Podcast Episode Summary

Podcast: New Books in Psychoanalysis
Host: Dr. Miranda Melcher
Guest: Professor Joanna Bourke
Episode: "Five Evil Women: Hindley, West, Wuornos, Homolka, Tucker"
Date: March 1, 2026

Episode Overview

In this episode, Dr. Miranda Melcher interviews Professor Joanna Bourke about her thought-provoking new book, Five Evil Women: Hindley, West, Wuornos, Homolka, Tucker (Reaktion, 2026). The conversation explores why certain women become icons of evil, how these narratives reflect and shape societal anxieties, and the challenges in writing about female perpetrators of extreme violence from historical, psychological, and feminist perspectives.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Motivation and Aims of the Book

• Bourke’s Background & Shift in Focus ([02:51])
  • Previously focused on histories of violence, especially male perpetrators.
  • Noted a gap in the study of violent women and the societal anxieties they provoke.
• Why Study "Evil Women"?
  • "[We need] to think differently about evil women." – Bourke ([02:51])
  • Societal fears about female aggression reflect shifting anxieties about gender, feminism, and modernity.
  • Media and culture often flatten these women into "cardboard cutouts"—the "mad, bad, sad" trope.
• What Does 'Evil' Mean?
  • Bourke rejects theological/philosophical definitions; sees evil as “a very human ascription, a doing, not a being” ([05:40]).
  • The concept of evil is historically unstable; its application tells us as much about society as it does about individuals.

2. Selecting the Five Case Studies

• Criteria for Selection ([06:40])
  • Originally considered two dozen women fitting public perceptions of evil.
  • Focused on women whose notoriety endured—“their stories told and retold for decades.”
  • All are white, working/lower-middle class, mostly mentally competent, and often overshadowed their male co-offenders in public imagination.
  • The fascination is amplified because “they’re breaking some kind of fundamental rule of femininity” ([08:50]).

3. Writing About ‘Evil Women’ Without Reinforcing Stigma

• Ethical and Methodological Challenges ([10:10])
  • Worrying about glamorizing or demonizing these women by telling their stories.
  • Avoided lurid descriptions: “I made a deliberate decision in the book not to include any lurid descriptions of violence...” ([10:26])
  • Grappled with how to show empathy for perpetrators without minimizing their crimes.
  • Emphasizes that “empathy for violent women is not incompatible with an absolute revulsion for the crimes they committed.” ([12:49])
  • Sought to “politicize empathy” as a path toward reducing future evil acts.

4. Case Studies: Societal Reactions and the Construction of 'Evil'

a. Myra Hindley (UK, 1960s)

• Why Hindley Stuck in Public Memory ([16:39])
  • “She just seemed so normal...” – Bourke ([17:08])
  • Committed crimes with Ian Brady; her ordinariness was more frightening than his madness.
  • Her iconic mugshot became a symbol of moral decay, reappearing in media and art (e.g., Marcus Harvey’s painting).
  • Punished more harshly than comparative male offenders, serving decades longer in prison ([22:41]).
  • Represented broader 1960s fears about permissiveness, sexual liberation, and femininity.

b. Rosemary West (UK, 1960s–70s)

• Application and Complication of the ‘Template’ ([24:29])
  • Media repeated Lombroso-style arguments about physical signs of evil.
  • Like Hindley: young, 'ordinary,' but—in contrast—also a mother, highly sexually aggressive, sex worker, abuser of her own children.
  • Her maternal status made her crimes “galling” to the public.
  • New themes: serial killing, sexual sadism, female paedophilia entered public discourse ([28:51]).
  • “To many, Rose West was more transgressive than Myra Hindley...” – Bourke ([26:36])

c. Aileen Wuornos (US, 1980s–90s)

• Challenging the Narrative ([33:31])
  • Killed seven male clients while working as a sex worker; claimed self-defense.
  • Received support from “dominance feminists,” who saw her as fighting patriarchy.
  • Framed as “America’s first female serial killer,” despite not being the first.
  • Media and some feminists minimized male victims, reframed Wuornos as victim/avenger.
  • Her lesbian relationships and occupational violence complicated mainstream perceptions.

d. Karla Homolka (Canada, 1990s)

• The ‘Compliant Victim’ Argument ([41:15])
  • Initially defended with battered woman syndrome (due to violent husband Paul Bernardo).
  • The “compliant victim of a sexual sadist” rationale used uniquely for women.
  • Raises broader questions about female agency and culpability.

