Saturday, February 4, 2017

Hey! Let’s Talk About Female Serial Killers – The Cutting Edge of Women’s Studies

Its 2017, the year of the Great Thaw.

We are now entering into a cultural phase in which there is a critical mass of honest voices who are cracking through the orthodoxy of politically correctness. On a daily basis. mainstream media and academia are being exposed for their corruption and dishonesty. Now it is beginning to be possible for scholars and journalists of integrity the override “political correctness” censorship and again create a public forum in which open discourse, objectivity and empirical inquiry are offered. Universities shall be forced to reform or they shall continue on their precipitous decline. In the meantime good information and solid empirical scholarship of the sort which is typically forbidden to appear in the university context appears online daily.

Female aggression has not been much studied. It is impossible to get funding for such inquiry – except for those who will produce distorted politically correct results in conformity with orthodox dogmas.

[By Robert St. Estephe]


Here are some Female Serial Killer articles which serve as a foundation for serious studies of female aggression:


Female Serial Killers: An Image Collection, Female Serial Killer Index, updated

World’s Creepiest Female Serial Killers, Female Serial Killer Index, updated



Scary Monsters: Female Serial Killers and the Silence of the Lambs, Female Serial Killer Index, Jan. 4, 2017

Monsters Too Scary for Words (“Monsters Too Scary For Words: Collective Amnesia in the USA”), Female Serial Killer Index, September 7, 2015

– Moribund long-disproved myths about female aggression and the historical record are being revived by politically correct, poorly informed, PhD experts.

Death on the ‘baby farm’ –A Voice for Men, (in 2 parts), July 16 & 27, 2013

Female serial killer bandits, A Voice for Men, July 3, 2013
– 15 new discoveries of historical female serial killers ignored by criminologists.

Exciting careers in serial widowhood, A Voice for Men, Sep. 10, 2012
  Serial killers who made a business of marry men and murdering them.


Female Serial Killer Studies: The Cutting Edge of the New Women’s Studies.




Scary Monsters: Female Serial Killers and the Silence of the Lambs

Scary Monsters: Female Serial Killers and the Silence of the Lambs

By Robert St. Estephe, September 10, 2015 (revised & published Feb. 4, 2017)

1. The Experts Have Failed Us

Why do I study serial killers? I don’t, not really. I study only female serial killers. I research this subject not because crime holds particular interest for me, but because I am interested in academic fraud; in long-term propaganda campaigns; in academic and professional blacklisting, in censorship; in identity political social-engineering quota-hiring policies; in chivalrous favoritism; in authoritarian replacement with indoctrination. 

It is psychological warfare that interests me, not crime.

This article offers an update on the latest findings and conclusions from my ground-breaking research. There are findings that have far-reaching application, far beyond homicide studies; they apply in a fundamental way to the study of female aggression in general. The decades-long failure of the social sciences to do necessary research, to develop rigorous methods, to reject the now-widespread strategy of the distortion of studied by gearing results to fit a priori conclusions, to instead find the courage to behave ethically and to be whistle-blowers when appropriate, is scandalous.

The surprising historical facts of female-perpetuated violence that you are about to read is information that is completely unknown to every expert in every field of study in the United States. Only the tip of the iceberg can be discussed in an article like this, but there is enough here to prove just how miserably our institutions of higher learning have failed us in uncovering truth.

Please bear with me. This longish article offers rare and valuable evidence that can be broadly applied and put to very effective use in our quest to overturn Big Lies. You will be stunned by what you learn. Plus it has really good pictures.

2. Scary Monsters

People are fascinated by monsters. People, most people, are afraid of monsters. Some people love the thrill of the fear of monsters. Some people are so terrified of certain monsters they are mentally paralyzed by the very thought. They are in denial.

Why We Love Serial Killers is the title of Professor Scott Bonn’s book on monster-love published last year. The author, a criminologist, digs into the psychology of intense public fascination with this type of criminal. Writes Bonn: “In many ways, serial killers are for adults what monster movies are for children — that is, scary fun!” He follows by noting that this it is not simple clean fun, but rather comes at a certain cost: a feeling of guilt: “Research … reveals that many people who are fascinated with serial killers refer to it as a guilty pleasure,” we learn. [1]

Bonn’s book, like most books about serial killers in general, gives precious little space among its pages to female perpetrators.

