Friday, December 28, 2012

The Last Frontier: Myths & the Female Psychopathic Killer

An important article employing recent research and demonstrating that the myths about female non-culpability promoted by Marxist-feminist orthodoxy are obsolete and dangerous:

Frank S. Perri, JD, MBA, CPA; and Terrance G. Lichtenwald, PhD, "The Last Frontier:Myths & the Female Psychopathic Killer," Summer 2010, The Forensic Examiner (journal)



From the Introduction:

The goal of this article is to analyze homicides committed by women, the diverse motives for the kill, and the offender’s psychopathic traits that may facilitate the use of murder to satisfy a motive. The article reveals that the underlying behavioral traits are gender neutral even though the methods and motives to kill may at times be gender specific and societal  misconceptions still attribute gender specific explanations to crimes such as homicide. 

Conclusion – Violence, especially murder, is a human issue and not a gender-specific phenomenon. 

Failing to recognize that psychopaths can exact brutal violence on others exposes any gender or age group to be preyed upon. Moreover, we observe how technology can be used to debunk myths surrounding female aggression as depicted in criminal trials. For example, we observe mothers being videotaped killing or attempting to kill their children while in a hospital, Karla Homolka being videotaped by her husband Paul as she too enjoyed the thrill of killing her sister and two other girls, Lisa Montgomery being audiotaped as she tells her husband that she is fooling the forensic professional into believing that she is mentally ill, and Rutterschmidt and Golay videotaped discussing their crimes.

It has become increasingly difficult to rely on the myth, whether prosecution or defense, when technology displays images that contradict the myth, revealing criminal behaviors that are gender-neutral. Furthermore, social, behavioral, law enforcement, legal personnel, and forensic professionals must be willing to consider whether they harbor any gender stereotypes that may inhibit them from accurately performing their duties. Although myths of gender specific aggression persist, slowly, false perceptions are being exposed and hopefully corrected by the media, academic research, field work, and technology.


A Voice for Men : The indispensible website


Thursday, December 27, 2012

A Feminist Hoax in 1910: The Strategy of Dissimulation Exemplified

By  Mrs. Francis M. Scott, President of New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage.

FULL TEXT: It seems desirable, even necessary, to correct two misstatements made in
“Laws Discriminating Against Women in the State of New York,” by Hariette M. Johnston-Wood, as quoted in The Times of March 26. Mrs. Johnston-Wood says, “A wife cannot make a binding contract with her husband to pay her for services within or without the household.”

In Section 51 of the Domestic Relation law, 1909, we read:

A married woman has all the rights in respect to property, real or personal, and the acquisition, use, employment, and disposition thereof, to make contracts in respect thereto with any person, including her husband, and to carry on any business, trade, or occupation, and to exercise all powers and enjoy all rights in respect thereto, and in respect to her contracts, and be liable on such contracts as if she were unmarried; but a husband and wife cannot contract to dissolve the marriage or to relieve the husband from his liability to support his wife.

Again, Mrs. Johnston-Wood says, “The father’s right to the custody of the child is paramount.” I suppose she refers to Section 80 of the Domestic Relations law, but she omits to quote, and, therefore, fails to make it clear, that when “a minor shall acquire real property the guardianship of his property. *** belongs first to the father, and, second, if there be no father, to the mother.” Section 81, however, deals with the child, and not his property, and that declares: “A married woman is a joint guardian of  her children, with her husband, with equal powers, rights, and duties in regard to them.” And *** “Either the father or the mother may in the lifetime of them both, by last will duly executed, appoint the other the guardian of the person and property of such child during its minority.”

It is not less desirable and necessary to correct the general impression made by Mrs. Johnston-Wood in her compilation of laws regarding women and labeled as discriminating against them, because unless any set of laws is considered as a whole we get those half-truths which are always dangerously deceptive.

The “common law,” on which the law of the State is based, has always recognized the family as the social unit, and hold the husband and father responsible for its welfare. There is in the minds of some persons at present, and Mrs. Johnston-Wood seems to be one of the number, a disposition to ignore, or decline to recognize, this point of view, and to declare that the individual, in contradisctinction to the family, is the social unit. To insist upon reviewing the law as it stands while refusing to recognize the spirit which gave it birth, and to look at it through the distorted medium of deliberate misunderstand, is as foolish and misleading as it is disingenuous, and quite unworthy of even a special pleader.

Because the husband and father was and is responsible for the subsistence of his wife and family therefore he was recognized as logically the proper person to administer and inherit the property of the family; but as time wore away the barriers raised for protection became coercive between the family and the world; as individual life began to call women out of the home, and property amassed by the wife was claimed by the husband and used sometimes for his benefit rather than hers, the gradual changes began to take place which have in the last thirty or forty years entirely changed the relation of the wife toward property and the guardianship of her children. this change has all been in the favor of the wife and mother, and one after another the privileges which men had over the property of their wives and the guardianship of their children have not only been lost but many of them have been actually reversed. The legal relations are as though they were unmarried, excepting marriage. The wife cannot release the husband from the obligation to support her.

