“He deserved it” – DV’s hidden side


Robert St. Estephe–Gonzo Historian–is dedicated to uncovering the forgotten past of marginalizing men. “Gonzo journalism” is characterized as tending “to favor style over fact to achieve accuracy.” Yet history – especially “social history” – is written by ideologues who distort and bury facts in order to achieve an agenda. “Gonzo” writing is seen as unorthodox and surprising. Yet, in the 21st century subjectivity, distortion and outright lying in non-fiction writing is the norm. Fraud is the new orthodoxy. Consequently, integrity is the new “transgressive.”

Welcome to the disruptive world of facts, the world of Gonzo History.


It’s Domestic Violence Awareness Month again: posters, TV ads and “awareness” events galore. But let’s take a little break from the barrage of fake statistics, bogus history, and recitations of scientifically unsound and reductive ideological “gender” theories. It’s time instead to pour yourself a big cup of strong hot Gonzo history.

Here are seven cases dating from 1900 to 1955 you can be sure are not alluded to (nor any cases like them)  in any college in the world.


• 1900 – Rutter

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]


• 1903 – Smith

FULL TEXT: The wife of Oscar Smith gave her husband a public whipping on the streets of Shelby, Wednesday night. Today she was arrested and her trial set for 4 o’clock this evening. The streets were thronged at the time of the whipping because of the band concert that was being given. When the fight started some one raised the cry “a fight” and the crowd began to push toward the scene of action. They fell back, however, when they noticed a woman trimming up her husband in the latest approved style. The husband and wife happened to meet on the street and held a short conversation in which the wife seemed to have the most to say. The answer of the husband did not suit the occasion evidently and she gave him a stiff jab in the neck straight from the shoulder as one reads about in championship battles. He did not attempt to strike his wife but immediately made an effort to recover his hat which was knocked off in the first round. His only desire seemed to get away from the punishment and he succeeded pretty well but not until he had received  several upper cuts.

[“Woman Arrested – In Shelby on Charge of Publicity Whipping Husband.” Mansfield Daily Herald (Oh), Aug. 28, 1903, p. 6]


• 1906 – Poppert

FULL TEXT: [Chicago] – Anna Poppert, according to witnesses who testified before Judge Walker during the day, believed she had a right to beat and kick her husband. John H. Poppert, whenever it pleased her so. The husband held different views and set them forth in the divorce bill on which Judge Walker gave a hearing.

In April, 1906, Poppert asserted, the defendant struck him on the forehead with clothes brush and threw a pair of scissors at him, striking him on the arm. At another time, he said, she kicked him in the stomach, and, when asked concerning this by Andrew Wolski, 353 Cornell street, a friend, she said: “I have a right to kick him or beat him if I like.”

[“This Woman Thrashes Husband.” Chicago Tribune (Il.), Feb. 9, 1908, Part I, p. 3]

[Note: The original has a typo, spelling the judge’s name two different ways, “Waller” and “Walker.” The latter has been selected as probably correct.]


• 1916 – Lodwick

FULL TEXT: Youngstown, O., Aug. 11. – Alleging that his wife put cayenne pepper in his bed, threw carbolic acid in his face, put morphine in his coffee, burned his clothes, hid his shoes and compelled him to go to work in his house slippers, hit him on the head with a hatchet, locked him out and had him arrested, David J. Lodwick today asked a divorce from Jennie I. Lodwick.

[“That Cruel Woman!” Lima Times Democrat (Oh.), Aug. 11, 1916, p. 11]


• 1948 – Amyx

FULL TEXT: Tacoma, Wash., Marc. 28 – Justice Charles Westcott ruled today that it is sometimes legal for a wife to beat her husband on the head with a piece of kindling wood. He dismissed third degree assault charges against Inez Amyx who told the courts she struck her husband because he “called her names.”

[“Husband-Beating Upheld,” The Pittsburgh Press (Pa.), Mar. 28, 1948, p. 1]


• 1953 – Devlin

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 …”]


• 1955 – Trimm

FULL TEXT: Hamburg, Germany – Mrs. Gerda Trimm, 22, has been sentenced to six years in prison for mistreating her husband and trying to poison him.