Most of my readers are familiar with the Aileen Wuornos case, the story of the serial killing highway bandit who was executed in 2002. She was depicted in the media at the time of her arrest in 1990 as “America’s first female serial killer.” This, of course,  was not an accurate assessment. Not by a long shot.
Bonn attempts to explain the nature of this error:

“Until Wuornos, the mass media almost always depicted a serial perpetrator as a deranged man due to the erroneous and paternalistic societal notion that women could not commit such crimes. Unlike the obscure and rarely discussed Black Widow killers throughout history, Wuornos became a modern-day celebrity monster and popular culture icon because she defied stereotypes and did not kill demurely as a woman ‘should.’” [2]

Bonn’s explanation seems logical, if one accepts the assumption that, prior to the rise and widespread belief in1960s-era feminist ideas, chivalry or paternalism had a universal stranglehold on public imagination. In his explanation for ascribing the title of “first” to a woman’s mania for habitual murder Bonn makes another interesting claim, that “Black Widow killers” (commonly defined as women who murder spouses, children or relatives, frequently in order to claim life insurance payouts) are “obscure” and are “rarely discussed.”

Bonn is quite right to point out that, at least in the context of present-day discussions of serial killers, that these “Black Widow” cases are currently relatively “obscure” and are, in comparison with male serial killers, currently “rarely discussed.”

Yet Bonn’s understanding of the history of public perception of violence by women is utterly incorrect. We’ve all heard the phrase “the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male,” Rudyard Kipling’s famous line dates from the second decade of 20th century. [3] This is the period that, in the United States and in France, chivalry in the court system was in ultra-high gear, with male juries on a regular basis setting cold-blooded murderesses free to roam the city streets.

The fact is that “Black Widows” and a good number of other categories of female serial killers – bandits, sadistic nurses, females (including small girls) possessed by a mania for murder, impulsive revenge killers, child-eating ogresses, female cult leaders who conducted human sacrifices – have been for centuries commonly reported in popular media, were widely known, and were frequently discussed, long before the modern feminism gained official control of official discourses on the relations between the sexes (or “gender,” as they term it).

Take a look at these images of America’s own “Female Jack the Ripper,” Lizzie Halliday, dating from 1906. [4]

These pictures comport neither with the long-standing, bizarre yet somehow widely believed, bedrock claim made by women’s studies experts that “women are inherently non-violent” [5], nor with Scott Bonn’s hopelessly naive, chivalric and amnesic acceptance of feminist representations of history. It is no wonder that the images have been “forgotten,” that they never been reproduced since they were first printed in 1906.

The fact is that female serial killers were – until the point in history when “critical gender theory” came, in the past half century, to dominate all professional and almost all media discussion of the relations between the sexes – discussed openly and discussed constantly (since they were in the news constantly). What on earth happened to cause this Great Collective Forgetting?

The answer is this: ideology and the self-selection of rigid (and often grossly ignorant) ideologues who ensconced themselves in all institutions where discourses – and policies – regarding the relations of the sexes are controlled. Barbara Hart serves as an object lesson on how the “critical gender theory” game works. Hart, one of the primary architects of the sweeping law and social engineering policy initiative known as VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), publicly described her feminist community’s  point of view as “our belief in the inherent non-violence of women.” [6] VAWA was predicated upon ideological assumptions.  These notions were derived from university professors’ Marxian belief that all human existence as an oppression/oppressor battleground that sees the sexes as two classes (social groups of any kind, not just economic classes) involved in a dialectical struggle, a constant battle, an abstract theoretical scenario that treats all acts of violence executed by a female agent as reactive, as always in some way defensive. It is a fabrication, an a priori system of thought that does not depend on genuine empirical inquiry, indeed, that rejects empirical method and avoids the objective collection and weighing of good evidence. [7]

Pseudo-scientists, intent of supporting a priori generalizations that argue for their pet social engineering initiatives are quick to dismiss “anecdotal evidence.” Statistics are a handy tool, easily manipulated and easily to manipulate minds with. They hide trends, nuance, and all manner of details that activist scholars inconvenient. Feminists have an excuse for every act a woman takes that is less than admirable: the patriarchy (patriarchal capitalism, patriarchal racism, patriarchal natural family structure) made her do it! When pressed, a feminist would dismiss Halliday’s violence – her several hatchet murders, an arson murder, her disfiguring of the genitals of male corpses, her scissors attack – with the trump card, “mental illness” –  therefore her cases “doesn’t count.”

