Luisa De Jesus was a child care provider who had murdered 28 children so that she might profitably pocket advance payments given to pay for the little tykes’ care. No mention is made in the sources of the sex of any of the young woman’s victims. This modest post is part of a large and ongoing information collection effort documenting female serial killers, generally forgotten ones.
The criminal phenomenon of the female serial killer is, like all other forms of female criminality, only scantly researched and studied. This pervasive incuriousness has been the norm ever since the pre-1960s era when almost all criminologists were male (and were imbued with chivalrous attitudes). And it is still the norm today as well, where the field of criminology is, like everything else, constantly monitered by “ministry of truth” overseers always prepared to quash any “inappropriate” (undesired) research – by withholding funding or blacklisting and termination of employment, whenever any scholar violates the politically correct orthodoxy.
My own independent and unfunded research of female serial killers took as its starting point a published list of 140 cases, most of which many required some aggressive digging around to bring to light the particulars. To this skeleton list I have added hundreds of others, so that my list now numbers over 600. The expanding list includes many cases similar to that of De Jesus, involving female child care providers, called “baby farmers,” who murdered children. The collection includes about 70 of these murderous baby farmers from across the globe. Some of these cases of women caught murdering their charges involve the slaying of upwards of a thousand. In these homicidal baby farmer cases the cause of death varies, and includes drugging, poisoning, starvation, strangulation, battery, stabbing in the heart with a needle or a hairpin, exposure to the sun and even incineration while alive.
Furthermore, despite the widely disseminated claims of crime experts that serial killers are not only almost always male but also that they are almost always “white,” the 600 female serial killer cases span non-“white” Africa, Asia, South America as well as “white” Australia, Europe and North America (the US, in itself, sports many remarkable non-“white” cases). Class status covers the full spectrum from aristocrat to peasant.
Shortly after posting the scant information on the sad case of Portuguese murderess Luisa De Jesus (who, by the way, was executed for her crimes) that I culled from an obscure medical publication the post attracted a blog comment, and a particularly bilious one. It is reproduced here, without corrections, but I have changed the all caps in the original to a conventional upper and lower case, for readability’s sake. The comment was signed “Christinne”:
Luisa De Jesus’ case has nothing to do with misandry, looks like someone needs a brain here. And nowhere it is mentioned that she killed only baby boys which indeed would have connected her to the subject of this blog. No, she was just a child/baby killer, thats all…. misandry, yeah, rite….hypocrisy without boundaries….
The commenter focuses her indignant wrath on the word “misandry” that indeed appears prominently in the name of the website, but which does not appear within the post itself, and the commenter has apparently little interest in looking into topic at hand: the history of violence, which is one of several subjects dealt with in detail on the blog. “Misandry” is not only not mentioned in the post in question, but it is not mentioned in 99% of the several hundred other posts on female serial killer published on the site. Yet it is that word “misandry” that matters most of all to commenter Christinne, and she sure does let me know about it. Her comment has, as it turns out, come to serve a useful purpose. It has gotten me to pay attention to the thing that mattered so much to her, namely my use of the term misandry as it relates to the facts of feminine violence.
Current public knowledge about violence is grievously distorted by the lack of attention female violence has gotten from those who supply and disseminate the information that influences the broader public. And that is why the collecting and analysis of cases of feminine violence warrants the attention of one who, like myself, seeks to elucidate the phenomenon we call “misandry.”
Yet, by no means would I get too carried away with evaluating the crimes of Luisa De Jesus in much different a way had her tiny victims been mostly or exclusively male. This is because I, for the most part, reject the simplistic fashionable class-warfare model of thought known to educators as “CRG” (Class, Race and Gender), a model that was created and perpetuated by mid-20th century Frankfurt School marxists – and which has infected and dominated public discourse so pervasively that it is no longer even recognized by most people as the product of a specific identifiable utopianist ideology. Commenter Christinne is, it would seem to me, fully submerged under the mesmerizing utopia-or-bust CRG spell.
It should be mentioned, however, that before the onset of the age of post-World War II “expertism” – where we stop thinking for ourselves and defer to credentialed lords of reality up on high – the idea that women were frequently murderously violent was far from being an exotic one. The notion that female serial killers were rarer than male ones would have been thought absurd to newspaper readers of the 1840s through the 1940s. Such homicide-addicted women were constantly in the news.