The italics are mine, as I wish to call attention to the fact that throughout these laws it is assumed as an unalterable condition that when a man marries and makes a woman the mother of his children he thereby incurs the responsibility for her and their support, a responsibility the wife never shares

For over thirty years a woman has been able to hold and enjoy her separate property, however acquired, even when it has been given by her husband, freed from any interference or control by him, and from all liability for his debts. A husband is, however, liable for necessaries purchased by his wife and also for money given his wife by a third person to purchase necessaries, and he is bound to support her and her children without regard to her individual or separate estate. Even when a separation occurs a husband is compelled through the payment of alimony to continue to support his wife, nothing short of infidelity on her part and consequent divorce relieving him of that liability. No obligation, however, to furnish necessaries to a husband rests upon the wife under any circumstances whatever.

A woman may sell, assign, or transfer her real and personal property and carry on any trade or business and perform any labor and service on her separate account, and her earnings are her own sole and separate property. Mrs. Johnston-Wood says that “the joint earnings of husband and wife belong to the husband,” but she forgets to add that out of those joint earnings the wife must be supported, and that if they are large enough to be invested in real estate it becomes impossible  for the husband to sell or devise it except subject to her dower right. Through this “dower right” Mrs. Johnston-Wood complains that a husband is obliged to lease only one-third of his real estate to his wife, and that she has only a life interest in it. On the other hand she can buy, sell, give, or will away her real property as freely as though she were unmarried without any right of interference by him, and without any claim of his upon it. This dower right is a very real and active line upon a husband’s estate, while the so-called “courtesy right,” which is supposed to offset it, is a very shadowy affair, and has been seldom exercised as to make it difficult to find authorities defining its exact limits and privileges.

A husband has no right to any of his wife’s estate until after the birth of a living child, and this right is so lightly considered that a wife may absolutely defeat it at any time without the consent of her husband, either by conveying her real property during her lifetime or by devising it by will. Should he inherit through “courtesy” right his, too, is only a life interest.

A husband is not obliged to leave his personal property to his wife, but neither is the wife obliged to leave any to her husband. there is no “discrimination against,” they stand on an equality.

Mrs. Johnston-Wood complains that a woman cannot make a binding contract with her husband to be paid for her services. But she doesn’t have to do so. He is obliged to support her, but she can go into any business she pleases, keep all the profits, and still demand support from him. A husband has no claim against his wife’s estate for having supported her, but if she supports him, as by keeping a boarding house, and he acknowledges the debt, she has a valid claim for reimbursement against his estate.

Generally speaking the rights of a wife against her husband are such as he cannot deprive her of, while his rights against her depend entirely upon her consent, and she can deprive him of them at any time with the greatest of ease.

– – MRS. FRANCIS M. SCOTT – President of New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. New York, March 29, 1910.

[“Married Women’s Rights. – Mrs. Johnson-Wood’s Suffragist Complaints Are Here Contradicted.” New York Times (N.Y.), Mar. 31, 1910, p. 10]


Tuesday, December 25, 2012

“Guillotine Rights” for French Women – 1913

FULL TEXT: The French suffragettes are now fighting for the right to be guillotined.

A recent murder trial in which the prosecuting attorney, when asking for sentence of death for a woman, added that such a verdict was merely a matter of form, since custom was against allowing women to be executed, has raised much discussion regarding this question of sex distinction, and now the foremost feminists are agitating for the “privilege” of equal punishment with men, regarding this as a step toward their ideals.

A symposium just held by L’Eclair shows that among the leading upholders of women’s rights the majority of them think that by being exonerated from death on the scaffold, when they legally deserve it, women are treated as irresponsible beings, and they protest against this attitude as a humiliating outrage.

Mme. Aubert, The General Secretary of the French feminist society, Le Suffrage des Femmes, says:

“Since woman is as competent as man to exercise her rights and account for her actions, the two sexes should be equal both before the polling booths and before the guillotine. Not to execute women criminals while the death penalty exists is sensitiveness of the hypocrite who classes women with lunatics and despoils them of their rights.”

Says Mme. Dr. Pelletier, the Director of La Suffrageste, the principal women’s rights newspaper:

“The gallantry of the guillotine is an insult to the feminine sex, as is gallantry in general.”

“To answer this question,” says the Duchesse d’Uzes, “is very simple. Crime has no sex.”

Similar views are held by several other prominent representatives of the woman’s movement. Only two women express the contrary opinion. Daniel Lesueur, a novelist, says:

“I have never dreamed of demanding the equality of sexes as far as the guillotine. I do not think that the most furious feminist should regard as a victory for her theories the fact that one of her sex had her head cut off. Let us at all events leave old French courtesy a free hand on this last ground.”

In connection with the death penalty opinion is now unanimous that public executions should be discontinued. This sentiment is expressed in an editorial article which has just appeared in Excelsior. The writer points out that the custom of public guillotinings, far from having the expected deterrent effect on criminals, has only given condemned men a chance for making theatrical appeals and teaching embryo assassins who may be gathered around the scaffold how to die with a swagger and leave behind a reputation for heroism among their comrades.