Here is another image of interest from an age when Bonn imagines women were thought to be incapable of malicious violence. The image show “Black Widow” Lyda Trueblood Southard, a “woman, some said was “without emotions, surrounded be her six victims (four husbands, her own little daughter and a brother-in-law) in her come-hither web. [8]

The “Bluebeardess’s” murder weapon was poison. Lest we gloss over poison murder as “clean” and “un-messy,” I should remind you of Harold Schechter’s admonition: “The truth is that, compared to the lingering agonies suffered by the average poisoning victim, the deaths meted out by male serial killers like “Jack the Ripper, “Son of Sam,” or the Boston Strangler – the swift executions by knife blade, bullet or garotte – seem positively humane.” (The Ripper’s grotesque mutilations were executed upon the corpse, not as acts of torture.). [9]

Lyda’s story was very big news back in the day. Her drama was covered in the papers nationally for month after month in 1921 through to 1922, when she was finally sentenced to life behind bars. It was huge news and on two separate occasions in fact – due to her sensational 1931 escape from Idaho State Penitentiary, in which she snagged another “husband” in her sticky-sweet fatal web, followed by a huge interstate woman-hunt. And her was far from being the first female serial killer to become national news sensation in the United States. There were dozens of major headline cases before hers dating back to the 1870s. Aileen Wuornos’ “firstness” is a ludicrous fiction.

Recent Wournos fangirls (she is a martyred heroine to many feminists) modify the original false claim of her “firstness” into an equally false firstness, dubbing her as “America’s First High-Profile Female Serial Killer,” a blatantly, wildly untrue characterization. [10]

Back to Scott Bonn. Professor Bonn is, despite his amnesia problem, nevertheless quite correct about today’s “love” of serial killers held by a large segment of the public.

This “beloved” monster is archetypal. In its ideal form, the “classic” serial killer is a male who targets sexually available females (particularly prostitutes) and rapes them, sometimes tortures and mutilates them, sometimes cannibalizes them, and usually treats their corpses festishistically – and, of course, also murders them. This is our archetypal “perfect monster,” an atavistic aberration who operates completely outside society’s norms, a ancient Cyclops, a medieval Wildman, a Victorian Mr. Hyde, an uncivilized – that is, an undomesticated – beast who poses a danger to females.

This post-1960s archetypal serial killer satisfies the “paternalistic” and chivalrous instinct of “enlightened” “liberated” males impelled to look afrer the women folk (but in a, “progressive,” politically correct, male-shaming way) – just as it, the perfect monster,  satisfies the high-minded, sanctimonious Marxist feminist whose mission in life is to foist upon the world her social engineering schemas designed to knit together a feminist paradise. The Nanny State feminist has good use for a scapegoat, a convenient, graphic and  high-profile archetypal cipher for what she peddles as the root evils of the world: “toxic masculinity,” “testosterone poisoning,” “patriarchal oppression, “male privilege,” “the tyranny of capitalism and private property,” the “We live in a rape culture!” coven-incantations, the inane propaganda campaign claiming that charging for birth control pills constitutes a vicious “War on Women,” and the classic characterization of the “oppressiveness” of the natural family structure.

The motivating imperatives of both White Knight ladies’ men and man-hating fundamentalists alike are served by the perfect monster. Maternalistic (as we might call it) feminism and old-fashioned “paternalistic” chivalry, as attitudinal stances, are nowadays wedded in their disdain for the bad man who would dare to mistreat (whatsoever the endlessly expanding definition of that term might be) or male who even appears to be mistreating a woman, “to make” a woman “uncomfortable,” or to even have incorrect thoughts about a woman.

Professor Bonn’s anachronistic false assumptions about the past are not particular to him. He is merely following the standard “logic” of the orthodox politically correct historical philosophy. All experts who discuss female serial killers do the same, pretty much, at least when it comes to statistics concerning incidence. It is the current commonly held belief that the ratio of female serial killers to males is 1:6. This ratio derives from the research of Eric W. Hickey, published in the standard college criminology course textbook on serial murderers, first published in 1991 and now in its 6th edition. Hickey assumed, incorrectly, that his collection of cases provided a properly vetted sample that could be properly used for the purposes of methodically rigorous social science statistical analysis. He knew of 64 cases, but there were actually at least 950 tucked away in the yet-to-be-consulted historical record. [11]

Hickey’s analysis has had very wide influence. Even the FBI, which, in 1998, organized a huge international conference on “Serial Murder” and followed up by publishing an elaborate 14,000 word official report – which almost completely ignored female serial killers, apart from a solitary and vague mention of “Black Widows.” [12]

More recently, in a February 2015 a paper by Professor Marissa Harrison that takes on questions of female serial killers’ deep motivation and style of method, and article that has been widely discussed in popular media, the author stuck to Hickey’s old, woefully incomplete yet still canonical academic list of 64 “known” cases (despite the strong online presence of the far more complete list “Index: Female Serial Killers”). [13]

3. Chivalric Feminism as Forgetfulness

Oh, how we forget! – when we are brow-beaten, coaxed, and cajoled into a hypnotic sheeplike domesticated state.