Yet for the Class-Race-Gender indoctrinee, the world is just one vast battleground arrayed with paired-off opponents: “persons of color” versus “whites,” the poor versus the middle class and wealthy, men vs. women. This is the image of World Class War, all day, every day, everywhere, incessant. The sum total of human interactions are thus reduced in this dumbed-down mindset to nothing but bilateral oppositions of interest/identity groups. The combatants go at each other within a 24/7 arena of battles fought exclusively by members of teams known by the labels “oppressor” and “oppressed.” The hostilities are manifested in every little petty detail of every human’s quotidian existence (“The personal is the political,” as the saying goes).
Those who are indoctrinated into this mindset are thus addicted to narrow ideations of conflict, and are likewise addicted to the affective rushes concomitant to the ideations. The indoctrinees are obsessed – and they are paranoid. They are blind to nuance and immune to the employment of analytical reason. This state of affairs is, it goes without saying, makes for an exhausting and nerve-wracking way to live – and it makes the indoctrinee as nutty and burned-out as a pecan pie left too long in the oven.
For such an indoctrinee, The Unknown History of Misandry, which displays, as it does, a cornucopia of far flung historical documents of bad behavior on the part of females, must seem – to such a beleaguered benighted soul – to be designed with the purpose of putting forth such an argument as this:
“Hey people, it is not the guys who are the a-holes. No way. It is the gals who are the a-holes. – See? So there! – I win!”
No. That is not at all what we are up to in this blog. To think in such a way as that would merely be reflecting the mirror image of the most pedestrian variety of the pre-packaged Class-Race-Gender marxist picture of reality. We seek no “win,” nor do we even recognize the conflict of ideas as being defined by sex (or, “gender,” so called). Rather the conflict is between neat self-serving ideological cultism and actual complex human reality.
►Collectivist Ciphers or Human Beings?
The “So there! I win!” mentality would not be consistent with how a non-indoctrinated mind works. Not at all. Rather, the website’s generous presentation of details of violence by women is to us not a demonstration of what could be thought to be an essentially violent tendency in that sex, but rather it is a set of documents that may assist in demonstrating certain points. They are useful, for example, in showing that the politically correct notion – that, somehow (in the fairytale land of gender theories), women are in their very essence non-violent receptors of conflict, and are never initiators of it; that they inherently and universally, possess a depth of compassion unknown to members of the “oppressor” sex – is a false one.
The particular portion of the larger anti-misandry project that UHoM sets out to serve can be identified as that of the necessity to contradict – through the exhibition of evidence – the collectivist and social constructivist dogma which holds that a human being is not an individual agent but rather is merely an atomized particle in the historical continuum; that a man and a woman are mere products of inescapable “social forces” who have no free will.
The stranglehold that this dumb dogmatism has on such a large portion of the public is why I find it necessary to publish such tabloid-styled collections as “Female Serial Killers Who Like to Murder Women.” The title sounds dumbed-down because it is designed to be so.
There is an oft-repeated truism stating that “female serial killers are rare” (in comparison with the males) and it is false. The statistics used to support that myth are merely the product of a wildly disproportionate allocation of resources in the pursuit of criminological data. The myth is further reinforced by the bias of chivalry and by the ethos of institutionalized female privilege currently masquerading as “gender studies.”
Thus it becomes necessary to point out in such a crude manner (as in a collection of cases of serial killers who are women who choose women and girls as their victims) that we ought not to be looking at violence as some “gotcha” illustration of some intellectual’s made up ideology, but rather as just plain old-fashioned murder.
We all want to avoid being murdered, most of us at least. Thus when we get the idea in our heads that women are somehow supra-human beings, sugar-and-spice morally superior gender-fairies, who, as individuals, are immune to the pressures of temptation that have been known to wise men and wise women since the dawn of history – namely pride, avarice, envy, anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth – then we are not going to be properly on the lookout. Violent and predatory women use the absence of circumspection on the part of potential victims of both sexes to their great advantage. A little bit of feminine wile goes a long way in setting up her victim for a fall.
Equally vulgar are the titles of posts of collections on violent women – such as “Women Who Like to Torture” “Cannibal Murderesses,” “Acid Queens: Women Who Throw Acid,” “Give ‘Em the Axe,” “Ice Pick Chicks,” “Ogresses,” “Step-Mothers from Hell,” “Murder-Coaching Moms” – which throw light on the specific and individualized realities of feminine violence.
There is nothing fancy about these crime stories. They are merely simple ordinary facts that happen to blatantly contradict the sophisticated (that is, artfully dishonest) and heavily-funded propaganda generalizations ubiquitously and unceasingly deployed for the sole purpose of training the public to be a PC-whipped hoard of controllable drones (“PC” standing for political correctness).
