Sunday, July 28, 2013

Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relationships

Trigger alert:

Dear Reader: If you happen to member of either of the following communities – Toy Dog, Type 1 (mangina) or a Toy Dog Type 2 (white knight) – you should not read the rest of this post.

No Toy Dogs need apply – Big Dogs only!


FULL TEXT: Berlin, July 7. – Dr. Albert Einstein, the famous scientist, made an amazing discovery relative to America on his trip which he recently explained to a sympathetic-looking Hollander as follows:

“The excessive enthusiasm for me in America appears to be typically American. And if I grasp it correctly the reason is that the people in America are as colossally bored, very much more than is the case with us. After all, there is so little for them there!” he exclaimed.

Dr. Einstein said this with vibrant sympathy. He continued:

“New York, Boston, Chicago and other cities have their theatres and concerts, but for the rest? There are cities with 1,000,000 inhabitants. Despite which what poverty, intellectual poverty! The people are, therefore, glad when something is given them with which they can play and over which they can enthuse. And that they do, then, with monstrous intensity.

“Above all things there are the women who, as a literal fact, dominate the entire life in America. The men take an interest in absolutely nothing at all. They work and work, the like of which I have never seen anywhere yet. For the rest they are the toy dogs of the women, who spend the money in a most unmeasurable, illimitable way and wrap themselves in a fog of extravagance. They do everything which is the vogue and now quite by chance they have thrown themselves on the Einstein fashion.”

“You ask whether it makes a ludicrous impression on me to observe the excitement of the crowd for my teaching and my theory, of which it, after all, understandable nothing? I find it funny and at the same time interesting to observe the game.”

“I believe quite positively that it is the mysteriousness of what they cannot conceive which places them under a magic spell. One tells them of something big which will influence all future life, of a theory which only a small group, highly learned, can comprehend. Big names are mentioned of men who made discoveries, of which the crowd grasps nothing. But it impresses them, takes on color and the magic power of mystery, and thus one becomes enthusiastic and excited.”

“My impressions of scientific life in America? Well, I met with great interest several extraordinary meritorious professors, like Professor Milliken. I unfortunately missed Professor Michelson in Chicago, but to compare the general scientific life in America with Europe is nonsense.

[“Einstein Declares Women Rule Here – Scientist Says He Found American Men the Toy Dogs of the Other Sex. - People Colossally Bored - Showed Excessive Enthusiasm Over Him for Lack of Other Thinks, He Thinks.” The New York Times (N.Y.), Jul. 8, 1921, Section (?), p. 9]


Sunday, July 21, 2013

Mr. Belfort Bax Replies to his Feminist Critics. – Aug. 8, 1908

-- Women nowadays “want it,” not “both ways” merely, but all ways. -- 

[Belfort Bax, “Mr. Belfort Bax Replies to his Feminist Critics.” New Age: A Weekly Review of Politics, Literature, and Art, London, Aug. 8, 1908, p. 287-288]


FULL TEXT: Amid the various writers who have favoured THE NEW AGE with their views on the question of Female Suffrage, none have really traversed my original contention, as contained in my first article. That contention was, that occupying as they do a privileged position before the law – not only in itself, but still more in its administration – as against men, women have no just claim to the franchise. That the votaries of Female Suffrage feel this, is proved by the fact that their most serious efforts at arguments turn upon the iniquity of subjecting women to “man-made laws,” their staple policy throughout their agitation being, by dint of lying assertions and insinuations, ceaselessly repeated, to create the impression on the public mind that the existing state of the law and its administration not only does not favour women, but is actually unfair to “the sex.” Now, as I have pointed out, to anyone in the least acquainted with the theory and practice of the English law, there can be no doubt whatever that the latter, in theory and still more in practice, is entirely and without any exception whatever, one-sided and partial to women and against men.

The only correspondent of THE NEW AGE who has really touched the point at issue at all, while admitting the substantial truth of my remarks, confines himself to suggesting exaggeration on my part and observing that our infamous anti-man marriage laws were unjust “not on one side only.” But I must deny the charge of exaggeration, a denial that can be substantiated by illustrative cases galore. As regards the marriage laws, I insist that the unfairness is wholly and solely on one side. But I must here make an explanation. There does exist on paper one slight concession of fairness towards the husband. The divorce law, namely, ordains that an adulterous wife, owing to the fact that by her adultery she can introduce into the family, and compel her husband to support, a bastard child, can be divorced by the husband on proof of adultery alone, whereas for a wife to obtain divorce from her husband (in which case, of course, the above reason does not obtain), it is necessary to prove cruelty in addition to adultery. Now, believer as I am that marriage ought to be an absolutely free union, it is certainly not my case to defend the existing marriage laws as a system. But I do say that, given that system and our present property and family relations generally, nothing can be more reasonable or more equitable as between the man and the woman than this provision of the English law respecting divorce.

