Message to "Gender" Ideologues

A number of feminists have – in online posts and in comments on this website –  expressed their dismay at what they imagine to be an effort on the part of The Unknown History of MISANDRY to assert or imply that the documentation of individual female serial killer cases is meant to, on its face, elucidate or explain the subject of misandry.

It is thus necessary, apparently, to point out that such an intention does not in actuality exist. Yet the enormous corpus of forgotten and still ignored female serial killer cases – by the hundreds, and hundreds – that have been brought back to light on UHoM does, as a whole, represent evidence of the influence of misandry.

It is still widely believed, even by the vast majority of criminologists and psychologists, that female serial killers are rare in comparison with their male counterparts. The fact that the incidence of female serial killers has never been seriously and thoroughly researched by any professional scholar in the world, seems not to be a cause for caution on the part of today’s experts. The stereotype, a myth in reality, is continuously parroted by writers both popular and scholarly.

The pathological denial of female psychopathy

The experts have, for many decades now, been afraid to honestly address the issue of female sociopath.

“In 1978 an experiment was conducted using 175 mental health professionals as subjects. They were given hypothetical case histories with similar mixed symptoms indicative of ASPD (Anti-social personality disorder) and HPD (histrionic personality disorder). When the therapists were told the patient was a female, they tended to diagnose ASPD in 22 percent of the cases and HPD in 76 percent. However, those cases in which the therapists were told the patients were men, the same symptoms were diagnosed as ASPD in 41 percent of the cases, and HPD in 59 percent. (There were six other possible diagnostic options offered top the therapists.) [Peter Vronsky, Female Serial Killers: How and Why Women Become Monsters, 2007, P. 63)

“There are no major studies in the U. S. of the relationship between psychopathy and homicide by females.” (Vronsky, 2007, p. 64)

The cultural amnesia, the denial of reality, the overt lies spread on epidemic scale in ubiquitous gender ideologues who replace facts with wishes, prejudices and guesses is keeping us ignorant.

Why the term “gender” appears in scare quotes

The sexes are biologically different in many important ways. For example, the male heart and female heart are radically different in their characteristics. Also, the male and female brain are radically different. Decades ago an ideological belief in the “gender theory,” holding that the sexual identity of a person was merely a social construction, rather than a biological reality, was common among both scientists and the public that was based on political preferences and ideals rather than evidence. The social constructionist theory has been debunked in the hard sciences, yet because it appeals to the utopianist mindset it is still predominant in the social sciences. Pretending is favored over truth, and with fashionable postmodernist theories all the rage, there is plenty of cheer-leading going on for the “let’s just pretend” approach to the issue of the difference of the sexes – and everything else under the sun.

► Conclusion

It was never intended that UHoM would feature such an enormous number of female serial killer cases. The site was intended to focus on historical documents that document the falsehood of “herstory” in general and to present the outline of the early stages of the men’s rights movement (such as the early organizations of the 1920s). Yet female serial killers turned out to be a subject that has been much more poorly understood by the expert that was first thought. Hence hundreds upon hundreds of cases were added – offering the opportunity for the beginning of a radical reevaluation of psychopathology in among the female demographic.

UHoM has posted hundreds of forgotten cases, from a total roster now nearing 800 (based on victim count of 3 or more, as opposed to the 2 or more count used in Michael Newton’s Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, a book that contains a minuscule numbers of females (even using the “2 count” criterion.). the black widow serial killer list is an exception in that it does list cases where a woman has murdered only two persons on separate occasions, provided that both victims were either a husband or a paramour.

It should be pointed out that the new research on female serial killers has actually turned up overtly misandric historical cases – beyond the Black Widow Serial Killers – such as the misandric siren Josephine Tzany, and man-hating cross-dressing Viktoria Rieger and the Husband-Killing Syndicates.

This should explain why even though the exposure of a single female serial killer case, or a large selection of cases is not meant to make any point about misandry, yet the exposure of widespread historical amnesia on the part of professional criminologists, crime historians, sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and psychiatrists is indeed a robust clarion call to all that it is time to wake up and smell the stench of politically correct institutional misandry and start to reverse the ubiquitous intellectual fraud that is the product of “gender” ideology (feminism and social constructionist theories).