To give an indication of how far from the mark accepted understanding of female serial killer incidence in the past really and truly is, consider that of the seven cases pictured immediately above, only two are “canonical,” (Lydia Sherman, Sarah Robinson) and that two of these women were executed (Mary Runkle and Sarah Whiteling). Nancy Farrer’s case was a national cause celebre and an important precedent-setting insanity defense case. The woman’s lawyer made his name by appealing her sentence and saved his client from the gallows. He became the nineteenth President of the United States, Rutherford B. Hayes. [14]

My list of cases of female serial killers of USA in the nineteenth century, based on my own research, numbers ninety, yet the “canonical” cases number, it would seem, only six. The ubiquitous claim found in all types of media, academic and popular, asserting that “female serial killers are rare” is based on academics’ erroneous assumption that their research, which is based on previous researchers’ publications is drawing from  thorough, properly and systematically research done by historians of crime – and this is not in the least bit true.[15]

When Professor Bonn writes about what he calls an “erroneous and paternalistic societal notion that women could not commit such crimes” he is only correctly describing reality  insofar that in the post 1960s period a widespread “notion that women could not commit such crimes” – a feminism-concocted “sugar and spice,” “caring and sharing” “inherent non-violence” myth – has been sold to the public. Such a notion did, before Marxian class-warfare feminism got its stranglehold on the discourse of violence and relations between the sexes.

Here’s some striking proof: Consider this image of a pistol-totin’ fictionalized Aileen Wuronos in her Academy Award winning performance as Aileen Wuornos. [16]

Now compare it to a 1924 illustration of Winona Green (later known as Winnie Olah Freeman) who was at that date already a double murderess, yet to become a full-fledged serial murderess (having gotten arrested before polishing off her hubby).

Nice parallel, wouldn’t you say?

She shot to death her mother-in-law and father-in-law in 1924, plotted to kill her husband. After serving time she went on to murder two more men, in 1946 and 1953. Winnie was, what you might call a really cheeky type of sociopath. Here is a what she had to say for herself following apprehension for her first set of murders.

“Who ever heard of a woman being electrocuted or hanged in Arkansas?” she demands whenever the death penalty is mentioned to her. Furthermore she is not remorseful. “I’m not sorry for my deeds, she repeats again and again. “I planned both murders, thinking them all out thoroughly in advance. Now that I have admitted everything, I am willing to meet whatever fate awaits me.” [17]

So much for the myth of Bonn’s supposed the feminist idea of “paternalism” that supposedly has – in all its patronizing testosterone-toxic condescension – permeated the pre-1960s cultural imagination. (before the feminist domination of discourse on the sexes). Remember that old Kipling line: “the female of her species is more deadly than the male,” and that it dates from a poem published back in 1911. Let us note that (as few ever pause to realize) Kipling’s famous phrase is but a half a sentence. Here it is complete:

And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male. [18]

“She knows.” “She warns him.” – Let us turn to Patricia Pearson’s brilliant and hard-hitting book, a 1997 exposĂ© on violence-by-women, and its scathing critique of the  sweeping-under-the-rug of same, titled When She was Bad. This seasoned investigative journalist made in its pages a crucial and precisely accurate observation regarding the hullabaloo in 1990 over the Wuornos case and the attendant false claim that she was America’s “first female serial killer.” Pearson pointed out its falsehood and stated that this forgetful fantasy was an indication of what she called “collective amnesia.” This is a profoundly important observation.

Bonn’s book, coming eighteen years later than Pearson’s, with its paternalism-blaming explanation of this society-wide unwillingness to face up to the hard facts of the female of the species – that is: female aggression, female sadism, physical violence initiated by women (not to mention extreme indirect violence) – is, in its self-censored gaping lacunae, itself an instance of chivalry-based denial. Bonn’s is a chivalry dipped in feminist dogma, a nanny-monitored, a mommy-supervised, maternalistic condescending nod to the thought police of “critical gender theory,” if you will. [19]

Why we Love Serial Killers is a tell-tale symptom of collective amnesia.

4. The Sexual Perversion Factor

The perfect monster is, as we know, a violent sex pervert, therefore (of course) is male. But the fact is that there have indeed been female serial killers who fit this mold. Jane Toppan, the prolific serial killer nurse caught in 1901 got orgasms from lying in the death-bed of her victims embracing them as they expired. Martha Grinder, a Pittsburg serial killer executed in 1866, had a decided necrophiliac streak. And she loved to watch the agonies of her dying victims. [20]

