Conference quark::mennotes-v1

>What was that saying, revenge is sweet ??  Evidently so!
  
When men are serial killers of women, they are "sick" and it wasn't
"saying" anything about "men and women in general."  When women are
serial killers of men, they are saying something specific about "men
and women in general." 

Why the double standard?


						--Gerry

    Do anyone here would tell me what is "serial killer" ?
    
    Mickwid.
    

    re .2
    
    A "serial killer" is a someone who commits a number of murders that
    follow some sort of pattern, hence they can generally be attributed to
    one person before the police have a suspect.
    
    re .0
    
    All is says is that women are as capable of violence against their own
    spieces as men are.
    
    
    Rich

    RE.2 
    
    I thought it was something to do with Cornflakes!!!
    
    Ian.

    > -.1
    
    No, you're confusing that with the time Tony the Tiger was accused
    of murdering Snap and Crackle or Rice Krispies fame.  He never got
    Pop so this didn't count.
    
    
                                 L.J.

    We definitely have some sick people working for us, as evidenced by the
    replies to this note, and even the subject of the topic, the way it's
    worded.....

    Oh, it's not a new syndrome by any means. (Can you say, "Elizabeth
    Bathory"?) And, while it's possible that the killers themselves planned
    their crimes as a way of "getting back at men", I'd hesitate to
    interpret it that way without further information.
    
    -b

    Women don't need a *way* to get back at men ...
    
    
    
    isn't Family Court enough ?    8^)
    
    
    Jerry ...

                       Lizzy Borden took an ax,
                          and gave her mother forty whacks,
                       And when she'd seen what she had done,
                          she gave her father forty-one.
    
    - Hoyt

Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive today, but this is a rather serious topic
and, while I enjoy humor myself, I don't think this topic is the place for it.



Jim

Suggestion as moderator:

	It's really tough to determine what is or is not appropriate, 
	for all members of MENNOTES, in regard to a topic like serial
	killing.

	On the one hand, considering the time of year and the subject
	matter, I can understand why some people would like to be 
	very serious and somber about this.  On the other hand,
	considering the time of year and the wording of the base-note,
	I can see why some people would like to laugh this off.

	I think that it's appropriate to do either, here.  I suggest
	that, if you want a more serious exploration of the topic, 
	that you start that discussion.  If the existance of humor
	in the string bothers you, then I recommend using NEXT UNSEEN,
	or, if you have the energy and something to say, start a new
	topic with a basenote that uses a serious tone.


						--Gerry

<<Says more about the noter than about women or serial killers


ooooohhhh,,,,  I could almost take this personally....

But I wont.
<<When women are serial killers of men, they are saying something specific 
<<about "men and women in general." 
<<
<<Why the double standard?

Actually it's A: Not Funny, B: Scary no matter what gender the suspected
killers are, and C: Something in the story, (the 'sketchy part) eluded
to the fact that the motive was revenge against violent crimes
against women.

I can't go any further because I didn't hear the whole story,,,

(maybe that alone should have been enough reason not to enter the note..)

But just for the record,,,,  I wasn't implying any double standard, and
I fail to see where you were able to extract that from my note..

lata-

>But just for the record,,,,  I wasn't implying any double standard, and
>I fail to see where you were able to extract that from my note..

You are correct.  There was no double standard in your note.

The double standard appears when you take all discussions of serial 
killers into consideration.  Then, it appears.

Remember the discussion (in some notes file) about the guy in a 
Canadian university who lined all the women up in a class and shot 
them?  I remember that some women were trying to point out that this 
might be an indication of the acceptability of hatred of women in 
society.  The men argued vehemently that the guy was "just sick" and 
that it didn't say anything about "men hating women."

Now, here you come along, and enter a very VERY sketchy note about 
some serial killing someplace, and toss out a really limp implication 
that it has something to do with women getting revenge on men.

...nice try.


							--Gerry

re:13,, why is it, noters will take the time to edificate the life
out of another noters note,,, and with all due respect, never seem
to read the WHOLE note there chopping up ??

I'll never-ever understand the noting community...

 Gerry-

 Your claims of a double standard are meritless and convoluted. You are 
comparing a statement  that one man said in one place and comparing it to 
statements other men have in another place and since they don't seem to jive
for you, presto! it's a case of a double standard. It just doesn't work
that way. 

 Even if I were to concede the point that Pelkey is speaking for all men in
the same way that the group of men in womannotes supposedly spoke for all men,
you are still talking about different things. The assertion in womannotes
by <mostly women> was that the act of a man killing women demonstrated
the acceptibility of misogyny in our society (a charge I continue to disagree
with.) The assertion here is that the female serial killers are "getting back
at men," a charge quite different from saying that they are killing men because
it is acceptable in our society for women to hate men. It is a postulated
explanation for a possible motive, not an indictment of society or women (unlike
the charge in =wn=.) Since the two assertions differ in fundamentally different
ways, it is incorrect to refer to a double standard being at work here. Double
standards (in the colloquial sense) refer to two different sets of rules
being applied to different parties doing the same thing, not different parties 
doing different things.

 The Doctah

RE The last two

I think I'll just be quiet for a while, in hopes that folks will start 
talking about serial killings again.  I don't want to push anyone 
else's buttons.

...and I kinda miss the sick jokes!


							--Ger

            you want to talk serial killers?  
    
    Washington state. 
    
    Ted Bundy,
    Randy Woodfield(sp) the I-5 killer,  
    K. Bianchi was arrested in Bellingham.
    
    Plus, we have a lunatic running loose who is called
    the Green river killer.  well over 40+ at this time.
    Not all of these victims were prostitutes, but many where.
    
    This "serial killer" must be stopped and one way or another that
    will happen.
                