Gender ideologues do not, obviously, want to hear one single peep about the reality of widespread violence by women against women – committed with guns, knives, ice picks, meat cleavers, axes, hatchets, razor blades, hammers, poison and acid – which goes on, except when the ideologues can “excusify” it away by reclassifying those violent acts under some other label pulled out from the vaunted Class-Race-Gender model. Such female-on-female crimes can be handily repackaged as “violence resulting from economic/class disadvantage” – classic bait and switch. Obfuscation is central to the CRG regime’s war-craft.
You don’t hear about violence by women against women from malicious monologist Eve Ensler.. For such gender maniacs as Ensler women and girls harmed by women are the victims that can Go To Hell. The pain of these girls and women is embarrassing and their wounds and their deaths must be hushed up, for the sake of a “higher cause”: that of collectivist feminist power. – “Utopia or bust!”
To the typical dumbed-down indoctrinee the publication of such information on violence by women as is featured on UHoM will elicit merely the primitive, banal, mindless response of: “He hates women!”
So crippled is the rattled mind of the politically correct indoctrinee.
►Christinne was right, but without knowing why
We assent that 18th century Luisa De Jesus, as Christinne has so accurately pointed out really “was just a child/baby killer.” But that is just my point. Like so many other women and men any decent person ought to avoid, Luisa the baby farmer was a self-centered, conscienceless, dissimulating, calculating, perverse and violent criminal. The fact that she committed her crimes in a fashion more typical of her sex – in accordance with the facts of her sex-specific hormonal make-up, her sex-specific brain chemistry, her sex-specific physical characteristics, her sex-differentiated perceived aptitude to be an appropriate nurturer of infants – does not mean that mean she should be looked at, for the most part, any differently than any male sociopath who goes about his murderous business in his more characteristically male, rather than female, malicious manner.
Yes, this particular female criminal was just a criminal – and the distribution of the sex of her victims ought to be seen as secondary to the viciousness, the inhumanity, the ruthlessness, the coldness, the shamelessness, of her sociopathic mentality. For us, the un-indoctrinated, to twist our minds into trying to look at every murderer as some sort of “gender warrior” would be perverse – indeed, it would be insane. Yet this is just what we are admonished to do by the ideologues who steer the public discourse.
Luisa De Jesus was, according to the record, scant as it is, a standard sociopath – and the other details, such as race, class and sex (her so-called “gender”) are a secondary matter. The particulars of her victims’ class, race and sex cannot change the fact that she was cold-blooded in her homicidal predilection.
For my part, I shall keep on putting the spotlight on those overlooked sociopathic members of the non-existent “non-violent gender,” whether they be perpetrators of instrumental violence or of indirect violence (as is the particular wont of professors, political opportunists and ideologues who gleefully infect the world with their fallacious and harmful “theories”), or proxy violence, the manipulating of some chivalrous male to do all the heavy lifting.
It turns out for me, just as for Christinne, that Luisa De Jesus really “was just a child/baby killer” first and foremost; her sex and the sex of her victims really is not the issue. The bottom line is that a sociopath is a sociopath, regardless of genitalia or sex-specific particulars.
So I say, thank you, Christinne, for reminding me to explain why exposing female violence against victims of either sex is central to countering the mental disease of misandry.
Countering the propaganda, the fake statistics, the distorted and inaccurate generalizations, the carefully constructed false historical narratives of the social constructionists, the oftentimes simple and blunt protocols of politically correct censorship, is, it turns out, smack-a-dab central to the project of dismantling misandry. And it is not just the “G” of Class-Race-Gender ideology with its dialectical materialist, social constructionist “long march through the institutions” strategem that we must contend with. CRG is, more importantly, a dumbing-down tactic thattrains its indoctrinees to replaces critical thinking with lock-step operative conditioning responses. This causes the “re-education” victim to fail to see reality in all its complexity, supplanting perception and understanding with trained responses. The indoctrinee is trained to be emotionally dependent on peer acceptance. Class-Race-Gender drones require their every moment to make them feel “comfortable,” – or else they become disoriented and “offended.”
Luisa De Jesus “was just a child/baby killer” indeed; and so were – and will be – a great many other women. Public obliviousness to the large presence and the characteristics of such feminine sociopaths (despite the occasional and isolated media circus case such as Caylee Anthony and Jodi Arias) – an obliviousness deliberately cultivated by professional ideologues – has everything to do with misandry.