Yet when brought to book and challenged to give a concrete instance of the unfairness of “man-made laws “ to woman aboutt which the woman’s righter is perennially blathering at large, it is invariably this very innocent and natural provision of the divorce law that is trotted out, it being the solitary instance in which the law does not overtly favour the woman at the expense of the man. But I have said that this provision exists on paper merely, and so it does, since in practice it remains a dead letter. For the discrimination in question is now practically abolished, anything which the wife objects to – coming home late at night, going out to a party without taking her with him, holding her hands when she attempts to scratch or bite him – being adjudged technical cruelty by the husband within the meaning of the law. Per contra, the Act of 1895 condones expressly the adultery of the wife, providing she can successfully plead “neglect” (an elastic term) on the part of the husband. So much for this solitary case in which the Feminist, to his horror and indignation, finds that the law does not for once avowedly favour women at the expense of men. But apart from this isolated example, the whole marriage law is one tissue of favouritism to the woman and injustice to the man, as I have already shown.

And yet we find in “advanced” journals tirades like the following: “Any fool, any blackguard, any coward, is wise enough and worthy enough to be allowed a legal and a holy license to torture and insult a woman. Anything with the title of husband in his pocket may goad and stab and lash and sear the soul of the slave we call a wife” (Clarion, July 17) Unfortunately, the champion liar who can gush forth the mendacious, sentimental slush, of which the foregoing is a sample, does not stand alone. His performance is but part of an anti-man crusade of misrepresentation and falsehood carefully organised and skilfully engineered, the object of which is, and has been, to inflame public opinion against men in the interests of female privilege and of female domination. Feminists well know that the most grotesquely far-fetched cry anent the injustice of man to woman will meet with a ready ear. They well know that they get here fond and foolish man on his soft side. Looking at the matter impartially, it is quite evident that man’s treatment of woman is the least vulnerable point in his moral record. Woman, as such, he has always treated with comparative generosity. But it is, of course, to the interests of the abettors of female domination to pretend the contrary. Accordingly everything has been done to excite prejudice in favour of woman as the innocent and guileless victim of man’s tyranny, and the maudlin Feminist sentiment of the “brute” man has been carefully exploited to this end. The result of two generations’ agitation in the above sense is seen in the existing state of the law, civil and criminal, in which the “Woman’s Movement” has succeeded in effecting the violation of every principle of rectitude towards the male side of the sex-equation. The existing laws connected with marriage which place the husband practically in the position of legal slavery as regards the wife is typical of the whole.

That the present “Votes for Women” movement is only a phase of the anti-man crusade which Feminism has been carrying on for nigh two generations past with the aid of the Press, is shown, not only by the persistent efforts to represent “ man-made laws “ as unjust to women, but by the incidental remarks of Suffragette leaders in which the sex animus is shown, no concealment being made of the intention to use the suffrage for rivetting on man the chains of legalised female oppression. For example, Mrs. Pankhurst recently represented one of the functions of emancipated “Womanhood” to be the handing over of the luckless male to the Female blackmailer by raising the “age of consent” above sixteen!! The allusion made at the same time to the “daughters of the working class “ is a piece of demagogy too thin to deceive anyone as to the venomous sex-spite animating this outrageous proposal.

Again, in the Daily News for July 30 a suffragette objects to a woman being punished for murdering her child, protesting that the father, who had had nothing to do with the crime, ought to have been in the dock in her place!

In the present agitation we see merely the culmination of a Feminist campaign organised with scarcely any attempt at concealment, as I have said, on the basis of a sex-war. But this sex-war is at present one-sided, the man’s case goes by default. There is no sex-conscious man’s party to be appealed to and to engineer public opinion in favour of the claims of the most elementary justice for him, as here is a sex-conscious woman’s party to further any and every iniquitous claim of the female sex. So long as the present state of things lasts, organised determination on the one side and indefinite gullibility on the other, are likely to maintain the ascendancy of the Feminist cult and increase the sphere of female privilege.

