By Phyllis Chesler
Dearest Readers:
C’mon now. One, two, or three women (including a transman, aka a woman) do not in any way override the 98-99% of mass shooters who are biologically male.
Further: Incidents of mothers killing (their own) children, while reprehensible, are not the same as mass shootings of strangers.
Again: Compared to male serial killers, who kill mainly women, one by one, female serial killers are both rare and very different from male serial killers. True, there is more than one “first” female serial killer (Aileen Wuornos). Hell yes. I wrote a book about this titled: Requiem for a Female Serial Killer.
Yes, there are wives who marry and then kill a series of husbands for their insurance money (“black widows”). These are intimate family murders and are not the same as mass shootings of strangers or serial killings, which are mainly male-on-female and sometimes male-on-male killings. However, there are both female and male nurses who have killed their elderly patients as well as infants who are strangers to them.
Moving right along: Are you serious about female domestic violence rivaling or even surpassing physical male domestic violence? If so, you are sadly misinformed or are, perhaps, bitter over a more personal matter. Women may psychologically or verbally torment their spouses but that, too, is not the same as breaking bones or killing.
Are women angels? Absolutely not. I am the author of Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, and I know this very well. But women are far more aggressive towards other women than to men. Yes, women may fail both their male and female children–but again, that is not the same as a mass shooting of strangers. That, too, is intimate family violence.
Apples are not Oranges.
Above all–as we contemplate mass shootings: first follow the testosterone. Men and women are not the same hormonally, anatomically, genetically, biologically, etc. Then, look into the psychiatric medications that have previously been administered to mass shooters. And then, look into the psychiatric treatment that clearly could not, and did not, succeed.
And then, review the drugs that have been administered to transitioning men and women.
And then–and only then, look at the results of our internet-driven culture, the addiction to it, the socialization of both boys and girls–and then, also please note the inability and refusal of people to “get involved,” which, admittedly, is not easy to do.
First published at Phyllis’ Newsletter
One Response
I could, of course, make the argument that there are many women who have had numerous (6-20) abortions and that could be considered serial murderers. And, of course, those nurses who have murdered dozens of babies or elderly people. I could also point out that there are thousands of wives who inflict spiritual/psychological murder on their husbands.
However, I have to admit that men’s violence towards others is more overt and . . . dramatic. Which is why they get more attention. Women’s violence towards others tend to be more covert, low-key, indirect. This is why women’s weapon of choice for murder has always been poison. And manipulating men to do the dirty work (I was friends for a while with a woman who convinced her brother to murder her husband to cash in on the life insurance; he is still serving a life sentence, and she was released decades ago).
Part of it is due to women’s innate cowardliness, part of it to the desire to continue being seen as blameless and innocent, and part of it has to do with women’s physical weakness vis a vis men.
I have always said that women can be just as scummy and as evil (NOT MORE!) than men. They just hide it so much better. Many women criminal defendants have been acquitted of their crimes or received a slap on the wrist in courts simply by looking demure, weak, pretty. Eileen Wuornos got the death sentence simply because she was huge and looked the part of a serial killer.