“The question,” says the editorial article, “to-day presents itself with less hypocrisy than formerly. It is no longer a matter of setting an awful example to the public, but merely getting rid as quickly as possible of persons whose existence is thought dangerous to society. The operation should be carried out privately before the Court of Magistrates in charge of the case, with the jury and a few journalists.”

It is thought that this reform will not be long in coming. [Editors note: And those who thought this were dead wrong.]

[“Women Demanding Guillotine ‘Rights’ – French Feminists Say It Is Unjust to Deprive Sex of ‘Privilege’ of Execution. – Equal Punishment Is Asked – Mme. Auclert Calls Custom of Failing to Execute Women ‘the Sensitiveness of the Hypcrite.’” New York Times (N.Y.), Mar. 16, 1913, p. C3]


For more on this topic, see Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links


Monday, December 24, 2012

“Divorce By Murder.” Favored By Frenchwomen - Sentimental Juries’ Leniency Menace To Civilisation” - 1930

FULL TEXT: A Paris divorce costs £60, a gun costs £1 Europe is in a state of excitement, husbands are worried. The International League for the Protection of Human Rights [Liga für Menschenrechte] is planning to do something. France is the centre of a righteous moral volcano and her entire manhood is going into conference.

Frenchwomen have turned the trick; they have found a, substitute for divorce. Cheaper, easier, far more amusing than the antiquated process of legal proceedings, with its hazardous outcome, the new French vogue has taken a firm hold on womanhood in that land of liberty, equality and fraternity.

“If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, reads the Scriptures and Madame la Franchaise, with the directness of intuition which her sex boasts, has modernised and applied the lesson; “If thine husband offend thee, snuff him out.”

A simple formula and easy to remember.

Marital freedom a la francaise is, we repeat, an easily acquired status. The popular method costs only 126 francs or about £1, a little publicity which is invariably gratis, a few hours of good play acting before a jury, and at the very most a brief period of time as a guest of the government.

~ Bright Reading for Husbands. ~

The 126 francs will purchase a small but efficient automatic. This be taken to bed and carefully concealed under a pillow. When the offending spouse is quite asleep (preferably from an excessive use of alcohol) a steady hand can do the business in a second. Even the frailest and most timid of the sex can put the tyrant out of commission permanently by using up the contents of the gun. Variation can be obtained by choosing a more dramatic moment, and this is considered preferable, for it makes an acquittal easy for the jury. The procedure which is recommended as ideal is to catch the brute in the act of beating a child or in the company of a friend’s wife. This naturally assures a quick trial, favourable publicity and a speedy release. It is highly approved by the criminal courts and gives a jury an opportunity to enjoy the full pathos and sentimentality of the affair.

The facts are these: In 1920 no loss than forty-seven Frenchwomen shot, poisoned or gassed their husbands into oblivion with virtual impunity. During the present year, up to July 1, a total of thirty-eight have taken advantage of the new liberation scheme, and indications are that all records will be broken before the New Year’s bells ring out.

~ Deliriously Spectacular. ~

Reviewing a few of the cases, some are deliciously spectacular. Notable is that of Mme. Desotrat who secured her freedom last December. Her husband was the common or garden variety of drunkard. He beat her, starved, harassed and brutalised her and was generally disagreeable. Knowing that the divorce courts in France are costly and nearly inaccessible since they had been overcrowded by Americans seeking solitary bliss, and that French legislation had made the old-fashioned divorce a difficult business, Mme. Desotrat formed her campaign along the sure and methodical lines outlined above.

She bought herself a gun – a neat, powerful automatic. She applied to a professor of firearms and took seven lessons. With the confidence that comes of familiarity with a weapon she bided her time until one night Desotrat came home in a particularly villainous mood. In the room with the couple was her mother-in-law who was – perhaps fortunately—blind. With this perfect setting for a crime prepared, she allowed his natural disagreeableness to assert itself until she should reach a high point of righteous indignation. Then she fired seven shots, one for each lesson, into the midriff of the cruel man. It was over in a trice. There she was free – save for the short legal formality which must follow.

~ Simple – Efficient – Easy. ~

At the trial her mother-in-law was a witness. She had heard quarrelling but had seen nothing. Mme. Desotrat shed tears in the court. The jury also shed a few tears in sympathy. Her lawyer pleaded crime passionel, the justifiable; elimination of a brute. She was forced to pay damages amounting to a few pounds and to meditate a few months in a state hotel of justice. That was that: Simple, efficient, easy.

The International. League for the Protection of Human Rights [Liga für Menschenrechte] with its headquarters in Vienna, is being deluged with letters from French male citizens who arc genuinely convinced that it is no longer a matter of protecting the fragile sex against masculine intrusion, but quite the reverse. It is pointed out that not even beauty is necessary to soften the hearts of judges and juries when a woman who kills for love or for her happiness is in the dock. Editorial writers call this new conception of a “right to kill” a menace to civilisation which must at all costs be overcome.

