Ethical question - Misogyny on these boards

[Celesta]

Hello Celesta!

Your comment reminds me of the following problem;

A slang-word for a "gypsy" is "mustalainen" ("musta" means black in Finnish, "-lainen" is like! ) in Finland.

The following thing puzzles me;

These days the correct word for a gypsy here is "Romani".

But when a Romani calls him/herself "mustalainen", is it racism?!

All the best
Jukka

Hi Jukka,

I understand exactly what you're saying. We have a similar thing here with some of the African-American people. They sometimes refer to a fellow African-American using the "N" word. Is this racist? Why do they do it? I've never asked because I feel that they would tell me it's none of my business! I live in a predominantly African-American neighborhood and just walking around I hear them call each other the N word not infrequently! It offends me, but I just keep my mouth shut, wave, and move on. So, I guess it's context, Jukka.

Best to you.

Celesta

[Ally]

The idea that alcoholism is a disease and one that is beyond the control of the afflicted is a myth that has been perpetuated and lobbied for by Alcoholics Anonymous which has a vested interest in it being perceived as such. This despite research that shows that many 'diagnosed' alcoholics CAN go back to moderate drinking, and that is it not the all or nothing proposition that the propaganda on it would have you believe. But god forbid you tell people that it's in their power to control. Then AA has no power over you. And they can sit comfy in their idea that it's not their fault, it's a "disease" and they are victims.

All of the women chose prostitution as a way of life. Not just Mary and Elizabeth. They made a CHOICE, they weren't hapless children forced against their will into doing it. There were thousands of women in desperate poverty in the East End. They didn't all become prostitutes. Yes, many did. Those that made a choice. It might have been a hard, horrid, appalling choice for them; or it might have been a choice no more difficult than deciding what to have for lunch, but in the end they made a choice. Pretending that "it just happened to them" demeans them.

I think the difference is this: Some people think seeing the victims as anything other than poor victims is demeaning to them. They were killed, so we can't speak honestly about their failings without being "judge and jury". I personally think that seeing them as nothing more than victims demeans them. It's merely a competing philosophy of what it is worse to be perceived as being. I would rather be perceived as a whore who made my choices than a poor pathetic perpetual victim of circumstances beyond my control.

[Natalie Severn]

There's nothing wrong with good old-fashioned respect in my opinion, either, Nats.

Some of the political correctness may get over the top sometimes. I think it depends on who's involved and what the circumstances are.
Best wishes.

Thanks Celesta,Best wishes
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
I wouldnt disagree significantly with your thoughts on the various "isms" that it seems fashionable to have these days and the most effective ways of dealing with them being by the people themselves.
What I was saying earlier though was that certain individuals are more susceptible than others to addictions and some individuals have without doubt,a genetic predisposition to alcohol.This it seems to me was the case with Annie Chapman whose struggle with alcohol was well documented in a letter written by her brother.But my main point was that you can not lump together all the victims of Jack the Ripper .
You are quite right that it would seem Liz Stride and Mary Kelly chose prostitution as way of life.But it wasnt really like that with several of the other victims,as I understand it .
But I really dont want to get into the game of being judge and jury over the destitute victims of Jack the Ripper,for goodness sake---so I"ll not be returning to this thread again.These are fairly complex social and behavioural issues at root that dont seem to play well being discussed here---not in my view anyway.
Cheers

[caz]

Alcoholism is not an illness unless you can't control your arm that's raising the drink to your lips. If that's the case, then you belong in an insane asylum. The same applies to obesity. There were none in Buchenwald who had "a low rate of metabolism" or "a glandular problem". Those "excuses" are, in reality, lies.

Yep, I have got to agree with you there, Stan. And I know I'll get shot for this, but I suspect it's the same kind of phenomenon with serial offending. All human beings have their own weaknesses and most of us spend our lives having to control any which would adversely affect ourselves and those around us if taken to excess. Every adult of sound mind is responsible for their own behaviour: alcoholics, drug users, freaky eaters, gamblers, shopaholics, you name it - they all play silly buggers with their own health and security if they don't discipline themselves and curb their weaknesses. But they can also play absolute havoc and merry hell with the lives of the very people they claim to care about most. People are able to indulge their individual self-destructive, selfish, antisocial - even criminal - weaknesses here in Western society like never before. The off-switches are gathering dust.

Going back to calling a whore a whore in 1888 (which doesn’t defame, insult or libel anyone in my view), at least we may assume that Liz and Mary were giving reasonable value for money to their male customers, if they survived only to be picked off by a man whose weakness was attacking complete strangers for the sheer hell of it. Some people on these boards seem hell bent on turning the victims one by one into women who knew their killer and had given him a nice old respectable "she done him wrong" motive. Bloody charming.

Love,

Caz
X

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Celesta!

Your comment reminds me of the following problem;

A slang-word for a "gypsy" is "mustalainen" ("musta" means black in Finnish, "-lainen" is like! ) in Finland.