A Mexican case, publicized in the US reveals the worst kind of monstrosity, worthy of any male monster. In the 1890s Mexico City, Guadalupe Matinez de Bejarano lured orphan girls and tortured them. “The girl would be enslaved and subjected to torture with a markedly sexual nature. Guadalupe especially enjoyed forcing the girls to sit naked on a burning brazier; she would strip them and hang them from the ceiling by the wrists and flog them with a cattle whip.” “She was made to endure every cruelty and privation which the malignity of ingenious fiend could suggest or inspire. Hunger, exposure, blows, burns, scalds, pin thrusts, cuts and every other atrocity that can be inflicted without causing instant death, was the daily lot of this unfortunate girl.” “Finally the victim would be starved to death.” [21]

There are other female serial killer examples of sexually excitement in the act of killing. like arch-pervert of them all Countess Bathory. Then there’s Anna Zwanziger of Bavaria whose “admitted motive was sheer malevolent pleasure – at her trial in 1828, she confessed that the sight of her victims’ death agonies threw her into a transport of ecstasy.” France’s amazingly prolific Helene Jegado, arrested in 1851 who “appeared to have been actuated by a thirst for destruction, and to have taken pleasure in witnessing the agonies of her victims.” There’s Australia’s Martha Rendell (1909) who got her kicks from killing kids, and France’s killer nurse, Antoinette Sierri (1926) and what were known as her “orgies” of death, among many other habitually lethal ladies of yore. We can only guess at the specific nature of the pleasure so many other female serial killers on record through the centuries who admitted the delight they felt as they murdered, and murdered and murdered again. [22]

I won’t even get into the human-sacrificing female serial killing cultists (Voodoo, etc.), the kidnapping baby-eaters (yes, real-life ogresses), the sundry other female cannibal serial killers and the live-baby-burning professional child care providers. [23]

So much for the female being a kinder, gentler, seldom sex-driven and rarer sort of serial killer. But wait, the rabbit hole goes even deeper.

5. Down to Roots : Forgotten Killer Kids

“I like hurting people,” was the stunning confession made by a 11-year-old English girl who murdered two boys in 1968 and had attempted to strangle others only to be interrupted in the act. Mary Bell’s case is famous – as an anomaly. This child was indeed a serial killer despite the fact that her efforts – serial efforts – were sometimes interfered with. [24]

But what if this “unique” case were not unique after all. My research has turned up over twenty cases like it. One involves an Irish girl named Mary Maher, who in 1906 murdered three sisters on separate occasions, making each seem an accident or a “natural death,” and then attempted yet another, but sensing the grown-ups were finally on to her game and that she was in big trouble, committed suicide – at the age of 11! [25]

Among the serial killer girls (and would-be serial killer girls) from the United States that turned up in my research on historical female serial killers are these four from the late 1800s:

In 1872 a 16-year-old nurse girl in St. Louis, Missouri, named Martha Whetstone killed four children, including her own sister, in a space of four months. [26]

In 1874 Henrietta Weibel of  New York City, 15-years-old (or 13 according to one source) murdered one child and attempted another. She confessed she had an uncontrollable mania for setting fires and burning babies. [27]

In 1892 a 6-year old girl in Atoka, Kentucky whose family name was Bottoms planned the murder of her 18-month-old sister long in advance and succeeded in doing the deed and delighted in the result. After being caught this precocious tyke expressed the burning desire to kill more babies in the future. [28]

In that same year, 1892, Ella Holdridge, of Tonawanda, New York, age 14, made a number of attempts to murder other children who were saved by medical intervention, finally succeeded. Her motivation was her passion for attending funerals. When a lull in burials came about, offering Ella no opportunities to enjoy her favorite form of amusement, she solved the problem by poisoning children. She remarked with respect to the corpse of  the one she did kill that her victim “made the prettiest corpse ever put under New York soil.” [29]

Similar cases of little girls as serial killers, some of them quite prolific have been discovered in in Australia, England, Germany, and France. For example, Bavarian Ida Schnell, caught in 1906 at the tender age of 13, serially murdered at least eight babies. I found these reports by doing ambitious systematic keyword-searching of old newspapers, not in the professional literature on forensic psychology and criminology. [30]

Let me leave you with the story of precocious Alsa Thompson, the “Baby Borgia,” who, at the age of seven [yes, that’s 7!], who in 1925 (which, by the way, was a bumper crop year in the history of US female serial killers, with at least eight cases in the newspapers), confessed to poisoning eleven persons, stating with her twin baby sisters who died, and a caretaker lady she didn’t like.

The girl’s separated parents placed her in a Hollywood, California family, which saw Alsa wielding a razor against her baby sister and the foster family’s daughter. She admitting to poisoning two canaries and a cat. She said she put ant poison in the coffee and in the pork chops and battery acid in other food on various occasions. Illnesses ensued. The case made headlines. She was quoted answering her official questioners – alienists (psychiatrists) and a social worker – asking about her motives as saying such things as:

“I like to see them die, that’s all.”