It has often been remarked that even if the suffrage were granted, the enforcement of the laws decreed by a female majority would be dependent on the goodwill of men. This observation we are accustomed to find greeted by Feminist jeers. The jeers may be justified for the moment, but the intrinsic truth of the observation remains none the less. So long, namely, as the Woman’s Party can continue to bulldose men as they have done up to the present, so long will they be able to make men obey and enforce their behests, whether formulated directly through the suffrage or indirectly by hoodwinking public opinion as they do now. But when once men get tired of this, when once the reaction sets in and a sex-conscious Man’s Party forms itself, then Heaven help the women!! The anti-man ranting sisterhood do not seem to realise what the position of their sex would be if men took to refusing to act against their “brothers.” They think it the most natural thing in the world for women to talk and act in this strain as regards their “sisters.” The explanation, to my mind, is simple. They instinctively feel that man is more than sex, that he stands for humanity in the concrete, whereas woman stands, par excellence, for sex and sex alone. As I have often pointed out before, common phraseology recognises that while man has a sex woman is a sex. The hollowness of the sham of the modern dogma of equality between the sexes is shown by the fact that the assumption of inferiority is called into requisition without any hesitation when there is anything to be gained by it for the cause of female privilege. The dogma of equality is reserved for pleading for the franchise, for the opening up of the professions, and similar occasions. According to the current theory, while women are fully equal to men in capacity for government, administration, etc., and hence, while justice demands that these spheres should be accessible to them, they are so inferior to men in the capacity to control their actions and to distinguish right from wrong, that it is not to be thought of that they, poor weak women, should be treated with the same impartiality or severity by the law as is dealt out to men. Women nowadays “want it,” not “both ways” merely, but all ways. At least as good arguments may be produced to prove that the apparent muscular inferiority of women to men is not fundamental, as are adduced to prove that the apparent intellectual inferiority is not fundamental. There are plenty of instances of extraordinary bodily strength in women. And yet we never hear these arguments. Why? Because Feminists have no interest, but quite the contrary, in perverting the truth on this side, whereas on the other, their demands require that they shall prove equality – the aim being to ensure for women all honourable, agreeable, and lucrative occupations in life, while guarding them carefully from all rough and disagreeable work and from all unpleasant responsibilities. Hence it suits their book to admit the physical, while denying the mental, inferiority. My constitutional objection to privileged classes extends also to a privileged sex. Hence my (as some deem it, intemperate) zeal in exposing the hollow humbug on which the practical demands of the “Woman’s Movement” rest.

Turning again to the present agitation, it is noteworthy how the evidence as to the numerical strength of the Suffrage movement adduced by its advocates is about on a level with the arguments advanced in support of the general principle of Feminism. A stage army, the vanguard of which probably amounts to some five hundred, which can on occasion, from all England, be raised to ten thousand (among these, girlish youth and innocence being particularly prominent), such is all that has yet been achieved, and such it is that we are asked to regard as representing the public opinion of England. However, one may suppose that the Feminists are so accustomed to their statements otherwise being allowed to pass by default, that they have come to regard the supineness and gullibility of public opinion in these matters as a safe speculation. Hence, at the beginning of the twentieth century the figure of British Womanhood rises up before us, reeking with privilege, and, in alternate strophes, tearfully whimpering and threateningly shrieking that she has not enough, that she wants more! Such, at least is the Womanhood of the Feminist agitation. In concluding this controversy, I can only reaffirm my original position unshaken, and that is, that whatever other arguments there may be for or against “Votes for Women,” certain it is, under any ordinarily recognised standard of fairness and equality, that so long as women enjoy those privileges before the law at the expense of men which they now do, it is unjust that they should be given facilities for increasing them by the concession of the franchise. 

[Belfort Bax, “Mr. Belfort Bax Replies to his Feminist Critics.” New Age: A Weekly Review of Politics, Literature, and Art, London, Aug. 8, 1908, p. 287-288]



Monday, July 15, 2013

Ella Holdridge, Funeral-Loving Teenage Serial Killer from Tonawanda, New York - 1892


On or before Jul. 7, 1892 – several children, at Father Baker’s institution at Limestone Hill; survived.
Jul. 7, 1892 Louisa Stromer (“Stermer” “Steiner”), (7) poisoned.
Jul. 9, 1892 Louisa Stromer (“Stermer” “Steiner”), died.
Jul. 11, 1892 Louisa's funeral.
Jul. 12, 1892 Susie Eggleston; (10), poisoned, saved.
Jul. 12, 1892 Jennie Eggleston (5), poisoned, saved.
Jul. 12, 1892 Henry Garlock (5), poisoned, saved.


FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 4): Buffalo, N.Y., July 20 – The frightful death of Louisa Stormer [sic, Stermer], and the severe illness of five or six other children of Tonawanda, has brought to light the fact that 14-year-old Ella Holdridge is a murderess. Her frightful crime is the result of a morbid desire to see death scenes enacted. She was attended every funeral that has occurred in the neighborhood for several years past. Funerals have been infrequent hereabouts lately. Ella, it seems, took upon herself the duty of supplying subjects. She administered rat poison to several pupils of Father Baker’s institution at Limestone Hill. They suffered frightfully while she stood by and coolly awaited the coming of death.