    
    About female serial killers:
    
    Interesting.  I'd like to know more once the whole story is told.
    It wouldn't surprise me that these women, if they killed only men,
    were probably killing them BECAUSE they were men.  Probably also as
    a result of some event or events that occured in their personal lives.
    
    About male serial killers:
    
    I think that my last two sentences apply fully here too.  It wouldn't
    surprise me if men who killed only women, probably killed them 
    BECAUSE they were women.  Their anger was also probably a result of
    some event or events that occured in their personal lives.
    
    An interesting question, in my mind, is why are female serial killers
    or plain, ordinary killers, the rare case?  Why is it unique and
    shocking for women to kill men BECAUSE they are men, but not so unique
    for men to kill women BECAUSE they are women?
    
    Is it that:
    	women are not expected to hate men?
    	women are not expected to act on their hatred in a murdurous
    		fashion?
    	women are not supposed to be strong enough to kill men?
    One could guess all day.  I think that we all must answer this
    question for ourselves.
    
    IMHO:  this is shocking to me because I think women usually don't act
    on their hate.  It is expecially shocking that women killed men.  "How
    did they do it?",  I find myself wondering.  On the other hand, "maybe
    if this happens more then men won't be so positive that they can abuse
    women and get away with it."  I'm trying very hard NOT to think that.
    
    
    
    Rachael
    

<<"How did they do it?",


Handgun wounds, close range,,  Like 2 feet away...

Man was hitchin a ride, lady picks him up, ,,  get's to a desolate
section of the interstate... Bang, ur dead, dump the body on the road,
leave...

    RE.18

    It is interesting to note that a majority of women who commit suicide 
do so in "non-destructive" ways, such as sleeping pills, poison, carbon 
monoxide. Men, on the other hand, tend to grab a razor, gun, or step in 
front of something large/moving/etc.

    The theory I read made the assumption that women want to still be 
"beautiful" in death, whereas men could care less who saw them once dead.

    How does that relate to serial killers? I dunno.... 8^) But I suspect 
it may tie in once a killer is fully analysed and she explains why she is 
killing men, particularly with a handgun. 

PS: I know afew women who are/were very good with handguns, so that part 
does not surprise me. My mother was Conn state 50 yd champ when first 
married.....Carried a "cute" .32 cal revolver.... 8^)
    Vic

re-.1
In a former life I worked on a volunteer fire department. I ran on a suicide
call where the woman had gone into her garage lined the floor and walls
with plastic loaded her shotgun and disconnected her brain. The note read
that althought her happyness in life had come to an end she diden't want to 
further inconvience her family with cleaning up the mess.
Kept it all on the plactic too. Strange what goes thru the minds of people
that are planning to end their own life.

-j

>    The theory I read made the assumption that women want to still be 
>"beautiful" in death, whereas men could care less who saw them once dead.

Perhaps women--in general--are less violent than men.  Women are more 
concerned with getting the job done (death), than in inflicting pain 
or making a mess.  (More efficient, less pain and melodrama.)

I'm not saying it's true.  I'm just saying that it's another way to 
look at it.


							--Ger

    
    what in the world does a fire truck do on a suicide call?
    
    hose the person down?

    re-.1
    Provide first aid in the event of a partial success (i.e. still alive)
    at the time it was an out lying area with the nearest ambulance or
    hospital a good 20 minute drive away. Sometimes you can't wait 20 min
    before you try to save a life. Get it now?
    
    -j
    

There was a Special on T.V. (boston area) supposed to be aired last night
on this topic "Women/serial killers"

Caught my attention as I was heading out the door.  Maybe  chanell 4 or 5...


I wasn't able to watch it..  Anyone see it ??

It was a telecast based on the initial report of the incident which
led to my posting the base note.

More truth then fiction it would appear..

   <<< Note 540.22 by WORDY::GFISHER "Work that dream and love your life" >>>


>Perhaps women--in general--are less violent than men.  Women are more 
>concerned with getting the job done (death), than in inflicting pain 
>or making a mess.  (More efficient, less pain and melodrama.)

Ger...

As I recall the information, women tended to be less successful with 
suicide than men, mainly because they tended to use pills,poison,etc. They 
work slower, give you time to rethink it (EG, call for help, have someone 
find you). Violent means tend to be quick and often more certain. Often the 
act of suicide is also a cry for help, rather than a definate desire to end 
it all. Not that you should handle a suicide attempt as anything but a life 
threatening situation....

Enuff rathole...sorry 'bout this!

    Vic

Vic,

All I'm saying is that a set of statistics can be viewed from many 
different angles.  When people start reading things into statistics 
(ie, the differences between men and women), then I usually see less 
"fact" and more re-enforcement of the speaker's belief system.  (By 
the way, I'm no exception to this observation.)  

For example, if someone believes in the stereotype of the "weak
woman," then someone can read weakness into every statistic found by
viewing it from an angle that "proves" his or her point. 

I think that the reasons why women generally choose pills and men
choose quick violence is a lot more complicated than "the men get the
job done and the women give themselves a chance to back out."  

Do I know more than you do about why the two groups choose 
differently?  No.  Do I disagree with the statistics?  No.  I'm just 
saying that I have a hunch that there's more data here that we aren't 
seeing because our belief systems aren't allowing us to take it in.

							--Gerry

    
    I have a book somewhere at home on British serial killers/mass
    murderers, and it claimed as its thesis that whilst many men killed 2/3
    even 4 times cases of more were very rare (Jack the Ripper comes to
    mind but since "he" was never caught it is possible "he" was a woman).
    
    However they listed numerous cases of female serial killers - most of
    whom were poisoners.
    
    /. Ian .\