There is no reason to be confused longer. But there is a lot of reading to do. Welcome to the unknown history of misandry. The amnesia has been cured.



SEE also on UHoM:

and on Youtube,

VIDEO: “Female Psychopaths | Intimate Relationships, Family & Society,” by NeuroInstincts, Published on Nov 24, 2013



silence of the feminists: it's not a scandal .... yet.



The sadistic treatment of children by sociopathic child care providers is a major theme in the long and terrible history of Female Serial Killers. Recently, a major publication presented an article, "Life On the Baby Farm," that was so astonishing in its deceptiveness and callousness that the following article, "Death On the Baby Farm," was composed as a response and a corrective to the unethical historical whitewash.

To learn more details about murderous child care providers in history, including baby farmers, adoption agents and baby sitters, see the 2-part article “Death on the Baby Farm,” by Robert St. Estephe, A Voice for Men, July 16, 2013


Quotations from the groundbreaking 1998 book, Murder Most Rare: The Female Serial Killer, by Michael D. Kelleher and C. L. Kelleher:

Judging by the limited information about female serial murderers that has been made public in this country, the very concept of such a criminal seems  to have been turned aside by a strong cultural bias that denies her existence. Whereas the male serial killer has been regularly lionized by his outrageous exploits, the female serial killer is typically ignored, viewed as an anomaly, or given far less serious retention than her crimes warrant. Even when this murderer is an active member of a serial-killing team, she is typically overshadowed in her actions by the male partner with whom she operates. However, when her crimes are carefully examined it becomes immediately obvious that, in both her callousness and her methods, this perpetrator is on a par with any male serial killer. Ironically, counterbalancing her blatant criminal activity in the apparent cultural disposition to dismiss her genuine criminal potential simply because she is a woman, in view of the social bias, it is no wonder that she is often able to go on killing for may years before she is finally apprehended. (p. xi; emphasis added.)

The female serial killer is a complex individual who murders for very specific reasons and usually presents a significant challenge to law enforcement personnel. She is careful, precise, methodical, and quiet in committing her crimes. Since she generally murders for reasons very different from those of her male counterpart, the female serial murder also presents significant challenges to those  who try to understand her crimes. Because the male serial killer so dominates the popular media and most research efforts, it is frequently difficult to even gather music and most research efforts, it is frequently difficult to even gather basic information about a female perpetrator. Compounding this situation is the social bias that creates an underreporting of the crimes of the female serial killer, regardless of their brutal or sensational nature. Nonetheless, it is both possible and practical to carefully examine her crimes and make an attempt to categorize them. In so doing, we can shed light on the very covert activities of this quiet, but quite lethal, criminal. (p. 8)

Quotations from the 2001 book, Women Who Kill: Profiles of Female Serial Killers, by Carol Ann Davis:

The Forgotten Killers – When the courts convict a female team killer, society quickly forgets about her. (Again, Myra Hindley is the notable exception.) At the time of writing, summer 2000, Gerald Gallego is still in the news – but his killing accomplice Charlene simply isn’t mentioned in many of these contemporary news flashes. Instead, they refer solely to ‘serial killer Gerald Gallego.’ She has been released and as far as younger members of the public are concerned, she never existed to lure young females to her van of death. Yet those of us  who are familiar with the case know that Gerald Gallego didn’t kill before he met her – and that she had a higher IQ and more access to money and a vehicle than he ever did. (The author continues with other striking examples.)

Men Only  It’s clear, then, that the female accomplice is quickly forgotten. But even when the female killer acts alone, potential witnesses often refuse to believe that she has killed. It’s an attitude which allowed Genene Jones to inject baby after baby with potentially lethal medication. Even when one hospital became very suspicious it preferred to sack all its nurses and give Genene a reference rather than contact the authorities.

Similarly the French medical profession stood behind Jeanne Weber twice and swore that the dead children in her care had died of natural causes. Their mistaken faith in female goodness and mother love allowed her to kill again and again. (The author continues with other striking examples.) (p. 239-41)



  1. Funny that you made yourself believe that writing about female serial killers has anything to do with "gender" ideologues, feminism or proves misandry :) Yea, women also kill and can be monsters (who argues with that?), they just do it less often than man, kill mostly family members/children/elderly, in most cases are less violent (poison), in violent cases they usually have male partners in crime. This site proves nothing more than what is well known. I'm waiting for next revelations, like proving not all women are nice and pretty is destroying feminism :)

    1. Regarding the commonly repeated false claim that women are not frequently and exceedingly violent, see this post: The central myth of MISANDRY: “the inherent non-violence of women” --- (The book When She Was Bad, by Patricia Pearson, will hewlp you move beyonfd the myths and cliches you have been subjewcted to by bad sources.)