The helpless little ones ran shrieking from her presence. Medical aid was summoned and her lives were saved. She claimed to have been given them hot water, and as no serious results followed no investigation was made. The Stormer girl was her next victim. The dead child never spoke after the dose had been given her, and as the physician called gave a certificate of death from summer complaint no suspicion was attached to the Holdridge girl, who saw her die and was the most interested spectator at the grave.

Only a day after Louisa Stormer was buried she fed the children of Mrs. Wallace Eggleston, who left them in her charge, liberal allowances of rat poison. Dr. Edmonds was called. He detected the evidences of poison at once. Heroic measures were adopted and the little ones now hover between life and death, little hope of their recovery being entertained. He left the bedside of the Eggleston children one hour, and the next he was called in to save the life of the 5-year-old child of Henry Garlock, who had been poisoned. The child, too, had been playing with Ella Holdridge and told of eating food prepared by her. Dr. Edmunds sent for the Holdridge girl and forced her to confess that she not only poisoned the children at the institution, the Egglestons and little Garlock, but actually murdered Louisa Stromer. She described with great earnestness and tragic effect the horrible sufferings of her victims and seemed to gloat over the death of Louisa Stormer who she said “made the prettiest corpse ever put under New York soil.” The coroner is now investigating the case. The girl is under police surveillance.

[“She Murdered For Fun. – The Morbid Passion of A Child Leads Her to Crime.” The Philadelphia Record (Pa.), Jul. 21, 1892, p. 7]


EXCERPT (Article 2 of 4): The village of South Tonawanda (N.Y.) was thrown into a state of excitement over a startling case of poisoning that has just come to light. Ella Holdridge, a fourteen-year-old girl, is charged with having given several of her playmates “rough on rats.” One child died and three others are not expected to live. The little daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Steiner was taken sick and died three hours later. It was then thought she had cholera morbus. On the following Wednesday Mrs. Eggleston went to Buffalo, leaving her little girls, Susie, aged ten, and Jennie, aged five, at home. Ella Holdridge came over to play with the children, and while there coaxed the children into the house and forced them to take the poison, which she had mixed with chocolate. She told them it was good, and that her mamma used it in coffee. The children were very soon taken ill, and Dr. Edmunds was sent for. He said they had been poisoned. The Holdridge girl was sent for and questioned. She finally confessed to having given them the poison.

NOTE: The original article discusses two separate juvenile murder case (the other not being a “serial” case).

[“A Pair of Juvenile Fiends.” The Tuapeka Times (Lawrence, New Zealand), Nov. 2, 1892, p. 5]


FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 4): Buffalo, N . Y ., July 20.— Out at Father Baker’s institution at Limestone Hill there is a girl of 14 years, Ella Holdridge, whose morbid passion for seeing death and funerals has led her to kill one of her playmates and cause the serious illness of three others by poison.

The Holdridges have lived in Tonawanda several years. While in all other respects Ella has been like other children, her parents and the neighbors have always noticed that a funeral or the announcement of a death seemed to set her wild.

She grow to be a very familiar figure at the burying ground, for almost as certainly as there was a funeral the child was near the open grave.

Tonawanda is 10 miles from Buffalo, but it might just as well be at the bottom of Lake Erie so far as the publicity of news is concerned, and thus it is that Ella’s crime did not become known for more than a week.

Her plan was to administer rat poison, which she made as agreeable to take as possible by mixing it with cocoa. When the children refused to take it willingly she threw them on their backs and forced it down their throats, leaving them to die if they would, but watching their suffering from a distance and gloating over it.

As far as can be learned this

Child Borgia’s Work

began in earnest July 7. On that day Ella had been playing with Louisa, the 7-year-old daughter of Herman Stormer. Shortly after she left Louisa was taken violently ill. The weather was hot, just the kind in which children’s complaints flourish, and the physician called prescribed for summer complaint. None of his remedies eased her sufferings, and alter two days of intense agony the little girl died.

She was buried on the 11th, and one of the conspicuous figures at the Stormer home during the days intervening between death and the funeral and at the open graveside was little Ella Holdridge, solemn and quiet, but her eyes flashing with excitement, her cheeks burning and her face full of mystery.

The doctor had given a certificate of death from summer complaint, and no thought of murder or poison entered the mind of any one until last Wednesday, when Mrs. Eggleston came to Buffalo on a shopping expedition, leaving her two young daughters at home. She had been gone only a few minutes when the Holdridge girl went to the house. The children were playing around the doorstep.