[George Seldes, “Divorce By Murder.” Favoured By Frenchwomen - Sentimental Juries’  Leniency  Menace To Civilisation,” syndicated (A.A.N.S.), The Auckland Star (New Zealand), Nov. 10, 1930, p. 18]


For more on this topic, see Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links


Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Women, Violence & the Law

Advanced Studies in WOMEN, VIOLENCE & THE LAW: the cutting Edge in Gender Studies


If you want to honestly and thoroughly study the subject “Woman, Violence & the Law,” then you cannot afford to ignore the new research on female serial killers. As of December 2012 there are 600 cases on file (with 3 or more victims).

None of the scholarship taught in the universities has yet made use of the data revealed in the 600 known female serial killer cases (let alone the other voluminous data on female violence in history).

Ignorance and censorship is useful in promoting ideology (of all varieties), but ignorance and censorship are not conducive to learning the truth. Currently victims of violence perpetrated by women are treated by most experts on violence as “second class victims.”

It is incorrect to assume that victims of violent women are usually adult males. Most of these “second class victims” are women, girls, boys and babies of both sexes.” These victims of violence deserve to have their experiences more widely known, more widely discussed. These people need to be treated as individuals, not as mere cannon-fodder to be exploited by professional ideologues to advance their lucrative careers.

Ignorance is quite definitely not bliss.


Black Widow Serial Killers (an exception: 2 or more victims)



Ask your professors to explain this material. If you are not satisfied with their answers, then you might want to demand a refund from your school. The social engineering status quo has failed! – and so we must resist the establishment’s indoctrination with all our might.




Monday, December 17, 2012

Women’s Instrumental Violence: Fact vs. Myth


The professional term for the type of violence that women – according to the false stereotype – are supposedly incapable of is “instrumental,” referring to deliberate, premeditated action. ‘Instrumental’ is opposed to ‘expressive,’ referring to action taken only in a moment of passion or insanity. Peter Vronsky, in his 2007 book on female serial killers points out and explains this fallacy of female inability to be calculating, cold-blooded agents of violence:

When women commit violence, the only explanations offered have been that it is either involuntary, self-defense, the result of mental illness, or hormonal imbalances inherent with female physiology: postpartum depression, premenstrual syndrome, and menopause have been included among the named culprits. Women have been perceived to be capable of committing only reactive or “expressive” violence – an uncontrollable release of pent-up rage or fear-and that they murder unwillingly and without premeditation.

‘Instrumental violence, however, murder for a purpose – political power, rape, sadistic pleasure, robbery, or some other base gratification – remains the domain of the male. After all, every male is a potential killer in the form of a warrior – and he only becomes a murderer when he misuses his innate physical and socialized capacity to kill for ignoble, immoral, and impolitic reasons. While the male is built and programmed to destroy, the female nests, creates, and nurtures. Or so the story goes.” [Peter Vronsky, Female Serial Killers: How and Why Women Become Monsters, 2009, Berkley Books, p. 6]

Here is a sample “instrumental violence” case from 1889:

FULL TEXT: Zanesville, O., Sept. 10.— Frank Amos, one of the most prominent citizens of Morgan county, was murdered at his home in the western part of this county by Mrs. Hampton, his niece, who literally hacked his face and head to pieces with a butcher knife which she had carried for weeks avowedly for that purpose. Amos was picking berries in the field with his wife when the attack was made. She and a man who was passing on the road were attracted by his cries of m ardor and reached him only in time to see him breathe his last and to see Mrs. Hampton and her daughter run away. The trouble grew out of a law suit in which the testimony of Amos threw the costs on Hampton.

[“Killed By His Niece - Ohio Comes to the Front with a Most Unnatural Murder.” syndicated, Fort Worth Daily Gazette (Tx.), Sep. 18, 1889, p. 4]


For an expansion of this theme, SEE: “The central myth of MISANDRY: ‘the inherent non-violence of women’”


Saturday, December 1, 2012

“He Deserved it”: Myrtle Devlin’s 8-Hour Sadistic Attack – 1953

“He deserved it”: an entire philosophy summarized in three simple words.


FULL TEXT: New York – An unremorseful wife was held by police yesterday for methodically stabbing and beating her husband with a hammer over an eight hour period following an argument.

“He deserved it,” said Mrs. Myrtle Devlin, 36, a Negress, when arraigned on a felonious assault charge before Magistrate Amedo Lauritano. The attack occurred Saturday.

Mrs. Devlin weighs about 100 pounds, her 35-year-old husband, James, about 180.

Police said the woman told them she stabbed him first  in the chest and body when he accused her of infidelity after 15 years of marriage. He crawled into another room where she followed and struck him repeatedly over the head with a hammer.

Afterwards she fell asleep, according to the police resort. When she awakened she found the bleeding man had crawled into bed, so she got a larger kitchen knife and cut his throat.

The husband’s condition was reported serious by hospital officials, who said almost his entire blood supply had to be replaced.