      This website was not intended to feature female serial killers. That was an afterthought. Most of your remarks are repetitions of false claims you have re4ad elsewhere. If you want to lear facts, you need to spend some time and want to learn. You did not study the siute before offering your errorneous summary of its contents. I recommend taking a look at Female Serial Killer Collections: MASTER LIST. This alone should dispell many of the falsehoods you have been fed by poorly researched articles you have come across.

      Take a look at google articles on Aileen Wournos. The claim that female serial killers usually have male partners is absolutely false, and proven false in the posts here. You will be delighted to see that there are a good number of female serial killers who have lead gangs of bandits and others who were aristrocrats who gewt men to follow their orders. Take a look at cannibals. Ogresses is an interesting collection. Did you see “Female Serial Killer Girls?” Howe about “Female Serial Killers & Sadism.” I think you might find many hours of pleasureabloe learning in these categories.

      Many female serial killers attack women who are strangers (You’ll find a collection of such cases too). Poison is far more vilent than most murder weapons. Arsenic causes very painfulk death, especially when, as many female serial killers chose to do, the poisoning is done over a long period of time.

      To understand the viciousness of the sadism of the typical female serial killer (of which my count has paqssed the 800 mark (3 victims or more)) I recommend you read the brief passage from Harold Schechter’s book, Fatal (on Jane Toppan, a psycho sadist) that is copied on Index: Female Serial Killers.

      This website is already jam-packed with new revelations. All over the place. Take a look “A Woman’s Voice” and “Chivalry Justice” (collection) for extra credit. Learning is fun! It is a lot more fun than memorizing formulas.

    2. What any of it has to do with feminism or gender ideologues? Your examples didn't "rock my world" cause I never thought women aren't capable of sadism or serial murders. I started to read the site, because I was sure that there are more interesting female serial killers than is known - killing in brutal manner, for sexual pleasure etc. I was quite disappointed, all non-historic cases fit exactly to the profile of female serial killers. Historic descriptions are more versatile and interesting but less credible and get real - in comparison to men they are still rare. I agree that probably women hide their crimes better, and get away with it more often - but still...the site doesn't prove anything else than the obvious fact that female crimes are slightly underestimated. Not because of feminists - because of man who want to believe in female innocence and weakness.

    3. 800+ cases as opposed to 140 cases is a "slight" differece?

      You can learn more about feminism and feminists if you read:

      The central myth of MISANDRY: “the inherent non-violence of women”

      This claim contradicts the evidence which shows a wide range of types rather than any single "profile": "all non-historic cases fit exactly to the profile of female serial killers." Also, documented historic arrests, investigations, trials, and executions are not merely "descriptions."

      The site offers access to documents and facts hitherto overlooked. It need not "prove" anything.

      This site's posts on domestic violence, chivalry justice, alimony racketeering, misandric fixation, history of the Men's Rights Movement (Hoeberth, etc.) and black widows has had a significant influence on the growing non-feminist community.

    4. Hey, great and illuminating website. Here's a great Australian site showing how women commit up to 40%of domestic violence, how the media, government and law are weighted unjustly and criminally biased against men and their children and how a large percentage of men [and children] are subjected to abuse, violence and even murder by women - and they can't do anything for fear of being arrested, not being believed and almost invariably losing everything. Here's a fact: females are the main co-conspirator in every abortion. Ergo females get an accomplice to murder over 3,000 of their babies every day in America alone - or 50 million since Rowe Vs Wade in 1973. Then of course, we can see the truly evil women such as PP CEO Cate Dyer et al revealed in the recent Planned Parenthood sting videos. But then, PP WAS founded by the racist genocidal leftist pervert female Margaret Sanger. All the best to you and your blog. PS. I came here via the excellent Karen Straughan on YouTube.