Ella took them inside and told them she would make them something nice. She looked the door and made a pot of cocoa, into which she threw a generous handful of rat poison.

One of the children didn’t like the taste, the liquid was poured down her throat. Then Ella told them both they would be all right soon, directing thorn not to tell any one.

That night both children were taken violently ill and Dr. Edmonds was called. He at once suspected poison. Questioning the little patients closely, he learned enough to nut him on the

Track of the Child Poisoner.

Ever since then Dr. Edmonds has been attending the children, and may save their lives, although the hot weather tolls against them.

While he was working over the Eggleston children it was discovered that the 5-year-old son of Mr. Garlock had been poisoned.

A panic seized the neighborhood. Every child was catechised to learn if it had eaten or drank anything given them by Ella Holdridge.

By hard work the physicians who attended the Garlock boy saved his life, although he is yet very ill. In the mean-time, Dr. Harris, who attended the girl who died, and Dr. Edmonds had compared notes, and Justice of the Peace Rogers and Coroner Hardleben were notified and began an investigation.

The Holdridge child was sent for and questioned. At first she denied having given any of the children anything to eat or drink, but when told that she had been seen making the cocoa, and that it was known she had poisoned them, she very naively and with wide-open eyes said:

“Dear me, is that so?”

Then she made a full confession. She told how she had made the cocoa with the poison in it, and how she had forced it down the throats of the little Eggleston children because she wanted to go to a funeral and thought they would look so nice dead. When the death of little Louise Stermer was brought up she frankly said:

“Yes, she’s dead. Poor Louisa! But she looked awful pretty, and her funeral was awful nice.”

Ella had given her the poison in a drink of water, she said. She told her tale in the most matter-of-fact way, without seeming to realize the enormity of her act.

At the conclusion of the confession Justice Rogers sent her to Father Baker’s for safe-keeping until the coroner’s investigation is finished.

It has been learned that after she had given the poison to the little Stermer girl Ella went home, and her mother, noticing that she seemed to be laboring under suppressed excitement, asked her what the trouble was,

“I don’t know,” she replied, “but I guess

Little Louisa is Goin’ to Die.

‘cause she’s pretty sick. The doctor is there.”

From then until the child died Ella made frequent trips to the Stermer house, tiptoed her way to a window and peeked in. Every time she ran back to her mother and cried almost joyously.

“I guess she’s most dead now.”

Finally little Louisa died. The first intimation Mrs. Holdridge had of it was when Ella ran into the house clapping her hands and dancing up and down, saying gleefully;

“I guess she’s dead now, ‘cause they’re all in there crying, and there’s a man there with a box. She’s dead, she’s dead; I know it.”

And she danced out into the street. Mrs. Holdridge is almost prostrated with grief.

“I questioned Ella,” she said, “but all I can get from her is that she thought they would look nice dead and she wanted to go to the funerals.”

“She seemed always to have a perfect mania for deaths and funerals. Every time any one died she learned of it in some way and would dance up and down with joy, clapping her hands and saying: “He’s dead! He’s dead!”

“Then if she could she would slip away and go to the cemetery to the funeral.”

“Several times when she has returned home after an absence, and I questioned her she would tell me enough to lead me to believe she had been following a funeral.

“So deeply was she interested in the death of little Louisa that she slipped away once or twice the evening before she died and went to the house. This she told me just before they took her to Father Baker’s.”

The girl was seen in the institution today and questioned, but could give no explanation of her poisoning, other than that “they looked nice dead.” When asked how she knew the poison would kill the children, she said:

“If it killed rats and mice it would kill children.”

Her mind seems perfectly free from evil, and she said, very quietly and earnestly:

“Little Louisa looked very pretty dead.”

She says she got the poison “in the house.”

[“They Looked Nice Dead. – Little Girl Near Buffalo Liked Funerals. - For This Reason She Gave Seven-Year-Old Louisa Stermer Poison. - She Was Not Suspected Till Many Children Were at Death’s Door.” The Boston Daily Globe (Ma.), Jul. 20, 1892, p. 4]


FULL TEXT (Article 4 of 4): Buffalo, N. Y., July 20. – Out at Father Baker’s institution, at Limestone Hill, there is a girl of 14 years, Ella Holdridge, whose morbid passion for seeing death and funerals has led her to kill one of her playmates and cause the serious illness three others by poison.