The following thing puzzles me;

These days the correct word for a gypsy here is "Romani".

But when a Romani calls him/herself "mustalainen", is it racism?!

All the best
Jukka

[Celesta]

PC isnt all bollocks though,Ally.It is "supposed" to be about old fashioned "courtesy",a way of avoiding hurting other people in order to feel superior to them isnt it?

There's nothing wrong with good old-fashioned respect in my opinion, either, Nats.

Some of the political correctness may get over the top sometimes. I think it depends on who's involved and what the circumstances are.
Best wishes.

[Natalie Severn]

Well as a drunk I can tell you that alcohol is a problem when you drink it, but when you don't drink it, it's fine.
I function very well without a drink, give me a couple and I'm a genius, give me a couple more and I'm a lush and bore, give me another and I'll knock you over the bar.
I don't imagine the victims being any different to me.

Except they were poor,they were women and they lived in 1888!

[Cap'n Jack]

Then I'll have your watch and chain down a dark alley, RJ, and you'll swear in court that I was a whore.

[rjpalmer]

Let me buy you a sixth brandy, AP.

[Cap'n Jack]

Well as a drunk I can tell you that alcohol is a problem when you drink it, but when you don't drink it, it's fine.
I function very well without a drink, give me a couple and I'm a genius, give me a couple more and I'm a lush and bore, give me another and I'll knock you over the bar.
I don't imagine the victims being any different to me.

[sdreid]

Alcoholism is not an illness unless you can't control your arm that's raising the drink to your lips. If that's the case, then you belong in an insane asylum. The same applies to obesity. There were none in Buchenwald who had "a low rate of metabolism" or "a glandular problem". Those "excuses" are, in reality, lies.

[Jenni Shelden]

What's this obsession with being academic suddenly.

thats off topic, sue me

Jenni

[Ally]

Nope, sorry. I don't accept the argument that alcoholism is an illness. To accept it is an illness is to completely overlook the fact that it would be the ONLY illness in the world where the symptoms of that disease were entirely within the sufferers own control. The mere fact that she knew it was bad for her, knew she needed to abstain and didn't is HER CHOICE. No one forced that spoon in her mouth, just like no one forced the next several dozen drinks down her throat. She was responsible for her choices.

I find calling alcoholics "ill" to be an insult to the people who struggle with REAL illnesses, illnesses that they have absolutely no control over and would probably LOVE to be able to cure their suffering by having the means within their grasp.

By lumping them all together as a common collection of "ill unfortunates" you deny them their humanity. They made choices. They were not endless victims.

[Natalie Severn]

Actually you are wrong. They were whores. They were also people. One is not exclusive of the other. I see what Caz means by the sudden beatification of the victims, which frankly, I find more insulting to them as human beings than calling a spade a spade. These were not saints. They were whores, they were thieves, they were raging drunks, they were bitches who strung men along for the cash, they were women whose own children wanted nothing to do with them or women who had to be paid to attend to their sick children and badgered them for cash afterwards. These are women, who have counterparts today that not a single one of you would want your sons to marry, or to be sleeping in your downstairs room. They were women. They were people. They were seriously flawed people. These were not women kidnapped by sex slavers and forced to prostitute themselves to earn a coin. These were women who had better shots and better chances in life and pissed them away. They were victims yes, of Jack the Ripper but they were also victims of their own bad choices.

Saying they were whores is not saying they were not human. Saying they were whores is in no way saying they "deserved" to be killed by Jack the Ripper. But when you start the canonization process for these women based on circumstances and relieve them of any responsibility for their lives, you dishonor them. You reduce them to the level of (dare I say) retarded children of whom nothing can or should be expected. They made their choices and they lived their lives as they saw fit. Whitewashing those lives is DISRESPECTFUL to the women who lived them. They shouldn't have to be seen as being better than they were.

Steady on Ally,

Have you ever considered that several of the Ripper"s victims were ill?Annie Chapman"s brother wrote a letter to a Chelsea Vicar showing great insight into his sister"s alcoholism and described her valiant attempts to overcome that illness -over a year of abstinence and then she tasted the brandy from a spoon ,given to her husband for chronic bronchitis and she was away again.It can be like the diabetic needing insulin----but in reverse if you see what I mean.Her brother avoided being "judgemental" in any way,seeing it as the illness it is.
By lumping these women altogether like this and applying such terms to them as "whores" and "thieves" ,you begin to turn them into a collection of criminals with no individuality. They were women, most of them with an alcohol problem, trying to survive in one of the most criminally deprived areas of London it being then,as it is now, one of the richest Cities in the World .
I too object to the "canonisation" of the Ripper"s victims-their canonisation in both senses.But whatever they got up to to survive the hand of cards they had been dealt, they were individuals and were each of them of equal value to any other human being in Christian terms.