  2. I found this fascinating. You are right I had no idea. Good job on not including Medea who was framed about 200 years later. Does Cleopatra and some of those other egyptian queens count? I think that lots of information about women has been lost because it hasn't matched some social stereotype. The involvement of women in war is another example. I am concerned though about other posts on the site. I consider myself a feminist. That doesn't mean I think women are perfect, or men. As individuals both sexes are flawed, some of us more than others. I know great people of both sexes and jerks of both too. That doesn't make my desire for equal rights a farce.

    1. Women have superior rights, more than equal.

      Janet Bloomfield, "5 Legal Rights Women Have That Men Don’t," Thought Catalog

      Regardless of this, the fake historical narratives published by gender ideologues and the fake statistics spewed by incurious, lazy or dishonest media sources is more than a farce; it is a crime.Many women have objected to women's right to kill, and right to run alimony rackets, badger games, and other frauds.

      Look up "Chivalry Justice" (the sidebar is packed with history you were not allowed by the bosses to learn). This indoctrination as replacement for liberal arts education is a reprehensible and uncivilized crime against the citizenry. These political; correctness power-grabs are totalitarian measures. Information you are guessing is "lost" is not lost.The perpetrators of distorted history in the universities owe every one of their student victims a full refund. You deserve it. Every indoctrination victim, every one of us deserves a full refund. It is time to replace cults of group guilt (Nazi-style "social justice") and sex and race slurs of privilege (just like Khmer Rouge leading up to the time of the Killing Fields). Seeking truth is the path to freedom, not tunnel-vision ideological cultism.

      ---- Regarding women in war:

      "The long-held picture of German women holding down the home front during the war, as loyal wives and cheerleaders for the Führer, pales in comparison to Lower’s incisive case for the massive complicity, and worse, of the 500,000 young German women she places, for the first time, directly in the killing fields of the expanding Reich.” [Book: Wendy Lower, Hitler's Furies: German Women in the Nazi Killing Fields, 2013, Houghton Mifflin]


      Article: Robert St. Estephe, “Russian female soldiers, 1917-1919,” A Voice for Men, Nov. 26, 1913

  3. Edit typo: I'm aware that women are capable of killing and abusing. But still, what does this have to do with misandry when some of these woman also kill/abused other woman/girls. By your logic, every male serial killers were misogynistic even though some murdered/abused only men/boys.

  4. Your comment says "by your logic." You will not find anything resembling the "logic" used by Marxists of class warfare (sex being a class, or "gender" being a class). Much of the material on this site has to do with alimony racketeering, and other hoaxes. The notion that the failure to conduct proper research on the subjects dealt with in UHoM is an instance of chivalry and/or misandry -- that is my logic. The censorship and the reliance on stupid "theories" ("critical gender theory") in preference to honest, thorough objective scholarship is the problem. Unlike feminists and, more broadly, Cultural Marxists, I do not see the issues here as one sex vs. another sex. Stupid adherence to anti-female "theories" or unfounded assumptions is not the reasonable alternative to anti-male "theories." In short, the class warfare model is, to me, of no positive value. I am an anti-totalitarian. You seem to be firmly in the narrowly constrained pinched mentality of the class warfare camp (Marxism, "critical theory," Gramscism, Hegelian dialecticalism). With only two options (Team A or team B; or, more Marxian in terminology, non-"hegemony" "community" vs, "hegemony") available to you.

  5. I don't believe in any correlation between 'misandry' and 'female serial killers' unless you're talking about somebody like Aileen Wuornos, who looked like she was bat-shit crazy anyway, and who started killing men after (allegedly) being raped beaten & robbed. There was no political or societal influence of 'misandry' behind her own personal man-hatred - it was based on her own personal experiences which, if true and in my opinion, offer some justification for, at least, her anger and hatred (not her criminal behaviour).

    Furthermore, a collection of articles which are nothing more than examples of criminal, violent, or otherwise unacceptable behavior of SOME women - is just that. It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with misandry - and more likely your own misogyny.

    You don't PROVE misandry, or how wrong it is, by the use of misogyny. You don't prove one type of hatred is bad by projecting hatred onto others. You don't prove the innocence of one group by pointing out guilt in another. You don't prove men are essentially 'good' by listing 'bad' things done bne by women. Do you understand what I'm saying?

