

It’s time we started, as a society, to view women as human beings, capable of all the good and bad in humanity. Women are autonomous, they can think for themselves, and they can make their own decisions. If you were the average blue-piller, you’d say that such sentiment makes me a feminist (or at least a “true feminist”). I would say you’re right, except that feminists like to believe this only up until a woman says she doesn’t identify as a feminist or worse yet, is against it. In such a case, feminists are quick to label these women as traitors and say they have internalized misogyny. I wonder what sort of excuses they’d make for female serial killers.

The New Yorker published an article entitled Lady Killers which talks about the phenomenon of female serial killers. In it, an evolutionary psychologist by the name of Marissa Harrison at Penn State Harrisburg, describes what it is that makes these women tick. What I liked the most about this article is that Dr. Harrison does not dismiss the behavior of these women serial killers as being the fault of someone else. She acknowledges that these women made their decisions on their own. Even the ones who come from backgrounds that are riddled with abuse, as do male serial killers, she doesn’t use those histories as a way to dismiss their behavior. Dr. Harrison begins by saying, “I think society is in denial that women are capable of such hideousness”. Does that really come as a surprise to any of you?

The society we live in is gynocentric and misandric. The common criminal in pop culture (movies, TV, etc…) is almost always male; the rapist, the serial killer, the pedophile, the liar, the cheater. I couldn’t tell you the number of films and TV shows I’ve seen where this is the case. But the number of them that I’ve seen where a woman played the role of such a villain, well, I could probably count that on two hands at best. It’s not just that men don’t want to view women as being evil. After all, men depend on women for sexual pleasure. It’s in our biology. Blue-pill men will do whatever they need to if it means pleasing a woman enough that she says, “OK, I now grant you access to my vagina”. The idea that women can stab men in the back is one that hasn’t quite caught on yet because men don’t want to believe that their goddess is capable of harm. After all, a real man treats a woman like his queen, right? He keeps her happy, keeps her satisfied, ensures her needs are met, and makes sure that she is always in the spotlight in a relationship. Isn’t that what traditionalist sentiment tells us? It’s why we have white knights out there who will literally jump all over another man’s back when he strikes a woman in self-defense. It doesn’t matter that she might be very clearly in the wrong; “real men don’t hit women”, end of story.

In describing a case from 1988 which involved seven murdered people and the killer was found to be a woman by the name of Dorothea Puente, Dr. Harrison says, “[The FBI] said, ‘Oh, that’s not serial killing,” Of course, it was. They just didn’t recognize it then. Women were not considered to be predators that way.” Today we still seek ways to minimize the crimes that women commit. I’m not talking about just serial killers here because in general, female criminals are treated with a high-level of leniency. This is what’s called the sentencing gap, in which women are sentenced to comparatively lighter sentences than their male counterparts for the exact same crimes. You can read the relevant study from 2009 here. Female crimes however can often be pathologised. For example, I’m sure many of you have heard of the battered women’s syndrome defense which was introduced in the 1970s as a way to explain why battered women murdered their abusive husbands. It states that within an abusive relationship, a woman murders her husband because she believes the abuse she is enduring is so constant that it will never end and so the only way to protect herself (and her kids, if there are any) is to murder the husband while he’s in a vulnerable state.

Most people would say, “Well of course she did. What else was she going to do?” Well, the last time I checked, walking out the front door and not coming back was always an option. There are no shortages of women’s shelters in the Canada or the United States so staying in an abusive relationship doesn’t make much sense. But on BWS itself, it’s a ways of taking agency away from the woman. It tells that she did what she did because she was mentally broken; she had no choice. I call bullshit, quite frankly. Anyone who isn’t suffering from mental retardation who picks up a gun and points it at another human being with the intent to kill knows exactly what is going on. The abuse could be argued as a mitigating factor, that is, evidence surrounding the circumstances of the crime that could lead to a reduced sentence, but a woman in this position should still see some time in prison.

The insanity doesn’t stop there. Remember what I said about men not wanting to view women as evil? Well, women apparently don’t want this either if people like Lydia Smith or Patricia O’Brien are to be believed. In the case of Smith, the author believes that yes, in fact, it is equality to treat female offenders differently than men because apparently, all women suffer from mental health problems that prisons are not equipped to deal with. You know what, credit where it’s due. I’m a believer myself that prisons are massively overcrowded with people who really do need mental help rather than incarceration but Sweet Satan On A Stick ™, this is a problem that overwhelmingly affects male inmates. Look no further than male drug addicts who are thrown into prison cells because their addiction drove them to criminal behaviour. Certainly these men are criminals but locking them up and throwing away the key is hardly the sort of response that will enable them to receive the help they need. Yet this article shows us that U.K. Justice Minister Simon Hughes is more than willing to make the necessary accommodations for women because, well, what male politician doesn’t want to help women? It’s in popular demand. In the case of O’Brien, the author believes that we should simply stop putting women in prison; that is, at all. Completely. For any type of crime. I wish I was making this up.