[“Say Wife Beat Husband For 8 Hours,” syndicated (AP), Newsday (Long Island, N.Y.), Jul. 13, 1953, p. 5]

[Correction: original text reads: “He crawled in another room …”]



Mary Lewis Bought a Hatchet For Her Husband’s Head – Boston 1901

FULL TEXT: George Lewis, who is colored, and a big, strapping fellow, and his wife, Mary J. Lewis, who is also colored and 22 years of age, had a spat at their home, 8 Bradford st, late Saturday night which ended with Mary’s attempt to chop her husband’s head off with a hatchet.

Mrs. Lewis is in the city prison awaiting arraignment on a charge of having assaulted her husband with the hatchet, and Mr. Lewis is in a cell at station 5, where he was locked up shortly after his wife was arrested, and he is held as a witness.

According to the police version of the row Mrs. Lewis thought pretty well of a colored man other than her husband, and so she attempted to put George out of the way. The police say that after Lewis and his wife had indulged in a somewhat lengthy quarrel, George sat down in a chair to think things over, while his wife left the room, declaring she would have no more to do with him. Presently Mrs. Lewis returned, but Mr. Lewis was on his dignity and would not deign to turn his head, so it was easy for her to creep up close to him and bring the blade of a new hatchet down squarely on top of his bare head.

The hatchet cut a two-inch gash in Lewis’ scalp, but it didn’t penetrate his skull. He grabbed his wife before she could hit him again in a more vulnerable spot, and some of the neighbors called in a policeman, who took Mrs, Lewis to the station house and sent George to the City hospital to have his scalp sewed up.

Lewis was taken to the station house, too, after the surgeons got through with him, and he accused his wife his wife of having tried to kill him. The police say she admitted that he was approximately correct in his statement, and to have added that she was sorry she didn’t succeed in her attempt. She said, also, that she bought the hatchet for the special purpose of putting her husband out of the way. It came out, the police say, that Mrs. Lewis has a pretty kindly regard for another colored male person, and when this was suggested to her she remarked:

“Dey is uthus.”

Mrs. Lewis is said to be a very impulsive person into whose young life have been crowded a number of experiences. Four years ago she got into a fight with another woman, and the other woman threw a lighted lamp struck Mrs. Lewis it broke and set her clothes afire. Patrolman Michael McDonough of division 3 was the man of the hour at that time, for he tore off his uniform coat and wrapped it about Mary, with the result that her life was saved and the patrolman was commended for his gallantry and prompt action.

[“Hit With A Hatchet. George Lewis Suffers a Cut on the Head Two Inches Long at the Hands of His Wife.” The Boston Daily Globe (Ma..), Nov. 25, 1901, p. 14]



Louise Rutter’s Fifth Arrest for Husband-Beating – New Jersey, 1900

FULL TEXT: Hackensack, N.J., Jan. 5. – Louise Rutter, who was convicted here yesterday of husband beating, was to-day sentenced to serve two months in the county jail as punishment. When she was called to the bar for sentence Judge Zabriskie said:

“Mrs. Rutter, if I am not mistaken, this is the fourth time you have been before me charged with offense.”

“That is wrong; this is the fifth time,” was the cheerful reply.

“We’ll, it’s five times too often,” said the Judge, “and I want to know if you intend to stop having to come before me on this charge.”

“I guess not, so long as occasion demands,” said Mrs. Rutter, complacently.

Judge Zabriskie looked at the woman for fully a minute without speaking. Then he shook his head as if admitting defeat and murmured: “Two months.”

The prisoner was led away not altogether cast down.

Mrs. Rutter is thirty-two years of age, strong, and muscular. Her husband, whom the law is trying to protect, is fifty-five.

[“Fifth Time Once Too Many. – Muscular Mrs. Rutter Gets Two Months for Beating Her Husband.” New York Times (N.Y.), Jan. 6, 1900, p. 1]



Henderson Cass, War Veteran Buggy-Whipped by Wife - Kentucky, 1903

Following is a brief news report which tells a story that contradicts the official “herstory” fairytale narrative of domestic violence in the bad old days.

A wife whose 76-year old war veteran husband spent money on himself because he “wanted to have a good time” is reprimanded by a judge for such “abuse” of his wife. The appropriate treatment of an elderly Civil War veteran accused of such “abuse” was deemed to be having him trashed with a buggy whip in public by the “abused” wife. Makes sense, right?

Now you know what it the term “abuse” means when you see applied to the treatment of a wife. Husbands are, as Marxism-steeped gender ideologues who create public policy,  tell us,  fundamentally “abusers,” due to their “male privilege.” And women are fundamentally innocent gentle, fearful victims of that same oppressive “male privilege.” Than goodness we have public servants selflessly dedicated to protecting victims of “male privilege.”


FULL TEXT: Henderson Cass, Lexington, Ky., aged 76 years, a veteran of the civil war, was horsewhipped in public by his wife by the order of Police Judge Riley. The woman had lodged a complaint against her husband, claiming that he was squandering his pension money and was drunk a great deal of the time. He was brought into court and told Judge Riley that he wanted to have a good time. The Chicago Chronicle correspondent says the judge asked the abused wife why she did not whip him, and she said she could do it all right if he said she might. Judge Riley replied:

“Well, I will get you a whip and see that you do it.”

