A new front in the history wars? A new article on 'the five'

[MrBarnett]

There's a photo of number 47, which I believe was between Chigwell, and George Yard. Here's the link

http://www.herberthistory.co.uk/cgi-...278&id=herbhis

Yes, I’ve seen that. Great photos.

[MrBarnett]

This is John’s Hill. I imagine the houses on the E side of Breezer’s would have looked like these.

[rjpalmer]

I wasn't the least bit offended by Bleakley, but, for the record, here is the first sentence in the old post of mine that he quoted:

"I liked the "feminist approach" of Walkowitz and Caputi in discussing the murders, and found their books valuable." (Casebook, 2-22-2019)

Hardly the attitude of an anti-feminist.

Yet, without diminishing their work, isn't it possible to argue that when it comes to grinding poverty in Victorian London, class distinctions were a far more prevalent and relevant burden than gender distinctions?

I don't think very many people would want to argue that a male cockney born in a Shadwell slum had advantages over a fashionable lady in the West End.

I suppose because I am a male, I tend to see socioeconomic issues more in terms of "class" rather than in terms of gender, though I can appreciate that women and children were at the lowest end of the heap--but only barely.

Looking at social issues strictly through the lens of "gender" can reveal, but they can also conceal.

What are we going to do with this bloke? Can a male be a victim of a "patriarchal" society? Or do we need a new term?

Guy Linton. Died in Hanbury Street in the 1880s for lack of food and shelter. Yet he was an actor and dreamed the same golden dreams that you and I dream.

[Observer]

This is John’s Hill. I imagine the houses on the E side of Breezer’s would have looked like these.

Never saw that one before, great photo.

[erobitha]

It’s her “war” with Ripperologists that the public finds interesting. That’s why she used the controversy (that she largely manufactured) to sell her book. Her Twitter feed is full of people who brag about buying ‘The Five’ solely as a show of support. Id suggest what she proposes in her book isn’t what those people are interested in, they look at the book as a membership badge.

JM

She created a psedudo-feminist agenda where she now becomes the victim of the nasty mysoginists who are foul-mouthed amateurs with dark motives and even darker thoughts. It has done her books sales wonders. She has created a world where by buying her book you are showing solidarity to her cause. You are helping break the male patriachy stronghold on Ripper research and give those sleeping women (who apparently were not soliciting at the the time of their deaths) the feminist recognition and voice they deserve.

It's horrendous what happened to those women and their names and lives have never been forgotten by those who frequent these forums. It's disheartening that a very qualified historian such as HR has decided to take such a cynical path to selling her books.

[jmenges]

In the new podcast of her talk for the Edinburgh International Book Festival she says
“NONE of the Ripperologists can really agree on ANYTHING. The ONE thing that they do agree on is that Jack the Ripper killed prostitutes.”

Either her ignorance of Ripperology is astounding, or she’s pulling a con.
Whichever...that she’s given these platforms to spew such nonsense is amazing.

JM

[rjpalmer]

It's odd that the author doesn't mention Phil Sugden:

a university trained academic who wrote extensively, and I would suggest sensitively, about the victim's lives.

The reader is almost left with the impression that such persons don't exist, even though many who frequent these forums cut their teeth on his work.

I refer to Bleakley, not Rubenhold.

[MrBarnett]

I’m pretty sure she was a member here under the name ‘Madam Detective’. On one occasion she asked the question why people (Ripperologists) were sure the victims were prostitutes. From memory, the only response she got insisting they were was from a female poster.

I can’t seem to find the thread in question.

[rjpalmer]

I’m pretty sure she was a member here under the name ‘Madam Detective’. On one occasion she asked the question why people (Ripperologists) were sure the victims were prostitutes. From memory, the only response she got insisting they were was from a female poster.

I can’t seem to find the thread in question.

How are we so certain the victims were all prostitutes? - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

[MrBarnett]

Here it is:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ll-prostitutes

Not quite how I’d remembered it. I thought the poster Miss Marple had argued strongly that the women were prostitutes. Perhaps I’m conflating two (or more) threads.

However, the first response on this thread gives the lie to HR’s claim that all ‘Ripperologists’ agree the victims were prostitutes.

[rjpalmer]

We have a double bullseye!

[MrBarnett]

We have a double bullseye!

Thanks, RJ.

Has she forgotten the response from Errata, or is she lying through her teeth?

[Observer]

The poster known as Azarna seemed to ne contemplating writing a book about the victims. BTW I'm killing time here there's sod all on the box

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/mary-ann-nichols/7564-new-mary-ann-nichols-family-information

[MrBarnett]

The poster known as Azarna seemed to ne contemplating writing a book about the victims. BTW I'm killing time here there's sod all on the box

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ly-information

Thanks, O.

That about clinches it, I think. Madam Detective was HR. At the same time over on JTRForums there was a poster named Hallie McGrath who was also interested in the lives of the 5. Hallie Rubenhold’s husbands name is McGrath I believe.

What a pity she didn’t introduce herself in her real name, say she was writing a book about the 5 and ask for help. She would have been welcomed with open arms and her book might now contain fewer errors.

[Observer]

Ok Mr B. Yes, didn't the author of the work on George Chapman, who's name escapes me get help from members of this forum? That's the way to do it I suppose.

BTW off topic. I've just been looking at some old maps of George Street, did it begin i.e. at number 1 at Wiltshire Street, that is the street running North South West of Breezers Hill? There seems to be a block of buildings in between Wiltshire Street, and Breezers Hill. Therefore it's a bit confusing if the PH at the junction of Breezers Hill, and George Street is number 1. In short there is a block of buildings in George Street west of what is in effect number 1. What was their address?