Gentlemen, this is female privilege at its worst. I’m not going to suggest that women deliberately commit crimes because they know they will receive lighter sentences but I find it hard to believe that they commit crimes thinking that they risk being punished to the fullest extent of the law. The most common example of this are female teachers who are found guilty of having sexual relations with their male students. The number of women being convicted seems to have skyrocketed between 2014 and 2015 (so far) but the punishments that are handed down can hardly be called severe. Mary Elizabeth Williams details this phenomenon briefly but succinctly in her article appropriately titled Are female sex offenders treated differently? She describes Denise Keesee, a high school teacher from Oregon, who made out with a student “several times” and sent him nude photos of herself, while a week earlier, a male teacher in the same state was sentenced to nearly three years in prison for an “inappropriate sexual relationship” with a 16-year-old female student.

The big question is, why do women commit the crimes they do? Going back to the example of serial killers, the article says, “Whereas the most common motive for male serial killers is sex, female murderers were most often driven by money; almost half of the women in Harrison’s sample killed for financial gain.” I find this telling. Women naturally seek out men who have the means to provide, and provide well. If he is unable to provide, she divorces him and uses the court system to clean him out. If she is locked into that traditional mentality, then she will seek a new partner who has a greater capacity to provide; hypergamy. This killing for financial gain then, I would argue, is a sort of hypergamy gone wild. She kills for the money because she’s a psychopath to begin with so to her, murder is just another day at the office. When this is combined with her basic drive for self-preservation (which all humans possess, mind you) along with her lack of love of men as human beings and only seeing them as human doings, she thinks, “Hm, how much can I possibly steal from this situation and cause the least amount of damage at the same time?” In the latter of that sentence, I am referring to the methods in which female killers murder their victims. In Dr. Harrison’s sample, she found that poison was by far the preferred method as opposed to male serial killers who usually use more violent means. In an article for the BBC, criminologist professor David Wilson notes this as well. This can be for many reasons. Women aren’t as physically strong as men so choking a man likely isn’t going to work unless he’s already incapacitated by some kind of substance. In the same BBC article, consultant forensic psychologist Kerry Daynes says, “…women are more “practical and clean” in their killing. They use enough violence to get the job done but nothing more. “It may be that women are more driven by the end product – of someone being dead and the aftermath of that – [rather] than the actual act of killing itself.””

I translate this as, women kill because they want something whereas men kill because they’re angry. Consider this thought very carefully: killing because they want something. Before I go any further with that, I’d like to add in yet another quote from the article, this time from clinical psychologist Elie Godsci where she says, “Women only behave in really brutal and destructive ways if they have been brutalized.” Dr. Daynes follows this up with, “They have pathological needs for attention, control or to express their anger,” Gentlemen, we already know women exhibit high levels of narcissism. Consider the study that linked taking selfies to said psychological disorder. Granted, this study looked at men but anyone with a shred of common sense who spends enough time on social media (Twitter and Instagram especially) will tell you women take more selfies than men. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a study proving it. I will go out on a limb here and deduce then that female serial killers are women being themselves, only to a very high extreme. Can we call this toxic femininity? We might have to consult with Lady Sarkeesian on that one, but I feel confident we can achieve an equal outcome here. Joking aside, the first quote about being brutalized makes me wonder just how far this stretches. Women react violently because they feel mistreated. Now of course, there are legitimate cases of mistreatment like constant physical and sexual abuse, but how do women define mistreatment? It’s not unheard of for the average woman to complain that her boyfriend or husband isn’t giving her enough attention and that she can’t understand why she isn’t his primary concern in life. Is this a sign of psychopathy? If she feels neglected because of her own selfish tendencies, should a man be in fear for his life?

The answer gentlemen, is yes, you should be. I am not suggesting every woman behaves this way. I’m saying that those who constantly whine about being neglected are the ones you need to avoid. But then again, isn’t that why we’re MGTOW? Both Dr. Harrison and Dr. Daynes posit that society sees female serial killers as an aberration of nature (sic). This is because we still view women as nurturers and givers of life. This view of women as pure and innocent human beings by virtue of the golden uterus needs to end. Saying that female serial killers exist due to mental disorders is fine and dandy but those cannot and should not be used as a means to dismiss their crimes. We sure as hell don’t grant men that same privilege. I’m going to end this post the same way I started it. Society needs to wake up and start seeing women as human beings with their own brains, capable of making their own decisions. The conclusion then is MGTOW. As more and more men wake up and walk away from the plantation, when you leave destructive people behind to their own devices, they will crumble under the weight of their own misfortunes and we’ll be laughing all the way to the bank.