Not too many days after the story first broke, making national front page news, however, the papers carried the story of how little Alsa had recanted her confessions. [31]

My close examination of all the reports leads me to believe, and against my original opinion, that the evidence strongly points to guilt (at least, at a bare minimum, with regard to the razor attacks and poisonings not resulting in human death) and that the recantation stories seem to be mere official expediency. After all, what can the cops and the alienists reasonably do with a 7-year-old murderess except to try to make her get better?

So much for Barbara Hart’s intrinsic non-violence of the patriarchaly-oppressed sex which is fundamentally incapable of instituting non-defensive acts of brutal aggression – as the feminist professors, and the millions of gullible students who have swallowed their “critical gender theory” fabrications hook-line-and-sinker over the past half century, would have us believe.

There is, in my humble opinion, a whole lot of important work to be done by professional researchers who need to seriously study these these cases of female serial killer children and to incorporate their findings into their understanding of the broader psychology of female aggression and violence by women.

And this is a decidedly urgent need, I might add.

6. Silence, Denial and Breaking Free

Wild Lizzie Halliday, it was learned from her step-sons after their father Paul Halliday was murdered by her in 1893, had confessed to her new husband that “she had been married before, and had killed and then hacked her husband. Old Paul professed not to believe this story, and undoubtedly did not. But iut now appears that she treated his body after she killed him as she had that of her first husband [who may well not have actually been her first, according to later reports].” Lizzie Halliday’s next two victims, both women,  were killed without such subsequent “hacking” mutilation of the corpses. Paul Halliday was, as psychologists say today, “in denial.” [32]

Camille Paglia famously quipped: "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper." [33] Yes there is. When Lizzie Halliday was captured, some writers speculated that since Halliday had traveled to England, she might have been the “Ripper.” Most people do not realize that “Jack” did not perform his gruesome acts on his living victims, but cut them up after death. Not so with Tamara Samsonova, serial killer, serial dismemberer, captured in St. Petersburg, Russia, on July 27, 2015, who admitted cutting away at her final victim, whom she had drugged, while the elderly woman was still living. [34]

There have, it turns out, been many female serial killers who have mutilated their victims, my research reveals. [35] And another recently apprehended Russian “hacker” of humans, Elena Lobacheva, captured February 15, 2015, who got an orgasmic thrill out of thrusting her knife, dozens of times, into the twelve men she slew. [36] In 2016 Mexican police captured a famously blood-thirsty female drug cartel executioner named Juana, nicknamed La Peque Sicaria ("The Little Assassin), who confessed that she received sexual pleasure from rubbing her dismembered victims' blood as well as body segments on her private parts. [37]

This sexual aspect, or, the rape aspect of female serial killers, brings to mind an interesting and never discussed aspect of Black Widows. (I’m using my own, stricter, definition of the term, meaning women who serially murder husbands and lovers – and it is a category, you might guess, that is much much larger than has previously been recognized.) Never have I seem a discussion of the fact that these repeat murderers, like so many male serial killers, engage in sexual intercourse with their victims, whom the killer consciously (or perhaps sometimes unconsciously) have selected for both intercourse and homicide (a package deal), and then repeat the formula. There are many cases involving four or more husband-slayings (or “partner”-slayings). What might be the psychological dynamic involved? Do such cases involve, perhaps, a type of sexual perversion of a particularly female (physiologically female) sort?

This silence of the lambs (the sheeple, the self-censored, the go-along-to-get-alongs in academia, the politically correct jellyfish) must be broken. Men, including high-ranking professionals in law enforcement and psychology, are far too fearful of feminist ideologues. Women, thank goodness, are less cowed by the harpies of ideological orthodoxy. We see this in the fact that much of the bravest new research on female aggression – research that overturns the tired fallacies of marxian feminism – is done by women. [38]

Replacement of serious empirical scholarship rigorous critical thinking in including in the field of history with a priori assumptions that must be confirmed with cherry-picked evidence and supported by ideology-based explanations.

The scariest of the scary monsters must be talked about. The pretending must end.

This silence of the lambs must be broken – broken forever, and it must be broken now.

# # # END # # #


Photo in headline graphic is that of Lyda Trueblood Southard, the “Female Bluebeard.”


See these two articles for a discussion these issues in light of tabloid TV treatment which breaks the taboos of politically correct perceptions of violence by women.
-- Robert St. Estephe, “A Guilty Pleasure:Ignoring the Feminist Narrative,” A Voice for Men, Oct. 28, 2013, 2015.
-- Robert St. Estephe, “An Uncensored Eye on Evil: Candice DeLong Unflinchingly Takes on Deadly Women,” Female Serial Killer Index, Aug. 8, 2015.