Uninvited, Ella went to all the funerals, and always crowded well up toward the grave, where she stood looking down the opening. Her plan with children was to give them rat poison, first mixing it with cocoa, and when they refused to take it willingly threw them on their backs and forced it down their throats, leaving them die if they would and gloatingly watch their sufferings. She began her Borgia work July 7 with Louisa, the daughter of Mr. Herman Stermer. The illness was attributed to summer complaint and treated accordingly. Death followed two days later, and conspicuous figure at the house, funeral and the open grave side was little Ella Holdridge, solemn and quiet, her eyes flashing with excitement and her cheeks rosy red.

Last Wednesday, when Mrs. Eggleston visited Buffalo, leaving her two young daughters at home, Alla [sic] visited the house and told the children she would make them something nice. She made a pot of cocoa, into which she threw a generous handful of rat poison. One of the children did not like the taste. She was pushed on to the sofa. The liquid was poured down her throat. Then Ella told them both they would be all right soon, directing them not to tell any one. These children are not yet out of danger. The five-year-old son of George Garlock was next poisoned, and panic seized the neighborhood. Every child was catechised to learn if they had eaten drank any thing given by Ella. Ella has confessed everything, and said in the case of the little Eggleston children that she wanted to go their funeral because they would look so nice dead. When the death of the little Stermer girl was brought up, Ella said. “Yes, she looked awfully pretty in a coffin.”

When the Stermer girl was sick Ella was asked by her mother what the trouble was, the reply was given, “I think she is going to Heaven.” From then until the child died Ella made frequent trips to the Stermer house, tiptoeing to the window and peeping in.

Every time she ran back to her mother and, cried, almost joyously: “I guess she’s most dead now.” Finally little Louisa died. The first intimation Mrs. Holdridge had of it was when Ella ran into the house clapping her hands and dancing up an down saying, gleefully:

“I guess she’s dead now, ‘cause they’re all in there crying and there’s a man there with a box. She’s dead, she’s dead, I knew it!” and she danced off out into the street. When Ella was asked hew she knew the poison would kill the children, she said: “If it killed rats and mice it would kill children.”

[“Young Borgia. - She Had a Morbid Desire to Attend Funerals. - To Gratify Her Whim She Poisons Her Playmates. - She Feeds Them on Rough on Rats and When One of Them Resisted She Rammed the Deadly Stuff Down Her Throat - Horrible Crime.” Daily Public Ledger (Maysville, Ky.), Jul. 20, 1892, p. 3]




The Ella Holdridge case is included in a new book: Michael T. Keene, Question of Sanity: The True Story of Female Serial Killers in 19th Century New York, Feb. 2014, Willow Manor Pub.



More cases: Serial Killer Girls


For more cases of this category, see: Female Serial Killers of 19th Century America (as of January 20, 2014, the collection contains 61 cases)


More cases: Youthful Borgias: Girls Who Commit Murder


Friday, July 12, 2013

The Unknown History Of Misandry - on - A Voice For Men

Main Article (which explains the entire series)

Setting the record straight – (Feb. 20, 2012)
  Why knowing history is crucial, and ignoring it is extremely dangerous.

Feature articles by Robert St. Estephe

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

Welcome to my rape fantasy – (Nov. 5, 2013) [cross-listed]

A “Guilty Pleasure”: Ignoring the feminist narrative – (Oct. 28, 2013)

Death on the ‘baby farm’ – (in 2 parts: July 16 & 27, 2013)

Female serial killer bandits – (July 3, 2013)
– 15 new discoveries of historical female serial killers ignored by criminologists.

– A charity organization in Yugoslavia formed expressly for the purpose of assisting in the murder of husbands.

– A politically incorrect diagnosis of a “gender paranoia.”

  Serial killers who made a business of marry men and murdering them.

MRM history quiz – (Aug. 28, 2012)

The people's guide to marriage – (Apr. 19, 2012)
– The Soviet marriage “reform” of the mid-1920s, based on false theories, creates incentive to collect multiple “husbands” as alimony slaves.

Series of historical text “reprints”

Reuben Kidd: MHRA 1960 – (Oct. 29, 2013)

Wives with whips – (Oct. 15, 2013)

Robert Ecob, Early MHRA - 1927 – (Sep. 18, 2013)

Rape jokes of the 1980s – (Sep. 12, 2013)

“Foe of the Gold-Diggers” – (Aug. 26, 2013)

Men Going Their Own Way in 1919 – (Aug. 23, 2013)

Alimony slaves can do it! – (Aug. 7, 2013)

MGTOW in 1929 – (Jul. 24, 2013)

– Prominent women who fought against female privilege: important information on the university professors do not want you to know.

– An epidemic of murders committed by “entitled” women whom expected chivalry to protect them from paying for their crimes.

Eunice Murphy arranged fiancé’s lynching – to get his money - 1911 – (Jun. 17, 2012)
– Proxy violence: how women dupe men to commit murder on their behalf.