    Hey, if you want to be a resentful woman hater who delights in pointing out the fact that women are also just as capable of doing heinous, disgusting, immoral and evil acts - then by all means do so. But don't lie and act like you have any kind of real moral intent behind what you're doing here.

    People who sell babies, nurses who murder their patients (male nurses do it too) and CANNIBALISM - ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF MISANDRY! Unless each and every one of their victims were MALE. Were the babies stolen from men? Were the babies all male and sold to horrible parents? What the hell about that baby selling story is remotely connected to misandry? NOTHING.

    1. You have failed to grasp the simple message in the above text. The lies, fake statistics, the bogus theories of the Cultural Marxists that lean on the fake anthropology of Engels and other texts is the issue. The fact that 70% of female serial killers are ignored by the experts, while the facts about male serial killers are frequently used as evidence of the mythical "patriarchy" and as proof of "toxic masculinity" is the issue that matters, The simple-mindedness promoted by the Marxist conditioning of children to think of the world as a class struggle between an "us" and a "them" ("the dialectic") has preventing you from developing critical thinking and nuanced understanding of the complexities of reality.

      The issue is intellectual fraud, massive censorship and the take-over of education by political ideologues who are against classic liberal education.

      Further, a blog that deals with a number of aspects of misandry directly (as with "Badger Game," "Alimony Racket," "Heart Balm Racket") can include material that does not have a one-to-one relationshipp with the term "misandry." One has to be able to think clearly and have intellectual honesty to be abble to complrehens that the lies about so-called "gender" are all pertinent to discussions of trendy, moronic misandry that is embreaced by so much of the poorly educated (yet well-conditioned, well-miseducated), ideology-addled zombie public.

      I recommend that you go to YouTube and listen to all of the “Fiamengo File” posts, at least three times. And begin to recover from your cult indoctrination And start to gain an honest education.

      For the time being you will not be able to make profitable use of the material on UhoM, so its best not to look at it … for a few years.

    2. @BunBun4Life:Men who sit in a certain way on public transit that certain women don't like, try to explain something to a woman, or who wear a certain kind of shirt that one woman finds objectionable (with said woman making a big stink in the media about it, thereby wrecking the man's reputation and overshadowing the great scientific achievement he'd just made)- ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF MISYOGONY!

  6. PART II

    Speaking of nothing, there is nothing worst than a god-damned hypocrite. Unless maybe it's a fake morally self-righteous jackass who uses a mixture of lies, propaganda and fake science to justify their own resentful, hate filled, bigotry.

    I don't hate men, in fact I love men. I am completely against this wellspring of women who claim to be feminists (whatever that's supposed to mean anyway) but who IN FACT just simply seem to be ball-busting man-haters AND don't really seem to give a shit about what happens to women in general, and basically spend all their time saying bullshit like 'why can't a girl be santa claus in the school play' or even 'why can't a black muslim boy portray Sweden's most beloved Saint, Saint Lucia, in the Christmas procession (in which the girl voted as most resembling her portrays Lucia - white and very blonde) 'what difference do genitals make'? Which is not any kind of attempt to give any power to boys or minorities, but is again IN FACT an attempt to denigrate the importance of being male, the differences between men and women, and to destroy any sense of belonging held by Swedish men in their own country. I blame people like these harridans for the destruction of the family unit, the destruction of our morality and by seeding the acceptance of people from foreign continents who do not share our values AT ALL - destroy the belief systems that guide us to reject what is wrong, destroy the belief systems that creates and holds families together, destroy any sense of unity amongst families and indeed an entire culture! Fuck those bitches!

    But, that doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that the VAST majority of all violence, all rape, all murder, all abuse and clearly all WAR is instigated and carried out by men. Deal with it. The rate of murder and violence against women is absurdly insanely high - and your skewed misrepresentation of that fact makes you out to be a liar.

    Bottom line, either talk about how real misandry affects all people (not how some crazy bitch who hates men turns into Aileen Wournos) or just admit you're an angry, hateful person with a buttload of hostility and resentment towards women in general.

