Freitag, Januar 14, 2011

Was beim Thema "Serienkiller" gelegentlich untergeht

Ein Fundstück bei meiner privaten Freizeitlektüre gerade eben:

Until 1978 (...) the largest number of victims dispatched by a single American serial killer was 31. This (...) killer (...) was a classic criminal psychopath who led an outwardly respectable life while secretly indulging in wholesale torture and murder, a sadist who achieved the heights of sexual ecstasy by inflicting slow suffering and death on helpless victims. Before Gacy laid temporary claim to the dubios distinction, the "Guiness Book of Records" listed this long forgotten psycho-killer (...) as our country's most prolific multiple murderer. Her name was Jane Toppan.

That a woman was America's long-reigning champion of serial homicide comes as a surprise to many people, particularly those who continue to believe the hype about Aileen Wuornos, the hard-bitten Florida prostitute who, having shot seven male motorists in the course of a year, was widely touted as "the first female serial killer in history" and subsequently immortalized in the Oscar winning movie Monster. To some extent, the insistence that only men are capable of such enormities is a sexist assumption that cuts across political lines, being shared by social reactionaries (who persist in seeing women as the "weaker sex"), middle-class liberals (who idealize women as less prone to violence), and radical feminists (who tend to see their sex as morally superior to the male).

Leider gibt es diesen überparteilichen Schulterschluss auch bei weniger extremen Fällen als gerade Serienkiller_innen, wenn es um die beiden Geschlechter und Gewalt geht.

Quelle für das obige Zitat: Serial Killers. Philosphy for Everyone: Being and Killing

(Ich weiß, ich lese seltsame Bücher, um mich abends zu entspannen. Seid froh, dass ich nicht aus Ass Goblins of Auschwitz zitiert habe.)