– Hubby, buys a new house and while out of town his wife secretly divorces him and puts their children in temporary care while she goes off on honeymoon. The father is arrested for kidnapping when he goes to get his kids from temporary location (wife sill on honeymoon).

Golden age of the mangina – (May 17, 2012)
– A woman, in 1904, expresses her frustration with men who allow themselves to be dominated by women.

U H of M: False Allegations – (May 8, 2012)
– A Michigan legislator attempts, in 1927, to pass a bill against false rape allegations.

– Following the surrender of German troops in WW II false rape accusations against US soldiers, with a penalty of death, are used as a strategy of destabilization.

– A US Civil War veteran spent his life searching for his parentally kidnapped children.

– A study of women’s motives for demanding ex-husbands be jailed reveals “sadism” as a primary motive.

[70 articles]

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Rape Scare in Edmonton, Canada

A Voice for Men Radio, July 11, 2013

EPISODE DESCRIPTION: Tonight we have a very special and urgent radio show response to the events currently unfolding in Canada regarding the massive media coverage of Men’s Rights Edmonton’s “Don’t Be That Girl” campaign.  Members of the group will be joining us to discuss the deluge of attention coming from the press and angry feminists across the country.  We invite ALL interested parties especially any feminists who want to weigh in.  This is an opportunity to have an open debate with those who oppose Men’s Rights Edmonton’s  actions and we look forward to their participation.


Wednesday, July 10, 2013

The Shanghai “Female Jack the Ripper” - 1930

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 3): Shanghai, Feb. 10. – The activities of a female "Jack the Ripper" are baffling the police in the foreign settlement at Shanghai. Two child murders have been reported in the past two days. On Saturday afternoon a Japanese girl seven months old was stabbed an the neck and strangled, and last night the water police picked up a Chinese girl in the harbour, who had been strangled in similar manner.

The murder of the Japanese baby occurred in an upstairs room at its home, and the police are searching for a pretty Chinese girl with bobbed-hair, believed to be a cabaret dancer, who was seen by the mother of the murdered child to leave the premises shortly after the tragedy. The absence of any apparent motive for the crimes intensifies the mystery surrounding them. The entire staff of the Japanese Consulates is assisting the, municipal police in their endeavour to trace the murderess.

The father of the first victim is a cashier at the Yokohama Specie Bank at Kajiwara.

[“Children Murdered - Mysterious Crimes At Shanghai.” Western Argus (Kalgoorlie, W.A., Australia), Feb. 18, 1930, p. 25]


FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 3): Shanghai, Tuesday. – The Japanese, consular police, in conjunction with the International settlement police, have arrested the supposedly femaleJack the Ripper,” in connection with two child murders, which have been committed within two days.

She is a Japanese dancing girl, employed at a local cabaret. It is believed that she is insane.

On Saturday, afternoon a Japanese girl, seven months old was stabbed in the neck and strangled.

On Sunday night, the water police picked up a Chinese girl in the harbour strangled in a similar manner.

The Japanese crime occurred in the child's home upstairs. The police began the search for a pretty, bobbed-haired Japanese girl, believed to be a cabaret dancer. She was seen by the mother of the murdered child when leaving the premises.

The absence of an apparent motive intensified the mystery. The entire force of the Japanese consular police assisted the municipal police in tracking the murderer.

[“Brutal Murders - Two Children in Shanghai - Japanese Girl Arrested,” The Canberra Times (Australia), Feb. 12, 1930, p. 1]


FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 3): Shanghai, February 11. – The Japanese consular police, in conjunction with the international settlement detectives, have arrested the supposed female “Jack the Ripper.”

A Japanese dancing girl, employed in a local cabaret, confessed to the murders. She is believed to be insane. Two young children were murdered in two days.

[“Child Murders - Cabaret Dancer Confesses,” The Advertiser (Adelaide, S.A., Australia), Feb. 12, 1930, p. 17]


For more Real Life Ogresses see: Ogresses: Female Serial Killers of the Children of Others


Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Violence Against Women by Violent Women: The Third Rail of Feminism

Throughout history unspeakably cruel crimes have been committed by violent women against women and girls. But the heavily-funded 600+ Women’s Studies departments in United State universities and the multi-billion dollar domestic violence industry seem to want to pretend female victims of violent women do not exist.

The reason for this treatment of female victims of violent women is that detailed case reports of atrociously cruel and gratuitous murders and tortures of women committed women would, if they were given the attention they deserve, would undermine the entire ideology that justifies a biased, misandric, approach to dealing with social problems

Thus, from the perspective of the domestic violence movement, female victims are, in a very real sense treated as second-class victims, whose stories need to be kept under the rug.