Mrs. Thimm was convicted Wednesday of:

1. Dropping – on 13 nights – hydrochloric acid into the ears of her sleeping spouse.

2. Placing a splinter of a razor blade under his eyelid.

3. Placing rat poison in his bed.

“I wanted to make him look ugly because he flirted with other women,” she told the court.

[“Woman Is Convicted Of Subjecting Hubby To Spartan Treatment,” syndicated (AP), Kentucky New Era (Hopkinsville, Ky.), Dec. 8, 1955, p. 12]

  • Bewildered

    You misogynist ! You hater ! You liar !……………………………….
    This can’t be true.
    Women can never do such evil things.
    Wait! It must have been some evil male spirits hiding within these poor sweet women which made them do such evil acts !
    These are male conspiracies for sure to besmirch the fair name of womanhood.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Well, I did not make this stuff up, but you are partially correct due to the fact that all this stuff occurred before the creation of the “Redstockings Manifesto.” Anything before July 7, 1969 is really just “prehistory,” and is therefore irrelevant. Soon all this obscure justly forgotten pre-Redstockings clutter will be deleted from all libraries and databases and will all live in a post-Patriarchal Paradise, thank Goddess!

  • http://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/about/ Peter Wright (Tawil)

    Appears that women battering husbands goes a long way back – I often come across mentions of violent abusive women in literature over the last 800 years. Here’s one I came across last week when reading an article dated 1702:

    “…as is the case with shrews, and such as command, and beat their husbands, for which there is often a riding, as I shall shew in a variety of instances”

    The reference to a riding refers to the punishments battered men suffered when they were found out – the male victims were made to ride a donkey:

    “In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives. In France, for instance, a “battered” husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, “abused” husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people’s derision and contempt.”

    Is it any wonder that men are reluctant to speak up about female perpetrated abuse, considering the public mockery it brings, even today?

    In future I’ll make a point of saving the numerous historical mentions I come across.

  • Legion

    Jesus fucking Christ. This is grotesque.

  • Copyleft

    We should all be aware of domestic violence. Far too many women are getting away with beating their kids and husbands, and I welcome the annual opportunity to raise awareness of this troubling issue in our society.

  • MGTOW-man

    What else but the wacky, out-of-control feelings of women could cause them to act these ways and that they are justified in doing so. I should rest my case, but I will not. There is just too much obvious proof that says that it is the feelings of women, skewing their perceptions of reality, that is behind our world unraveling—all because stupid men are letting it happen. There is no way any of these men deserved the treatment they received. If I am wrong, then women must have deserved being punished too…for whatever they did wrong.

    One of the most profound things I have read from this site was this: “If you want to insult a woman, treat her as an equal.” The sad but revealing truth is that if you do treat her as a true-equality equal, you, for sure, must “hate” women. Love can’t include honesty any longer—not since duped men let women destroy. You can love women ONLY if you pretend you are stupid and let them have their way all the time no matter what chaos and disruption it causes.

    More later!

    • Robert St. Estephe

      Many of your observations are well-taken. I must, however, respectfully take exception to this: “What else but the wacky, out-of-control feelings of women could cause them to act these ways and that they are justified in doing so.” The fact is that these behaviors are not sex-specific. These women (noted in the historical articles on DV) are behaving similarly to those men who have poor impulse-control and commit crimes. Certain modes of criminal behavior are indeed sex-specific (the common female preference for manipulating others to commit criminal acts and the use of false accusations to facilitate sadistic and fraudulent motives). The problems of governmental fraud (fake statistics, anti-Constitutional regulations, corrupt courts, predatory taxation, and epidemic sadistic police employees) and intellectual fraud (corrupt media and government-controlled education bodies spreading anti-scientific ideology as part of a social engineering agenda) are much more serious than any natural sex differences that influence behavior. It is the indoctrination and anti-lawful policies that prompts women who might not otherwise take such license to keep pushing the limits of morality and legality.