5. The Role of Psychology in Defining and Pathologizing Evil

• Evolving Psychological Narratives ([39:56])
  • Early cases (Hindley) saw little psychological analysis; later ones (West, Wuornos, Homolka) were heavily psychoanalyzed.
  • Four common themes: battered woman syndrome, cycles of abuse, attachment disorders, compliant victim of a sexual sadist.
  • Diagnoses like borderline/antisocial personality disorder serve as “secular equivalents” of just calling someone evil ([41:00]).
  • These labels are more moral judgments than explanations—and often make women seem more dangerous.

6. Remorse and Public Perception

• Remorse as a Determinant of Release and Rehabilitation ([47:50])
  • Rose West: “never admitted that she committed these terrible, terrible, terrible crimes...” ([48:00])
  • Myra Hindley demonstrated genuine remorse, but “no amount of remorse could work” to change public or official opinion ([49:57]).
  • Societal expectations: Women seen as inherently manipulative—“If women cry, they’re accused of shedding crocodile tears. If they’re stoical, they are heartless.” ([50:41])
  • The label of evil forecloses the possibility of redemption.

7. Broader Lessons and Justice System Alternatives

• Implications for the Present and Future ([52:47])
  • Reflexively punitive, carceral approaches do not address broader contexts or root causes of violence.
  • Even when prison “rehabilitated” some women (Homolka, Hindley), Bourke argues most were not habitually violent and could have contributed to society.
  • Supports restorative and transformative justice—aimed at structural change, not just individual rehabilitation ([56:12]).
  • Praises abolitionist approaches (Critical Resistance, Angela Davis, Ruth Gilmore): “Abolition is not merely the absence of cops and prisons; it’s the presence of anything we need to secure that absence.” – paraphrased ([56:54])
  • Calls for radical, holistic approaches to trauma and violence, not simply restoring the status quo.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Empathy and Evil:
  • “Empathy for violent women is not incompatible with an absolute revulsion for the crimes they committed… These women were not wholly evil. Evil is a doing, it's not a being.” – Joanna Bourke ([12:49])
• On the Social Construction of Female Evil:
  • “Violent women, and particularly these five violent women, continue to be seen as more transgressive than violent men, because...they’re breaking some kind of fundamental rule of femininity.” – Joanna Bourke ([08:40])
• On Cultural Longevity:
  • “For British people, Hindley was, as someone said, as much part of the 60s as the Beatles and the Pill.” – Joanna Bourke ([18:35])
• On Restorative and Transformative Justice:
  • “I actually think we need to do a lot more research on transformative thinking about the harms inflicted...not to minimize in any way their actions...But I do think, you know, we need to think about tackling violence in more radical and even holistic, if I dare mention that word, ways.” – Joanna Bourke ([57:44])
• On Societal Standards:
  • “If women cry, they're accused of shedding crocodile tears. If they’re stoical, they are heartless. There’s no kind of way around that.” – Joanna Bourke ([50:41])

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:30] — Introduction and framing the central research question.
• [02:51] — Bourke’s background and reasons for writing the book.
• [06:40] — How the five women were selected.
• [10:10] — Ethical quandaries in researching and narrating these stories.
• [16:39] — Deep dive into Myra Hindley and the 1960s context.
• [24:29] — Rosemary West’s case and evolution of the “evil woman” template.
• [33:31] — Aileen Wuornos, radical feminism, and serial killer narratives.
• [39:56] — The ascent of psychological frameworks in public and legal discourse.
• [47:50] — The role of remorse in public and institutional perceptions.
• [52:47] — Alternatives to carceral responses and the case for transformative justice.
• [59:23] — Bourke previews her next, much happier project on women and drinking cultures.

Conclusion

The conversation offers a richly layered examination of how “evil” is constructed around women who perpetrate serious violence, the historical persistence of such narratives, and the need for more nuanced, transformative approaches to both justice and public understanding. Through comparative case studies, Bourke and Melcher probe the intersections of gender, psychology, and media, continually challenging listeners to reconsider where evil is located: not only in individuals but in the broader anxieties and institutions of society.