    No matter how many horror stories you could ever come up with, I will find 10,000 stories where a man did the same or worse. But I would never do that and that's my entire point. I'm a human woman and I care about human men & men who act like humans. Any person who abuses and/or kills a child is a piece of shit and it doesn't matter if they are male or female - I hate the women even more since I feel like it's really the responsibility of women to care for and protect children. But if you want to talk numbers - the number of men who perpetrate violence against MEN, against WOMEN, against CHILDREN - has always been and I guess always will be astronomically higher than the number of female perpetrators.

    Anecdotal information does not prove otherwise and it does not offer any empirical evidence of societal misandry.

    1. You seem conflicted. You say you dislike hypocrisy and imply that equality is important to you, but then you say "I hate the women [serial killers] even more since I feel like it's really the responsibility of women to care for and protect children."

      That doesn't sound like equality to me. That sounds like you and today's feminists have a common belief: that women are more strongly "obligated to behave as parents," or somehow naturally be "better parents" than men. The baby-stealing case and others provide exceptions to that idea, but clearly not enough exceptions to evaluate it in your opinion.
      Correct me if I'm wrong, St. Estephe, but isn't the point you're trying to make not only the fact that women have committed serial murders at a vastly underestimated rate (not necessarily a rate equal to male crimes, but higher than anyone has bothered to record), but really the meta-fact that social scientists and popular media still choose to IGNORE this?

  7. Social scientists and other experts prefer ideology-tainted paradigms over thorough objective research and balanced nuanced weighing of evidence. I do not regard FSKs are that special. but merely an example of how social history is distorted and packaged as dogma (see my critique of Professor Fass's horrid, politically twisted, wildly inaccurate book on Child Kidnapping published by Oxford.)

    The ever-popular "equality" talk business is something that interests me not at all (I do not recognize that the talk about the unattached term "equality" has any real meaning that I can grasp with any confidence).

    Where did I day "I hate ...". Creating a fake quote is not recommended. I do not have any particular dislike for FSKs over any other group of not-nice folks. This collection is the ONLY collection of these cases. It is OBJECTIVELY a set of data to be used by any and all.

    If one wants to examine parenting, breast-feeding, childrearing, family attachment, family division of labor in warding off predators, etc. one ought to go elsewhere for information.

    Many complex topics are worth studying in a nuanced manner in a search for truth and objective inquiry. A person's supposed "beliefs" is another matter altogether. Sometimes I have to correct errors of fact (such as in a crime case)as more evidence surfaces, yet that is not an example of a change of "belief" (subjective emotional preference apart from evidence), it is merely a fur5ther stage in continuous inquiry.

  8. In the 17th century arsenic poisoning could not be detected (until the Marsh Test of 1838). In Italy, particularly, arsenic was sold openly as "inheritance powder" for the purpose of enabling wives to murder their husbands & get their money. The most infamous of these poisoners was La Tophana. It was however even worse than this; in order to become a poison expert people - usually women - experimented by donar=ting food to the poor & could have killed over a hundred just for practice without anyone noticing

  9. I am not going to read everything written above. I have skimmed it. I do not know the gender or sex of the creator of this site. In the end, I find the content fascinating. This is a great collection of information about violent female predators with many different motives for harming others. Whether it is poison for profit or cesarean kidnapping, the bottom line is, these events DID OCCUR. There is no reason for any feminist outrage. There are sites with tales strictly of abused children. There is no uproar. If anything, they are praised for bringing such horrors to light. Male or female, a violent criminal predator is a violent criminal predator. I personally do not see some strong misogynistic ideology being pushed at all. These women are NOT the norm just as Ted Bundy and Andrei Chikatilo are not the norm for men. This site showcases often overlooked events of incredible tragedy.

  10. Ah OK that explains some things.

    Also why would anyone deny female psychopathology? Although I don't necessarily believe all murders are because of psychopathology (Anna-Marie Boeglin was abused for example.)

    But in general this site is an excellent resource.

    1. And I have personal histories with ... things, that make the idea of all murders do to psycho pathology quite plainly ridiculous. That might explain me being against the death penalty.

  11. There was one female murderer I didn't find on this site you might want to look up and add. Her name was Freydis Eiriksdottir, she was a Greenland Viking, daughter of Eric the Red, and she murdered a bunch of men women and children in Vineland.

  12. If we lived in a patriarchy, Karla Homolka would still be locked up for life. Her husband Paul Bernardo would be out, married to a doctor with three children and a new identity.