Ethical question - Misogyny on these boards

[Ruby]

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

[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

[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]

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

[Robert]

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

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

[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

[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.

[revpetero]

I wonder what these choices were but, hey, I'm new here. And anyway, as Ally says, regardless of who they were and how they earned their living, they did not deserve to die - not like this. As for building the women a shrine, I don't believe anyone is proposing that. What anyone wants is for them to rest in peace. Finding their killer and holding him to account might go someway in achieving this.

I don't think he will ever be held to account. I feel he may be dead by now.


Peter

[caz]

'Whitewashing those lives is DISRESPECTFUL to the women who lived them.'

Thank you, Ally. I appreciate that you understood exactly what I was getting at. It makes me wonder when I see (usually male) posters arguing that Liz was waiting for a hot date, for example, or that Mary had all she needed from turning her room into the worst improvised laundry in the world and making up the shortfall by sponging off her male acquaintances - anything but engaging in a bit of 'light whoring' to earn themselves the basics and paying the ultimate price for it. Seeking to take the murder victims away from all that sordid 'whoring stuff' also suggests being in denial about all the men who created the market for it in the first place.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sasha]

Actually you are wrong. They were whores. These were women who had better shots and better chances in life and pissed them away.

I wonder what these choices were but, hey, I'm new here. And anyway, as Ally says, regardless of who they were and how they earned their living, they did not deserve to die - not like this. As for building the women a shrine, I don't believe anyone is proposing that. What anyone wants is for them to rest in peace. Finding their killer and holding him to account might go someway in achieving this.

[Ally]

They were not whores, or puffs, or sluts etc, they were people.Human beings who's lives were destroyed on the whims of vicious killers.

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.

[Sasha]

As well as suggesting a field of work the term sex worker is a bit non specific in my opinion. Sex workers can range from street prostitutes, lapdancers, "high class" callgirls to photographic modelling etc. I realise there is also a crossover between these groups.

The lifestyle and dangers of working as a street prostitute would be in a different league entirely to a stripper.

Yeah, maybe Jason. My guess is that there are some pretty unsavoury characters a "girl" would have to deal with in both "businesses". And anyway, strippers can sometimes be persuaded to move into prostitution as well - as you rightly point out!

[jason_c]

As well as suggesting a field of work the term sex worker is a bit non specific in my opinion. Sex workers can range from street prostitutes, lapdancers, "high class" callgirls to photographic modelling etc. I realise there is also a crossover between these groups.

The lifestyle and dangers of working as a street prostitute would be in a different league entirely to a stripper.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

From my perspective; the term "sex worker" is suggestive of a chosen profession, with which the person to whom it refers is quite content.

I perceive the term as being applicable to porn stars, strippers, prostitutes, et al ..., who approach there work as professionals: Inclined to do their jobs to the best of their abilities, so as to gain the greatest possible return, for their efforts.

Ironically, this invention of the politically correct mindset should be seen as a degrading and insulting reference - in my opinion - to those who must reluctantly resort to prostitution at the height of desperation. It implies resignation that they have found their callings in life, and trivializes their plights.


Colin [ATTACH]2221[/ATTACH]

Colin,thats right and I agree with your reasoning here-sex worker suggests a "chosen" field of work.In our newspapers young women who have been caught up in the traffic in prostitution and forced into it are referred to as sex slaves.The word whore is not used in any National, Provincial or Local newspapers that I am aware of in the UK, to describe prostitution of any kind.