• •



Acid Queens: Women Who Throw Acid (includes victims of both sexes)

Creepiest Female Serial Killer Quotations (includes victims of both sexes)

Creepiest Female Serial Killers (includes victims of both sexes)

Female Serial Killers of 19th Century America (includes victims of both sexes)

• •



On June 22, 2013 a website called Fem It Up! Put out the following false statement in reference to The Unknown History of MISANDRY.

“Here’s a whole website devoted to exposing the history of “misandry” by telling the sordid tales of female serial killers who targeted men, like Vera Renczi and Viktoria Foedi Rieger. Don’t think the irony is lost on me that I am using a paranoid Men’s Rights site to make my case.”

[Christina Paschyn, “Jackie the Ripper: Where Are All the Female Serial Killers on TV?” Fem It Up!, Jun 22, 2013]

Apparently the author did not spend much time working on her psychiatric diagnosis of “paranoia,” since she failed to notice that the website is not devoted primarily to female serial killers, but also contains extensive historical sources on chivalry justice, racketeering (Heart Balm Racket, Badger Game, Alimony Racket, Allotment Annies, etc.), Revenge-Motivated Maternal Filicide, the early history of the Men’s Rights Movement (1910s-1920s), and most notably, violence by women against woman, as exemplified in “Female Serial Killers Who Liked to Murder Women” and “The Forgotten Serial Killers” about child care providers who murdered children (of both sexes, mind you).

The history of Female Serial Killers is, nevertheless, an important topic on The Unknown History of MISANDRY, it must be said..

Our research has identified 700 cases, the vast majority of them unknown to experts.

By the way, the majority of victims of female serial killers have been, in the aggregate, women and children.

• •

• •

• •

Edith Ransom & the Heart Balm Racket - 1922

FULL TEXT: Miss Edith L. Ransom, a twenty-three-year-old Richmond, Va., beauty filed papers in a suit in Supreme Court for alleged breach of promise against John B. Woodward, an executive and part owner of a Chicago newspaper. He is a widower, about sixty years old, and while in New York lives at the Dearborn Apartments in West 55th Street, Miss Ransom lives nearby in the Hotel. No. 147 West 55th Street.

In her complaint filed by her counsel, Thomas J. Stapleton of No 305 Broadway, Miss Ransom alleges that Woodward asked her to be his wife while they were a dinner in the Hotel Majestic, on June 20, 1920, and that he renewed this promise in October of the same year while the were at a sanitarium in Summit, N. J. Now, she avers, that recently he withdrew his promises to marry and $100,000 damages.

Woodward was served with a summons in the suit in his offices in the Times Building on Wednesday

In a letter to her lawyer, included in the complaint, Miss Ransom writes:

“After several quarrels Mr. Woodward told me that he did not intend to marry me as he had discovered that I had a very jealous nature, and that I got on his nerves at times when I became hysterical after his quarreling with me.

“Due to the disappointment and heartache and worry over the compromising position in which I have been placed I fell seriously ill last summer in the Edgewater Beach Hotel and can secure proof from people in Chicago that Mr. Woodward introduced me to his friends and paid all my expenses while in Chicago at his fiancee.”

Among various letters submitted by tin plaintiff in her complaint is on the letterhead of a Chicago newspaper, saying in part:

“Dear Edith: You have great versatility in letter writing. In almost every letter you write you show it. Sunday you pictured me as a your big wonderful man. Tuesday I was a shrimp, not it to continue as your devoted pal, that on my return to New York  I was not to speak to you Wednesday I was to prepare for the Wedding March and on Thursday I was a cold-hearted villain who had forsaken his Princess and was rushing widows and vamps. Your letters are always interesting and I enjoy them immensely.”

Affidavits are submitted to Mrs. Margaret Ott, superintendent, and nurse, at the Esther [?] Erbach Dr. Reinie’s sanitarium, Summitt, N. J., declaring that Woodward and Miss Ransom spent ten days in adjoining rooms of the sanitarium and that she held Miss Ransom out as his fiancée and it was understood they were to be married next December.”

Miss Ransom is an orphan, her parents having died when she was an infant. She was reared in the .Masonic Home in Richmond, Va. Dining the war she was secretary to George Creel, Director of the Bureau of Public Information. It was while she was Mr. Creel’s secretary that she first met Mr. Woodward.

[“‘About 60’ Asks 23-Year Beauty To Be His Bride; And So Miss Edith L. Ransom Sues John B. Woodward for $100,000 for Heart Balm.” The evening world (N.Y.), Aug. 4, 1922, p. 3]