      • Rukumouru

        Are “certain modes of criminal behavior” REALLY sex-specific?

        Is manipulation and false accusation REALLY a “common female preference”?

        The tools necessary for the effective use of subterfuge are, and have historically been, most commonly placed in the hands of women.

        I say, give men the exact same type of legal tools that are at women’s disposal today and see if men do any better.

        Given the ridiculous amount of factors that play important roles in any given situation, I prefer to keep “sex-specific” and “sex-preferential” tags at arm’s length. It doesn’t take much to become the two-faced gender bigot that one protests against.

        • Robert St. Estephe

          Are “certain modes of criminal behavior” REALLY sex-specific? Yes.

          This is evaluation is well-accepted by forensic psychologists. There are several who specialize in the study of female serial killers and all agree that modes and methods are (with exceptions, of course) clearly distinguishable. Two important differences: almost none of the murder victims is properly identified as a homicide case until, following a late-in-the-series case, earlier deaths are investigated in retrospect. The majority of female killer victims are persons who are in some trust-relationship, frequently dependent (elderly, ill, children). Again, there are male serial killer nurses to be sure, but the proportion of female care-givers who are serial killers to male is radically different. Proxy violence is easiest to get away with and takes less physical risk and less physical strength. Think about the risk involved in a kidnapping compared to a false accusation that leads to arrest and incarceration (which, in reality, is merely a proxy kidnapping). Less physical risk and much lower risk of substantive punishment.

          Women and men are different: not in all ways at all times, but they are, in the aggregate distinguishably different. The answer is never “nurture.” The answer is never “nature.” The answer is “nature AND nurture,” operating upon one another in highly complex ways. Biological differences (psychological differences are largely biological/brain differences) are not social constructions.

          • Rukumouru

            Very informative. I just want to exercise care so as to deal with facts and not misconceptions (which is so common among those pushing misandric agendas these days), thank you for elaborating.

            Is there any chance you could post a couple sources for these sex-related differences in criminal behavior? It would be helpful in case someone finds himself in disagreement with your comment.

      • MGTOW-man

        Well, at least I helped get healthy discourse underway. Too many times, people may disagree or agree, but say nothing at all. I think communication is much better than the breakdown of it leading to isolation.

        I would have replied earlier, but I was again, doing one of my favorite things: wilderness indulgence, for several days continuous. I bring no laptop with me and the cell phone only picks up a signal occasionally. I live for these times. The sound, sights, and stimuli of the gushing whitewater in very remote areas, staying for days to let it all sink in…with much time for ponderance and pontification is one of my favorite things of all.

        Anyway, thanks Robert for your reply. Even if I am wrong, I like to talk about things. I also take note on you saying that many of the things I say/observe are well-taken. Thank you.

        I understand why many people distance themselves from sex specific traits. But I also believe that this is partially why so much chaos is perpetuating…because we are reluctant to be truthful about things that make us uncomfortable.

        Of couse, some men do the same wacky-feelings behavioral processes similarly as women are prone to do. The point was and still is that since there are two main types of people: male and female (both with generally opposite but complimentary purposes in the great scheme of things), it makes sense that there would be two main ways with dealing with stimuli that generally and naturally divide along sex lines and which disproportionately benefit each, respectively, also diverge along sex lines.

        Much research supports sex specific lines. I cannot get into all of it now, but for those who want more here, read the books, the literature, the findings. Then compare and integrate what is learned there into your own lives as you observe women and men differences. It is a leap to make but once you do, it is hard to not see the distinctions anymore. Sure there must be exceptions but I haven’t found any. …And I see that many others on this site haven’t found any either.

        Most women are alike and most men are alike. That is the problem.

