous and deluded tenured fraudsters and the irrational “true believer” zealots they have spawned.

Feminism is based on theories; anti-feminism is based on facts.



[1] quote: bell hooks (Gloria Watkins), The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love, 2004, Atria Books, p. 51; Writer David Horowitz has specifically objected to a passage in the first chapter of Killing Rage, in which hooks states that she is "sitting beside an anonymous white male that [she] long[s] to murder" because he was complicit in a boarding pass misunderstanding that resulted in the harassment of her black, female friend. Of these kind of "irrational, violent impulses," hooks states, "My irrational impulse to want to kill people who bore me or whose ideas are not very complex clearly has to do with an exaggerated response to situations where I feel powerless,” [“bell hooks,” Wikipedia]

[2] -- Here is a description of the policy agenda that flows from the orthodox politically correct “gender” claim made by Gloria Watkins (bell hooks), quoting Christina Hoff Sommers – Oblivious of all the factual evidence that paternal separation causes aberrant behavior in boys, Carol Gilligan calls for a fundamental change in child rearing that would keep boys in a more sensitive relationship with their feminine side. We need to free young men from a destructive culture of manhood that “impedes their capacity to feel their own and other people’s hurt, to know their own and other’s sadness,” she writes. Since the pathology, as she has diagnosed it, is presumably universal, the cure must be radical. We must change the very nature of childhood: we must find ways to keep boys bonded to their mothers. We must undercut the system of socialization that is so “essential to the perpetuation of patriarchal societies.” [Christina Hoff Sommers, “The War Against Boys,” The Atlantic Monthly, May 2000]
-- “Biodenial and Other Subversive Stratagens,” Chapter 6 in Daphne Patai & Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From the Strange World of Women’s Studies (1994, Basic Books), explains the fallacies (denialism; fundamentalist social constructionism) behind such draconian, physically and psychologically harmful, “progressive” political social engineering schemes.

[3] On Marcuse and his “repressive tolerance” schematic, see: Fred Bauer, “The Left and ‘Discriminating Tolerance’,” National Review, June 22, 2015]
-- also see:  Fiamengo File, Episode No. 5: “The Safe Space Ploy,” video, Studio BrulĂ©, Sep. 10, 2015 (9:11); Janet Fiamengo: “They are following a time-honored script, written by that guru of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse, whose essay 'Repressive Tolerance,' should be required reading for anyone attempting to understand campus politics today.” (3:42)

[4] Lizzie Lewis (age 4, Atoka, Kentucky, 1885), included here; Lizzie Daniels (age 16, Scottsdale, Pa., 1894); and, Lizzie Cook (age 6, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 1899).

[5] In 1872, at the age of 12, Jesse Pomeroy – of Massachusetts – began assaulting other boys, torturing them and sometimes leaving them with lifelong scars. He was convicted and paroled. After release, at the age of 14, he murdered two children, a 9-year-old girl and a 4-year-old boy. 

[6] Carrie Sampson: [“Horrible Case of Cruelty To Child – Nurse of Thirteen Kills an Infant She Had the Care Of. - First Cut Off Its Ear - Denied the Deed, Saying Dog Chewed the Member Off.  Mother Of Child Believed The Story - Few Days Afterwards Nurse Heaped Hot Ashes Over Child and Roasted It.” Atlanta Constitution (Ga.), Aug. 17, 1899, p. 2].
Nellie Corneilson: [“Little Girl Kills Her Baby Sister,” The Morning Post (Raleigh, N. C.), Jan. 16, 1902, p. 1]; [“Deadly Youthful Depravity.” The St. Paul Globe (Mn.), Jan. 16, 1902, p. 5].

[7] See Robert St. Estephe, “Setting the Records Straight on the Men’s Rights Movement,” A Voice for Men, Feb. 20, 2012.

[8] Ann Jones, Women Who Kill, 1980, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, p. 81; from a review: “This provocative book . . . reminds us again that women are entitled to their rage.” Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, The New York Times Book Review.

[9] See Hoff-Summers on Gilligan in Note 1.




No comments:

Post a Comment