He told Patrol Driver Wallace to bring him a buggy whip, and, arming the woman with the whip, he told her to march her husband into the station-house lobby and lay it on him until she got tired. The woman did so.

The husband at first took the matter as a joke and laughed, but soon he began to realize, after the woman began laying on lick after lick with full force that she was in earnest and he begged her to stop. He promised to be sober and a good husband and she stopped.

[“Wife Whips Husband. – Police Judge in Lexington, Ky., Orders Matrimonial Thrashing for Civil War Veteran.” The Havre Plaindealer (Mt.), Sep. 5, 1903, p. 3]



Irene Marsh’s Career of Violence with Pistols & Whips - 1906

NOTE: The following article describes Mrs. Irene Marsh’s April 1906 attack on her husband, but Mrs. Marsh was a well-document violent woman. On August 13, 1902 she fired four shots at Alice Murray, and on January 29, 1907, again tried to kill her, firing three shots and wounded a male bystander, Hugo Carr. The portrait of Mrs. Marsh  is taken from a 1902 article.


FULL TEXT: San Francisco, Apr. 9 – A feature not down on the program occurred at the Orpheum Theater in this city last night. The performance had hardly started when a woman entered the theater and made her way down the center aisle, carrying a riding whip. Suddenly she produced the dainty lash, and without a word of warning brought it down vigorously on the shoulders and across the face of John W. Marsh. He fled with all the alacrity at his command, and the irate woman turned her attention to the young damsel who occupied the adjoining seat. The whip descended upon the latter and the angered madam followed the man up the aisle. At the door both were requested to step outside which they did. The woman with the whip was Mrs. Alice Murray, upon whom he has lavished his affections.

[“Woman Horsewhips Husband In Theater,” The Evening News (San Jose, Ca.), Apr. 9, 1906, p. 5]

(Note: spelling of “tisle” has been corrected to “aisle”; “with ut” has been corrected to “without”)



Mary Dubal, Suffragist Husband-Beater – New York, 1912

FULL TEXT: Binghampton, N. Y., May 31. – Mrs. Mary Dubal of this city is said to be the first suffragist in the United States who has been given a penitentiary sentence for husband beating. She was arrested on a warrant obtained by Mr. Dubal.

City Judge Albert Hotchkiss found her guilty and declared if women desired men’s prerogatives they should also have men’s punishments when found guilty of law. He always dealt severely with wife beaters, he said, and accordingly he sentenced her to three months in the penitentiary.

[“Husband Beater Sentenced – New York Suffragist Ordered to Jail for Three Months.” The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, Wa.), Jun. 1, 1912, p. 2]



Catharine Scully Beat Her Husband With A Shovel – New York, 1889

FULL TEXT: Mrs. Catharine Scully, a middle-aged woman, on Wednesday beat her husband, Patrick Scully, on the head with a shovel at their home, No. 528 West Twenty-eighth-st., and inflicted injuries which may cause his death. Captain Murphy heard of the fight yesterday, and finding Scully in a dangerous condition, had him removed to Bellevue hospital. Mrs. Scully was arrested, Justice Patterson, at the Jefferson Market Court, yesterday committed her to the jail to await the result of her husband’s injuries.

[“Beat Her Husband With A Shovel.” New York Tribune (N.Y.), Jan. 27, 1889, p. 7]



Equal Punishment for Violent Wives Proposed in Delaware in 1901

FULL TEXT: While Mrs. Carrie Nation, exulting in the security of her womanhood, is sweeping the East with a besom and raising something like a riot in every town in the State, the legislators of Delaware have under consideration a bill which, if enacted, will startle her worse than the sight of a gin mill in open working order next door to her own house. The Delaware measure is nothing more nor less than a proposition to equalize punishments in that State and to treat vicious wives in the same way that vicious husbands are treated.

According to the reports that come to us the bill provides that “if any person, being the wife of any man, shall, by physical violence, abuse” maltreat or beat her husband, she shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by being whipped at the whipping post with not less than five and not more than, thirty lashes by the Sheriff, or by her husband, at his election.”

To the people of California such a bill will appear nothing more than a legislative josh; but they are treating it seriously in the East. The New York Times notes: “There is a subtle touch of grim humor in the phraseology of the bill, which makes it optional with the wronged husband whether he or the Sheriff shall administer the disciplinary castigation to the virago under correction. There is reason to fear that the Sheriff, having no personal interest in the matter, would discharge his duty in a more or less perfunctory manner; whereas the husband of the person being the wife of any man, who has rendered himself amenable to the penalty of the husband-beating misdemeanor would certainly apply the scourge with no sparing hand, if moved to apply it at all.”

There a reasons for fearing that husband-beating is a too frequent practice; in that part of the country, and that few husbands are safe when their wives are infuriated. There is a tradition that even John L. Sullivan, in the height of his career, once complained in a Boston court that his wife was in the habit of beating him unmercifully whenever he went home too drunk to put up a fight and defend himself. The Delaware bill may therefore be in the’ interest of wholesome household reform, but all the same the ht and who sends his wife to the whipping post will have a just claim upon the sympathy of the world as soon as the dame gets home again.