        Women tend to be emotional more so and it is less likely that they can effectively separate their feelings from the rest of the stimuli coming and going. Hence, the saying: ” She thinks too much of herself”. Think about that for a awhile. If she does fail to separate her emotions/feelings/wishes/ etc. from decisions/rules she makes, (which can adversely and profoundly affect males…as it often does), then the outcome of her rules will biasedly lean toward herself (or women). Vawa, abortion, and many other feminist changes are perfect examples. Even some “conservative” women ( vote conservatively, and generally side with conservatism in most things) still often automatically side with women “rights” while remaining oblivious to other things important to the rest of us.

        No proof here, but I think it plausible and probable that females develop some kind of universal female-particular selfishness that, since they are the ones in typical closest contact with offspring, survical of such offspring is more likley in theory. No problem with evolution favoring women in this sense, for this reason, but it is when these traits generally present in women apparently get used for the wrong reasons…themselves—often at the actual expense of offspring. Since it is about women, who most men still think is the sole purpose that men are put here for (also the problem in a MHR perspective), often, these detrimental things women can do get hidden, tolerated, and go unpunished or unchanged.

        Men, as males, think alike too. We love orgasms. We love our egos. Competition makes us excited. The “manhood” rules captivate us, manipulate us, and control us. Of course, not every single man obeys this observational rule, else I, you, and many of us here on this site would not exist. But it is the majority of males who do fit the above description, that is responsible for why feminism is successful. Men, while disliking most of the changes made to our world (which is likened unto having a rug yanked out from under them), still behave in ways that facilitate feminism’s spread.

        This is why I say we are in the mess we are in because most women are like they are and most men are like they are too. We must address, with women, how their feelings can play no role in public rule making—it simply is not objective enough…and men will often side with women to protect them, thus lending even more unbalance to true gender equality, fomenting female supremacy. We must stress in males that it is OK to be different than the other males. There are no one-size-fits-all rules of manhood attainment.

        With both of these things we get over emphasis of feelings removed from public sphereswhile making women learn that they and their feelings are not the center of the universe. Men love women but on our own terms and worthiness, not built in through women which binds us to them.

        I want radical, benefit-only-females-feminism to fail. I believe in no stone being left unturned in our quest for justice. If wrong, I would rather find that out on the other side of having tried.

  • Aimee McGee

    I’ve said this many times. Women are not taught the rules of engagement in childhood, because they are shielded from rough and tumble play. They are also seldom disciplined for relational violence, because it is viewed as normal development in 8-12 year old girls to be vicious to each other.
    Until women take responsibility and recognise we need to raise our girls with consequences, then this will keep happening

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Here is an important and ground-breaking study of female criminality:

    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.

    My Unknown History of MISANDRY post recommending this publication:

    • Rukumouru

      Thank you very much for the sources, Robert.

      I find it especially interesting that the study makes allusions several times to the fact that these stereotypes are prevalent and inhibiting authorities from correctly performing their duties. Interesting that feminism’s claws were unable to sully research conducted so recently.

      Thank you again.

  • East1956

    Today another woman in UK was found guilty of killing the child in her care, namely her son. Yet throughout his sad life his mother was able to avoid scrutiny by simply giving fairly incredible excuses. The largely female social workers, health workers and police community officers accepted her stories. As I listened to the news reports, I recalled a Law Society study that found that men were 96 times more likely to be convicted of a IPV assault than a woman. They found that;
    – Women routinely justify their violence and deny any guilt, whereas men are more likely to admit guilt to obtain closure. This makes it harder for the police to charge the female perpetrator
    – The Police & Crown Prosecution Service are less likely to proceed with the court case as the female perpetrator is most likely to plead non guilty, requiring more investment of time and resources to achieve a prosecution. If they do anything it will be to seek a judgement to bind the woman over to keep the peace in a lower court, and no record of criminal conviction. (Male IPV perpetrators are 12 time more likely to be charged)
    – The courts are less likely convict a woman than a man, seemingly holding men more responsible for their actions. (Male IPV perpetrators are 8 times more likely to be convicted)
    Now if you were a violent woman and realised that you had a barely 2% chance of being convicted of criminal assault compared with a man, would you honestly worry much about any potential sanction?