[1] Scott Bonn, Why We Love Serial Killers, New York: 2014, Skyhorse.
[2] Scott Bonn, Why We Love Serial Killers, New York: 2014, Skyhorse.; NEW NOTE – “Aileen Wuornos, the killer portrayed by Charlize Theron in the film Monster, murdered with a gun, and Bonn believes that is a key reason for her fame.” [Julie Beck, “The Grisly, All-American Appeal of Serial Killers, The Atlantic, Oct 21, 2014]
[3] Rudyard Kipling poem, “The Female of the Species,” 1911.
[4] Lizzie Halliday images: Left: “Murder by a Maniac,” The Bryant Democrat (Oh.), Nov. 2, 1906; Right: “The Garland Globe (Ut.), Oct. 27, 1906, p. 6. Both images were syndicated and appeared in numerous newspapers across the country.
[5] “inherently non-violent” – “In response to the construction of ‘the lesbian’ as abnormal and deviant, many Western lesbian-feminists in the 1970s (and some continuing in the 1980s and 1990s) (largely middle-class and white, although not exclusively) constructed notions of ‘lesbian utopia,’ based on the assumption that women are inherently non-violent, caring and gentle, and that all lesbian relationships are based on an equal sharing of power. While this was not a monolithic or stable discourse (Ross, 1995). it has continued to influence the conceptualization and formation of lesbian identities and relationships as the polar opposite to the pathological construction (Taylor & Chandler, 1995; Ristock, 1997). The lesbian utopia discourse constructed a ‘normal’ lesbian as a strong woman engaged in healthy, stable, conflict-free, woman-loving-woman relationships. This has the effect of masking power relations and violence between women and works to keep systems of domination intact by reproducing the binary constrict of the normal/abnormal. As a result of this investment in a model of gender-based oppression and the construct of lesbian utopia, many women feel that they will not be believed when they disclose or report same-sex abuse. …’ [p. 12, Cindy Hoimes, ‘The Politics Of Naming The Violence: Examining Constructions Of ‘Lesbian Abuse’ In Community-Based Educational Discourses,’ Masters thesis, Sociology, University of Toronto, Ontario, 2000].
[6] Barbara Hart: [preface to Kerry Lobel, Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering, Seal Press, August 1986].
[7] “Marxian feminism” – before the boom of political correctness fell codifying and disseminating the constellation of philosophies that are commonly called ‘Cultural Marxism’ (social constructionism, Frankfurt School ‘critical theory,’ Continental deconstructionism), all of them combined with older forms of feminist philosphy to create a ‘modern feminism.’ Also, see Peter Vronsky, Female Serial Killers: How and Why Women Become Monsters, 2009, Berkley Books, p. 6.
[8] Southard.  Serial Marrier / Serial Killer: Lyda Trueblood Southard – 1921
Image, etc. Durham Morning Herald (N. C.), Mary 26, 1921. The illustration was syndicated and appeared in many newspapers.
[9] poison deaths agonizing – Harold Schechter, The Serial Killer Files, Ballantine, 2003, p. 31
[10] False firsts: [Darcia Helle, ‘Aileen Wuornos, America’s First High-Profile Female Serial Killer, Never Had a Chance,’ All Things Crime, April 10, 2015].
[11] Eric W. Hickey, Serial Murderers and Their Victims, (Wadsworth), 1991; 6th edn. 2015.
[12] Conference: Aug. 29 – Sep. 2, 2005 in San Antonio, Texas; report: Robert J. Morton, editor,  Serial Murder: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, U. S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008, (corporate author), National Ctr for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) United States of America.
[13] Marissa Harrison, “How evolutionary psychology may explain the difference between male and female serial killers,” The Conversation, Jun. 29, 2015.
[14] Runkle: “Mary Runkle, New York State Suspected Serial Killer, Hanged in 1847” Unknown History of Misandry.
Nancy Farrer: “Nancy Farrer, Ohio Serial Killer – 1851,” Unknown History of Misandry.
Lydia Sherman: “Lydia Sherman, “The Champion Husband Killer” – 1871,” Unknown History of Misandry.
Sarah Jane Robinson: “Sarah Jane Robinson, Massachusetts Serial Killer – 1886” Unknown History of Misandry.
Sarah Whiteling: “Sarah Whiteling, Philadelphia Serial Killer – 1888” Unknown History of Misandry.
Mary Meyer: “Dr. Henry Meyer & Mrs. Mary Meyer, American Serial Killer Team – 1893” Unknown History of Misandry.
Lulu Johnson: “Lulu Johnson Accused of Murdering 6 Husbands – 1899” Unknown History of Misandry.
