Ethical question - Misogyny on these boards

[Robert]

I guess it's the difference between saying "she was a whore" and "she was only a whore."

There aren't many people from this case that I'd want sleeping in my downstairs room. Kelly - too much blood to clean up. Barnett - too much fish. And I'd doubtless find Druitt floating in my fish pond.

[Sasha]

I personally don't see any whitewashing going on here. I doubt anyone would argue the victims of these crimes were saints but I don't see them as having the same options as women today. It was Victorian England, these women were living in part of London were "good" honest jobs were scarce, they had no (or little) education etc. That doesn't mean no options but certainly not many.

In any case, I feel this blog has gotten off topic a bit. The issue started off about offensive blogs (and regarded sexist blogs in particular). The administrator is quite clear about the rules in engaging in these blogs. The rules are:

The Major Rules and Consequences

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Don't defame on the basis of race, nationality, gender, or orientation.
2. Don't insult people
3. Don't slander/libel people
4. Don't create sockpuppets
5. Do not alter/invent quotes from other posters.
6. Don't argue with the Admin when told to follow rules.

Failure to follow the rules will result in your account being banned.

I think the first three rules are relevant here. I'm not sure about the fourth but I follow it JUST IN CASE.

Sasha

[Septic Blue]

There aren't many people from this case that I'd want sleeping in my downstairs room. Kelly - too much blood to clean up. Barnett - too much fish. And I'd doubtless find Druitt floating in my fish pond.

Not to mention the sort of mess Kosminski might leave behind !!!


Colin

[Robert]

Blimey, Colin, yes. The housework would never be finished.

[Celesta]

Hard to judge intent in the written word though. However, I agree about context and, in particular, the character of the person writing. Ally is right that "all this PC nonsense" is a waste of time if we don't change the underlying culture of fear and hate against those who are different to ourselves. However, I still don't see this as an open license to engage in name-calling. That's just an opinion though. Back to context: if I call my friends "whores", they consider it a term of endearment but if I say it's okay that JTR killed the women he did because "they were just whores", many people would say the latter statement is derogatory or offensive. For me, the bottomline is this, to many people on this site, the victims of these JTR crimes do matter. This seems to run contrary to the word "misogynist" - which of course raises the most interesting thing about this post. If you call someone a misogynist and they aren't, that is name-calling and derogatory and that's not okay!

There is no such thing as an open license to engage in name-calling, in my opinion. I've pointed out, on several occasions, that this type of communication is prone to misunderstandings and misjudgments, and therefore is not the best way for people to communicate. So you are dead-on when you say that it's hard to judge intent. If something can be taken the wrong way in this medium, someone will take it the wrong way. Much of our communication, as you know, is done through visual signals we pick up in a conversation. We don't have those on the message board! I see no reason whatsoever for people to engage in name-calling and other negative types of behavior. It just isn't necessary. There are people, a small minority, who do, unfortunately. I have seen very little to suggest that people here are callous and don't care about the victims of these obscene crimes. They most clearly do care and will be quick to point out that they do.

By context, I mean the context of the era we are speaking of, as AP pointed out. Whores were whores in those days. If I have used that term, that is the context of my post. Or context in the terms of two people who know each other well enough to know that the intent is not a bad one, as in your example of calling your friends whores. It's a joke among you.

To me, those women who were killed in the Whitechapel area were whores, but they were alcohol-addicted people, who needed help and a permanent home. The expression "only a whore" is not acceptable. (Maybe we need a poll!) Only a secretary, waiter, waitress, trash man, etc. This belittling word only is not acceptable in that context. I do use prostitute more frequently though.

Off to find more coffee!

Best...

Celesta

[Sasha]

There is no such thing as an open license to engage in name-calling, in my opinion. I've pointed out, on several occasions, that this type of communication is prone to misunderstandings and misjudgments, and therefore is not the best way for people to communicate. So you are dead-on when you say that it's hard to judge intent. If something can be taken the wrong way in this medium, someone will take it the wrong way. Much of our communication, as you know, is done through visual signals we pick up in a conversation. We don't have those on the message board! I see no reason whatsoever for people to engage in name-calling and other negative types of behavior. It just isn't necessary. There are people, a small minority, who do, unfortunately. I have seen very little to suggest that people here are callous and don't care about the victims of these obscene crimes. They most clearly do care and will be quick to point out that they do.

By context, I mean the context of the era we are speaking of, as AP pointed out. Whores were whores in those days. If I have used that term, that is the context of my post. Or context in the terms of two people who know each other well enough to know that the intent is not a bad one, as in your example of calling your friends whores. It's a joke among you.

To me, those women who were killed in the Whitechapel area were whores, but they were alcohol-addicted people, who needed help and a permanent home. The expression "only a whore" is not acceptable. (Maybe we need a poll!) Only a secretary, waiter, waitress, trash man, etc. This belittling word only is not acceptable in that context. I do use prostitute more frequently though.

Off to find more coffee!

Best...

Celesta

Celesta, chill! Apart from your coffee habit you are an angel! I believe most people here are great and abide by all the rules of respect - except possibly the hand-puppet thing! Where the hell did that one come from?

Cheers
Sasha

[Celesta]

Celesta, chill! Apart from your coffee habit you are an angel! I believe most people here are great and abide by all the rules of respect - except possibly the hand-puppet thing! Where the hell did that one come from?

Cheers
Sasha

Sasha, Did I sound angry? I wasn't. I was just talking! See what I mean about the inadequacies of the medium? I think I sometimes sound too formal. I hate having to make contractions when I type. I'm terrible at typing as it is and that contraction stuff just makes me worse.

The sock puppet thing, I think, has to do with people using two different personas.

Best to ya.

Celesta

[Ruby]

I think 'unfortunate' is a kinder term for the 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.

[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.

[Jenni Shelden]

What's this obsession with being academic suddenly.

thats off topic, sue me

Jenni

[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.

[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.

[rjpalmer]

Let me buy you a sixth brandy, AP.

[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.