|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me this method of removing people (men) could be with us today. Given just a tiny bit of planning, it is possible for anyone to poison someone, particularly a member of the family. Now who are the people obtainining Public Hygiene Certificates (learning how easy it is to poison) in their thousands - could it be our womenfolk ?
And, would they get away with it - you bet !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I think of late 19th century serial killers, the name Jame Toppan comes to mind. She was convicted of poisoning almost one hundred patients in a Connecticut nursing home around the time that Jack the Ripper killed five prostitutes in London.
See Patricia Pearson's 1997 book about violent and murderous women "When She Was Bad - Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:06 PM November 5th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget Lizzie Borden.
She wasn't exactly a prim, proper lady, herself.
"Lizzie Borden took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done she gave her father fourty one..."
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:46 PM November 6th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I hear that women have a high tendency to poison someone than men, who are more likely to use direct force.
However, most autopsies do not look for poisons so it's hard to tell how many people women may be murdering every year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminist history, 'herstory', has emerged in the last few decades, and claims to uncover information about important historical women who have previously been overlooked by 'male' history, but the whole project drips with ideological bias. You don't hear feminists talking about female criminals, serial killers or tyrants, but learned tomes will be written about minor poets. The job of feminist history is not to uncover the neglected 'truth' about women in the past - it is just another instrument of feminist propaganda, designed to show women positively and men negatively. It is really a sub-branch of women's studies rather than history.
Where is your book on female serial killers, oh feminist historians? Why do you not complain that poor Mary Ann Cotton has been ignored by Patriarchal history writing?
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:21 AM November 5th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that Jack the ripper was never found, and or there was some question over "who did it" while the cases you mention the women were found, tried, and convicted. There is much literature about women serial killers, doctors and society are " stunned" that women could do such a thing.Why I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I could remember where I saw it, but I also recall there being some credible speculation that Jack the Ripper may possibly have been Jacqueline the Ripper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:09 PM November 5th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I also seem to remember hearing that somewhere.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dispute that "there is much literature about women serial killers". The scientific literature may be there, but it certainly hasn't entered the popular imagination to the same extent. I can't recall any Thomas Harris novels about them.
The point the BBC article was making was that Cotton was a very prolific serial killer at that time, whereas Jack the Ripper killed relatively few, yet he is the more notorious, so notoriety is not determined by numbers of victims. If female serial killers are rare and unexpected, then you might expect that an actual case of one would become more notorious than the men, not less notorious - indeed, feminists have argued that Myra Hindley became particularly vilified just because she was a woman, and her accomplice Ian Brady was given an easier ride. Yet Jack the Ripper is better known than Cotton. I think this demands an explanation. You made the point that because 'his' crimes were unsolved, they are the subject of regular speculation. I also believe that gender-conservative media and popular culture are more willing to accept the idea of male offenders, and feminism (always gender-conservative about heterosexual men) has only exacerbated this.
I actually wanted to make a point about bias in feminism's attitude towards history anyway. Feminists are keen to uncover 'neglected' historical women, but not all of them - they are keen to shout about Rosalind Franklin, 'forgotten' biologist, but not so keen to mention Elisabeth Bathory, forgotten serial killer.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:56 PM November 5th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually in Thomas Harris's book Hannibal, the main serial killer kills only "bad people" while the another character is a violent lesbian who kills her brother. So he has an equal balance in the book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't believe you're serious.
There are three books in the series, Red Dragon, The silence of the Lambs, and Hannibal.
Red Dragon describes the police's search for the serial killer Francis Dolarhyde (a man), a facially disfigured veteran. We are also introduced to Hannibal Lecter (a man), a psychiatrist and serial killer who is already in prison, because the police draw upon his knowledge to help them.
The Silence of the Lambs describes the hunt for the serial killer Jaime Gumb (a man), known as 'Buffalo Bill'. The police again ask Hannibal Lecter to help them. In the process Lecter escapes.
Hannibal follows Lecter after his escape. In particular, a disabled former victim of Lecter's called Mason Verger (a man) seeks revenge on Lecter. Verger is the wealthy CEO of a meat-packing empire. He has a lesbian sister who seeks to gain control of the family business. With Lecter's encouragement, she murders her brother.
When you say 'the main serial killer kills only "bad people"', I take it you are referring to Lecter. He does not kill only 'bad people', he kills (and eats) anyone who annoys him, and their 'crimes' might be as trivial as bad manners, or just being boring.
What was your point anyway? If he only kills bad people is he therefore a 'good' serial killer? Would this somehow diminish his crimes? Are you arguing in favour of vigilantism?
In oder to be defined as a serial killer, one has to have killed at least five victims, and the motive is usually at least partly sexual.
Verger's sister is not a serial killer at all, she murders one of her male relatives for financial gain.