[“A Delaware Reform.” The San Francisco Call (Ca.), Feb. 15, 1901, p. 6]



Mrs. Sterling Whipped Her Husband in Public – Pennsylvania, 1888

FULL TEXT:  Yesterday afternoon excitement was created South Fifth street caused by a wife whipping her husband. James C. Sterling, living at 139 South Fifth street, and two young women, intended to take Misses Mollie Warfel and Mame Hogentogler out for a ride. They were in the carriage when Mrs. Sterling saw the party and she jumped into the carriage. She admitted the girls and compelled her husband to get out of the carriage. The affair is the talk of the town.

[“Whipped Her Husband.” The Lancaster Intelligencer (Pa.), May 1, 1888, p. 4]



Lucy Black, Kentucky Husband-Whipper - 1910

FULL TEXT: Middleburg, Ky., May 5, 1910. – Lucy Black was arrested last week charged with whipping her husband, John Will Black, and will be tried this week. The parties live in the Hatter creek section. Constable Marion Black executed the papers on Mrs. Black and started to Squire Staton’s to deliver the goods, when his prisoner “went dead” on him, and, tumbling over on the ground, refused to budge. He sent one of his posse to a neighbor for a wagon out before he returned she got able and willing to “mosey” on up to the Squire’s office.

[“Middleburg Woman Whipped Husband - And When Arrested “Played Possum” On Officer Interesting Letter From Casey.” The Interior Journal (Stanford, N. J.), May 6, 1910, p. 1]



Mrs. Cochrane Horsewhipped Her Husband – Brooklyn, 1888

FULL TEXT: James D. Cochrane, who has been on the staff of the Examiner and Chronicle, a religious publication, for many years, was severely horsewhipped at midnight on Friday by his wife. The assault took place in front of 100 Leonard-street, Brooklyn, Eastern District, in the presence of Miss Sadie Jacobs, a handsome young lady, who was the cause of the trouble. She resides at 100 Leonard-street and was on the way to her home with Mr. Cochrane on Friday night, when Mrs. Cochrane sprang from behind a tree and began to beat her husband about the head with a small whip. Miss Jacobs ran into the house, while Mr. Cochrane disappeared around the corner, and Mrs. Cochrane, overcome by excitement, went into hysterics. A gentleman who knew Mrs. Cochrane took her to her home, at 28 Broome-street.

Yesterday Mrs. Cochrane was very willing to talk to reporters. She said her husband had been too attentive to Miss Jacobs and for that reason she whipped him. He had not been home since the scene of Friday night, she said, and was not wanted there. Mrs. Cochrane declared that she would not apply for a divorce from her husband, with whom she had lived for 20 years.

Mr. Cochrane was found at Miss Jacobs’s home, but he would not talk. Miss Jacobs said he had been a friend of her family for 10 years, and called as much to see her father as herself. She denied that Mrs. Cochrane had any cause for jealousy.

[“Horsewhipped Her Husband.” New York Times (N.Y.), Jul. 24, 1888, p. 8]



Emelie Bedot’s Vision of Justice: Horsewhipping Disobedient Men - 1906

NOTE: Mrs. Emelie Bedot had a vision. She was a strong woman and her feminism was clear and simply stated. She demanded that the government enforce a wife’s complaints against her husband, so that wherever she felt her needs were not being met the government would step in, sieve the disobedient man, tie him to a post, strip of his upper clothing, and slash his back with a horsewhip for all to see. It is a wonder that a husband might consider giving his attention another woman, who would certainly exhibit a character less admirable, less independent, less “strong woman” in nature, less “empowered.” [UHoM]


FULL TEXT: OAKLAND. Jan. 22.—”Of course I horsewhipped my husband and I will do it again whenever I meet him if the law refuses to supply a whipping post to punish men who ill-treat their wives, the women must take the law into their own hands.”

That was the startling manner in which Mrs. Emelie Bedot, her teeth clenched and her dark eyes snapping, admitted this afternoon that she had chastised her erring spouse in the public streets of Oakland. Mrs. Bedot thinks there is no disgrace attached to the publicity of the whipping, she is a wronged wife, she declares, and since the law will not avenge her wrongs she is privileged to seek her own method of punishment.

The whipping of Henri Bedot by his wife was the second instance of its kind in Oakland within twenty-four hours. Saturday night a woman supposed to be Mrs. Mallory horsewhipped a man who said hl« name was Schwartz in front of Fred Ohe’s saloon at Fortieth street and Ban Pablo avenue.

This was followed last night at Twenty-Fourth street and Broadway by the whipping of Bedot by his wife. When seen at the home of a friend on Sycamore street, where she is staying temporarily, Mrs. Bedot to-day said:

I came with my husband from our farm in Glenn County two weeks ago. We quarreled at the farm over a servant girl that I think my husband was paying too much attention to although he declared that I was neglecting his meals. We went to San Francisco and took rooms on Third street, between Mission and Howard.