[15] “Female Serial Killers of 19th Century America,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[16] Monster, 2003, directed by Patty Jenkins. “Aileen Wuornos, the killer portrayed by Charlize Theron in the film Monster, murdered with a gun, and Bonn believes that is a key reason for her fame.” [Julie Beck, “The Grisly, All-American Appeal of Serial Killers, The Atlantic, Oct 21, 2014]. For a list of female serial killers who have used guns, see: “Female Serial Killers & Guns.”
[17] Winona Green; Image: [“‘Outlaw Blood’ Made This Choir-Girl A Demon! - Alienists See in Her Self- Confessed Slaying of Two Relatives a ‘Throwback’ to Weird ‘ Indian Tribal Vengeance,” syndicated, Springfield Republican (Mo.), Dec. 28, 1924, p. ?]; Quote: [“Girl Who Killed Two Thinks Her Sex Will Save Her From Death,” syndicated (NEA), Nov. 1, 1924, p. 1]
 “Winnie Ola Freeman (Winona Green), “The Cat Woman”: Arkansas Serial Killer – 1954,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[18] Kipling: see note 3.
[19] Patricia Pearson, When She was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence, Viking, 1997.
[20] Toppan: “Jane Toppan, Massachusetts Serial Killer Nurse – 1901,” Unknown History of Misandry.
Grinder:  Martha Grinder, “Pittsburg Serial Killer Executed in 1866,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[21] Bejarano – [Wikipedia in Spanish; newspaper: [‘A Female Fiend. – Remarkable Career of a Mexican Woman Who Loved Young Girls. – Every Form of Torment Visited Upon Helpless Orphans. – The Widow Bejarano and Her Strange Passion – Tortures Young Girls Just For the Fun if the Thing – Her Sons Partake of Her Cruel Spirit – A Celebrated Case.’ St. Louis Dispatch (Mo.), Apr. 24, 1892, p. 25]; “Guadalupe Martinez de Bejarano, Sadistic Sexual Female Serial Killer of Girls – 1892,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[22] Bathory: “The Blood Countess,” Hungarian Serial Killer & Sadist Elizabeth Báthory – 1610,” Unknown History of Misandry.
Anna Zwanziger – [Harold Schechter, The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers] Unknown History of Misandry.
“Anna Zwanziger (Nannette Schoenleben), German Serial Killer – 1809,” Unknown History of Misandry.
Rendell: “Martha Rendell, Australian Serial Killer Step-Mother – 1909,” Unknown History of Misandry.
Antoinette Sierri: “Antoinette Sierri, French Serial Killer Nurse – 1925,”  Unknown History of Misandry.
[23]  “Ogresses: Female Serial Killers of the Children of Others,” Unknown History of Misandry.
“Occult Female Serial Killers,” Unknown History of Misandry.
“Cannibal Murderesses,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[24] Mary Bell: “Mary Bell, 11-Year-Old Serial Killer, England – 1968,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[25] Mary Maher: “Mary Maher, 11-Year Old Irish Serial Killer – 1906,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[26] Martha Whetstone: “Martha Whetstone, 16-Year-Old Serial Killer – Missouri, 1872,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[27] Henrietta Weibel: “Henrietta Weibel, aged 15, "The Baby Burner" - New York, 1874,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[28] Bottoms girl (6-y-o):  “The Bottoms Girl & Her Serial Killing Ideation – Kentucky, 1892,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[29] Ella Holdridge: “Ella Holdridge, Funeral-Loving Teenage Serial Killer from Tonawanda, New York – 1892,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[30] Ida Schnell: “German Teen Child Care Provider Murders 8: Ida Schnell – 1907,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[31] Alsa Thompson: “Alsa Thompson, the “Baby Borgia” – Los Angeles: 1925,”  Unknown History of Misandry.
[32] Halliday quote: “Serial Killer Lizzie Halliday Was Known in New York State as “The Worst Woman On Earth” – 1893,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[33] Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (1990), p. 247.
[34] Tamara Samsonova: “Tamara Samsonova, Russian Serial Killer Who Dismembered Her Victims – 2015,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[35] “Female Serial Killers & Dismemberment of Victims,” Unknown History of Misandry
[36] Elena Lobacheva: “Elena Lobacheva, Sexual Sadist Serial Killer – Russia 2015,” Unknown History of Misandry
[37] Juana: “Sexually Sadistic Los Zetas Female Serial Killer – 2016, Mexico,” Unknown History of Misandry.
[38] The most notable of these, to my mind, are: Erin Pizzey, Janet Fiamengo (see YouTube: "The Fiamengo Files"), Karen Straughan ("Girlwriteswhat," YouTube).