Your statement that 'he has an equal balance in the book' is arrant nonsense.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several differences between male and female serial killers and that is before feminists try and excuse female killers. Most male killings are public and the killers are quite happy about it. Jack the Ripper couldn't have chosen a better place than London for maximum publicity around the world. If he'd chosen any other British city it might not have got the attention it did. Female killers do their crime in private and do not seek publicity. Male killers often seem to be sending a message and are quite happy with their notoriety. Female killers seem to get their satisfaction internally. Male killers usually leave a trail of bodies. This usually means a continuing media coverage of each and every murder. About 100 newspapers started up to cover Jack the Ripper's murders.
Female killers, who usually have a position of trust and access to cooking, do it in private and if like Mary Ann Cotton their poisoning is mistaken for gastric fever they will continue. Once caught they only have the case to be reported by the media. There is no build-up, no trail of bodies and no fear factor. It also means that some female killers may have gotten away with it. We only find them if their last murder is unidentified as a murder and if that doesn't happen they are free to walk away. Whereas with the male killers their has been a trail of bodies and spreading fear but with the female killer it is often a complete surprise. It is often embarrassing to the medical and legal authorities to find they had a killer in their midst and they missed her. It is often easy to assume some mental problem with the women killer especially as women are represented as the caring ones. This can mean that whereas the newspapers ran special editions of the hunt for Jack the Ripper for people like Mary Ann Cotton there are one or two headlines about the trial and then the sentence. The coverage isn't that large and is over in a few days. In modern times this is also accompanied by feminist attempts to excuse and even glorify the women killer. Aileen Wournos being one example. Andrea Yates being another.
In short male killers are dramatic and make great copy and female killers are less dramatic and they have excuses. As long as female violence is minimised and excused it will be some time before female violence, whether domestic valence, street fights or murder, is acknowledged and given a proper amount of attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent. Bang on.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:24 AM November 8th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Andrea Yates was mentally ill, her husband and family both knew it. Now with her doctor and husband's knowledge, they still left the children in her care. The woman was still home schooling her kids, even with her problems.
Post traumatic stress is a real illness, real enough for men to use when collecting benefits as well as they should be able to, with Wornos, an attempt to enter this into consideration when she was on death row. The woman had a horrible life as they are trying to do in several cases of young men in NYC. I don't agree with violence but the mind is a complex thing and people are psychologically scarred at young ages causing them to react irrationally later in life, should this not be taken into consideration when punishment is being decided?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raymond Cuthill mentioned
...feminist attempts to excuse and even glorify the women killer. Aileen Wournos being one example. Andrea Yates being another.
and you said:
...people are psychologically scarred at young ages causing them to react irrationally later in life, should this not be taken into consideration when punishment is being decided?
It sounds like a good example of exactly what he was referring to. You ARE attempting to excuse her.
To answer your question, yes, extenuating circumstances should be considered.
However, the trouble with feminists like you is that you operate double standards. You characterise male offenders as evil and responsible for their actions, but you excuse female offenders as victims and not responsible for their actions.
I grew up thinking that feminism was a movement which fought against sexism. Then I started actually listening to what feminists had to say, and I realised that they are the most sexist people I have ever come across.
I oppose feminism because I oppose sexism. I do not like double standards and hypocrisy.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You all should be happy to know that my FEMALE Criminal Justice professor is DISGUSTED by the inherent chivalry within criminal history and the criminal justice system.
She said that she was physically ill when she saw how Mary Kay Leautouernou (I know I didn't spell that correctly) was treated like a victim and even a heroine. She was also disgusted by the idea that in the movie 'Monster,' that serial killer bitch Warnos was typically treated like some victim of the "Male Status Quo"(which has been dead for nearly forty years if it even existed in such an overt manner that the rad-fems claim).
I have finally found a woman, a female professor at a LIBERAL college, who believes that women who want equality should accept equal punishment for their hateful crimes. THANK GOD!!! There is hope for my sex!!!
My prof even addresses the issues of female on male domestic abuse, false accusations against males in a very serious, sympathetic, and vigilant manner, and encourages males to stand up and not take that kind of bullshit.
She doesn't even think Scott Peterson is guilty because there is no murder weapon, no explaination as to how the killing occurred, and she does NOT believe that just because a man does not want children and has affairs automatically makes him a murderer. She blasted the prosecution for making the stupid assumption that every 'philandering' [male] spouse is a murderer.
She shows us stats proving that women are becoming ever more violent and abusive, and then making bullshit false accusations in order to get out of prison sentences. She even alludes to the future fact that women will become the primary abusers and offenders and will overflow the prison system, even death row.
I think she's trying to teach my female peers within a class a lesson about what TRUE GENDER EQUALITY really means.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:53 PM November 6th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Thea-
I really hope that that never happens.
I don't want to see women eventually have to deal with the same sort of B.S. that men have to deal with, now.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