It was our idea in going to San Francisco to sell our property interests and separate. But my husband was reluctant, about coming to a settlement and I learned that he was pending his money on a woman who lived in Oakland. I followed him over here last night and saw him go into a house in Piedmont.

I am not familiar with the streets and don’t know just where it was but I waited for him a couple of blocks away and when he alighted from a car to transfer at Twenty-fourth street and Broadway accented him. When he said it was none of my business what he was doing there I grabbed a whip from an express wagon and gave him a good thrashing.

I’ll repeat the chastisement every time I meet him until he makes a settlement of our property interests and we are legally separated.

Our farm is worth about $15,000 and he has several thousand dollars in a bank at Willows. All I want is justice. I have no fear of arrest, as my husband would not dare to have things I know told in court.

[“Will Horsewhip Husband Again – Mrs. Bedot Determined to Get ‘Justice,’” The San Francisco Call (Ca.), Jan. 23, 1906, p. 6]

(NOTE: The original text used the spelling “Emelie, while the illustration uses “Emilie.”)



Jennie Dore, Artery-Slicing Wife – Boston 1896

FULL TEXT: Lynn [Massachusetts], April 15  – A sensational assault by which a jealous wife nearly murdered her husband took place in Lynn at a very early hour Wednesday morning. Nothing but skilful surgical action saved the life of the injured man, nor is he at present wholly out of danger.

The victim was Ira P. Dore, a shoe trimmer, employed at Luddy & Currier’s on Willow st. the assailant was his wife, Jennie Dore, with whom he has not lived for a number of months.

A sharp fragment of plate glass, two or three inches square, picked up from the street in a moment of passion probably, was the weapon with which the assault was committed.

Dore received a blow on the right temple. The sharp instrument penetrated the flesh to the bone, severing a large artery. Dr. Little, who attended Dore at his boarding place, 342 Washington st, was not called for about half an hour after the assault, and when he reached the house the patient was nearly dead from loss of blood.

By quick work the physician took up the severed artery and stanched the flow, but he is authority for the statement that had he been 20 minutes later it would have been too late.

Mrs. Dore is at large, but is known to be under police surveillance, although the police refuse to give any information concerning the matter or to admit that it had been reported to them.

The facts of the case as learned, however, are these:

Dore and his wife, both of whom are under 30, have not lived together for a number of months. He alleges that she kept company that was too fast to suit him, and she on the other hand is intensely jealous.

They formerly boarded with J. Frank Downs at 324 Washington st, and Dore at 324 Washington st, and Dore has lived there most of the time since their separation, while for a number of weeks past his wife has been rooming at the lodging house conducted by James Pyne at 390 Washington st.

A young woman named Roberts, of whom those who knew her speak highly, takes her meals at the Downs house, but does not room there. Mrs. Dore has been intensely jealous of this young woman, and has on a number of occasions, it is said, threatened to make things lively for her husband if she ever caught them together.

Tuesday night the annual ball of the Lynn letter carriers association was held, and Dore and Miss Roberts attended, although landlord Downs asserts that they did not go together. Mrs. Dore was there also, and while her husband was sitting in the gallery, watching the dancers she approached and accosted him, but he refused to have anything to say to her. miss Roberts and a lady friend who was with her became alarmed and advised Dore to go home, as they thought his wife meant mischief.

Soon after 3 o’clock he started for his boarding house, but, according to the story he tells, he was only a short distance from there when met by his wife and two companions. Dore refused to have anything to say to them.

The trio then left him, but Mrs. Dore followed a little later and caught up with him before he reached the door. Some conversation ensued, and Mr. Downs declares that two of his roomers in the house heard the woman tell her husband that she was going away the following Saturday, but before she went somebody would be a corpse.

A moment later she struck him with something she picked from the street and then left.

He entered the house and aroused Downs and his wife, who, after trying vainly to stop the flow of blood, became alarmed and sent for Dr. Little.

Although Marshall Wells refuses to say anything about the matter Mr. Downs says that the marshal was summoned this morning and took Dore’s statement.

[“Severed Artery. – Jealous Wife Assaulted Her Husband, - Lynn Has on Hand Another Sensational Case. – Injured Man is Not Yet Out of Danger. – Woman Supposed to Have Used Glass. – Is Still at Large, But Under Eye of Police.” The Boston Daily Globe (Ma.), Apr. 16, 1896, p. 7]



Nettie Harney’s Honeymoon Husband-Beating Adventure - 1932

FULL TEXT: Norfolk, Va., May 14 – Mrs. Nettie Harney, married last Jan 25, was convicted today of beating her husband and sentenced to serve 60 days in jail and pay a fine of $20. She denied the charge.

“Did the blows hurt much? Harney was asked when he appeared against her.

“My head didn’t feel right for a week,” he said.

“Is this your first venture on the of matrimony?”

“My first, Harney said, “and my last.”

[“Bride Jailed And Fined For Beating Husband,” syndicated (AP), Boston Globe (Ma.), May 15, 1932, p. 1]