Yes, Rachel Carson for being responsible for the most actual deaths.
That chick from The Crying Game was not a very good woman.
On a more serious note, Imelda Marcos. Shoes Shoes Shoes. She’s right up there with Marie Antoinette.
In the spirit of Time magazine’s penchant for designating a defined group of people as its ‘Person of the Year’ (eg. The American soldier, the Peacemakers, The Computer (!), etc.), I nominate “The German Woman” of the first half of the 20th-century as the worst 20th-century woman.
Rather than serving as a counterbalance to the male-driven insanity of the Nazis (a compassionate, caring, non-violent, “feminine” perspective having been touted as a justification for, and advantage of, having more women in positions of leadership), many women of Germany embraced the Party and its tenets. They ‘offered’ their sons to the Wehrmacht, supported the institutionalized anti-semitism of the Reich, participated as some of the most notorious guards in the concentration camps, and generally failed to offset the barbarism of the Nazis.
(Of course, German men were more than responsible as well. But, the OP asked for the “worst” 20th century “woman”.)
http://www.ipce.info/host/wilson/ch_5.htm
This is only one of many, many cites you’ll find if you google “Anita Bryant Kill a Queer for Christ.”
I can’t find her quote on-line when she was asked about the murder of openly gay politician Harvey Milk’s murder, but it was something like “It’s insignificant compared to the amount of violence commited by homosexuals.”
Yu should have picked a better one, then. Nothing in this article says Bryant herself advocated murder. It’s a horrible cite.
I’e tried, unsuccessfully, to find any evidence she incited murder. I AM pleased to find that her life has turned into a miserable failure.
A world study of women in power, from Queen Elizabeth I to Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Jiang Qing, and Margaret Thatcher, should disabuse anyone of that sentimental notion.
Psst-I named Marcos already. 
How about Squeaky Fromme and the rest of the Manson Family women?
It depends on how you define or qualify this kind of debate, but… for sheer, hands-on, in-your-face nastiness, it’d be hard to top “the Bitch of Auschwitz,” Elsa Griese*[???], and her ilk, in death camps and totalitarian regimes the world over.
*IIRC from something I read years ago in history of the Nazis. Googling didn’t turn it up, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t in print somewhere. Regardless, there were female commanders and guards in positions of absolute authority over, typically, female prisoners – and they tended to be very nasty indeed.
Sampiro did mention Ilsa Koch.
I refuse to acknowledge Thatcher as human, let alone as female.
Then you’re a…
checks forum
poster who is motivated more by political ideology than objective fact, and one who is committing a “No True Scotsman” fallacy into the bargain.
Seriously, where were the death camps, the experiments on living subjects, the pink triangles, the rigged public show trials? Thatcher didn’t try anything like hard enough to live up to the “Evillest Woman in the c20th” ideal.
The caring, sharing pre-Thatcher society included such gems as ambulance-drivers’-union leaders solemly announcing “if lives are lost [as a result of strike action] then that is how it must be”. Seventies England gave rise to the dreary nihilism of punk rock as the expression of the mood of the nation, and since Maggie didn’t get voted in until 1979 you can hardly lay that national spirit at her door.
Oh, yeah, the Magdalene Sisters were definite scumbags. Contenders all.
Linda Lovelace?
Adolf Hitler?
Ooh! Ooh! Can I pretend to be an anti-abortion extremist & say Margaret Sanger?
I just really don’t care.
<hijack>
I looked up Anita Bryant and found one of the most bizarre pictures I’ve ever seen. http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2002/04/28/photos/bry-cow.jpg Look at the backdrop. Can anyone explain this?
</hijack>
Elena Ceaucescu tops the list for me, but I think Ayn Rand should rank much higher. Much of the misery in the world today is caused by political movements which, at the core, are inspired by her bizarre and psychotic philosophy. Find any random fascist nutcase, and they’re gaurenteed to have a copy of *Atlas Shrugged * on their bookshelf. She made the sociopath mindset appear positive, and to this day millions try to live up to that ideal.
Ayn Rand was anti-statist and against authoritarian governments, be they Bolshevik Russia or Fascist Italy. Her philosophy was in the tradition of classical liberalism.
I can’t explain the backdrop, but that’s obviously from her days as Miss Florida or whatever the hell her title was.
I think I can explain the backdrop.
Anita Bryant did some Bob Hope shows in Vietnam, with the USO. This is before she went all nuts and stuff.
I suggest you open two books:
-
*Atlas Shrugged, *which you obviously have never read.
-
A dictionary, specifically the words *psychotic, fascist, nutcase, *and *sociopath. *Then look up a few other words, like *reality, reason, liberty, human rights, self-esteem, rational self-interest, capitalism *and integrity. You might also look up the phrase talking out of one’s ass.
I suggest you take your own advice, I’ve read Atlas Shrugged twice. Despite my stark disagreement with Rand’s philosophy, I do find her to be one of the most inspiring authors I’ve read.
It’s important to realize that the core of her philosophy is the phrase “Selfishness is a virtue.” She illustrates this in some pretty flagrant ways - the most obvious example that immediately leaps to mind is Howard Roark’s raping of Dominique Francon in the book The Fountainhead. Francon responds to this horrific assault by falling madly in love with Roark. Rand later called this a “rape by engraved invitation” As if such a thing existed! If you don’t think postulating selfishness as a virtue, even to the point of justifying rape isn’t promoting a sociopathic mindset, you need to go back and take remedial psychology over again.
Rand put her philosophy even more in the forefront in Atlas Shrugged, where she prophesied the ultimate economic world where no regulations existed and people were happily working in factories where their managers paid them excellent wages and all was sweetness and light. I’ll give Rand credit for one thing - although the book is pretty overwrought and unreadable towards the end, she absolutely nailed the flaws of socialism on the head. If you think socialism is a good idea, read Atlas Shrugged. The problem is that the opposite of socialism, laissez faire anarchy of unregulated business, is just as bad if not worse. It allows for the type of world where rats meat gets mixed into the hamburger, unions are broken up by shotgun toting goons, and child labor is considered okay. Rand completely misses this, and advocates complete deregulation of all business.
Rand’s philosophy is the underlying motivation behind all Libertarianism and Neo-Conservatism out there. It’s echo can be heard whenever you Limbaugh arguing against the minimum wage, or O’Reilly trying to justify Enron. The popularization of selfishness as a virtue explains why Americans feel justified in invading foreign countries to set up genocidal dictators, or ally ourselves with other nutcases. Rand’s constant belaboring of taxes as a form of theft is a mantra taken up by thousands who protest bitterly and constantly against taxes, failing to see that taxes provide the infrastructure our country requires to continue to run. Rand followers (or “Randroids” as I like to call them,) keep up a constant whine that private industry could provide the infrastructure much better and much cheaper, failing to see that private industry certainly wasn’t doing that *before * the government came in, and when they try to do it now… well, look at Enron!
Rand’s objectivism is a poison meme. Read, it, learn from it, and realize why it is fundamentally wrong, and that those who don’t believe in it are likewise wrong. You will be a better person.
I knew Ayn Rand. Personally. I had several differences with her philosophy then, and have had a great many more since then (and especially with the people who you correctly call “Randroids”).
She doesn’t need me to defend her, so I won’t, especially in light of our differences. But please don’t lose sight of the things in her work that so many of us find “inspiring.”