Ordnance Survey Axes Jack the Ripper Walks

[barnflatwyngarde]

It seems very strange to me that Rubenhold and some of her supporters have such a intolerant view of anyone who challenges some of the lumpen assumptions she makes in her book.

Here is an interesting little link of the reaction of Rubenhold and a few others to an unflattering review of her book on Amazon.

https://twitter.com/HallieRubenhold/status/1341116799383945217

[Herlock Sholmes]

It seems very strange to me that Rubenhold and some of her supporters have such a intolerant view of anyone who challenges some of the lumpen assumptions she makes in her book.

Here is an interesting little link of the reaction of Rubenhold and a few others to an unflattering review of her book on Amazon.

https://twitter.com/HallieRubenhold/...16799383945217

I’d say that what’s needed is a book in response to Rubenhold. Calmly pointing out with evidence the obvious agenda. The unfair labelling of Ripperologists as misogynists. Input from female researchers/writers interested in the case. A list of books written on the victims and all of the ongoing research into their lives. A rebuttal to her ludicrous suggestion that the women were sleeping (give me strength) Asking her why she’s soooo desperate to try and show that these women weren’t prostitutes when no one disputes that they might not have been full-time (as if that’s important.) And then pointing out the research errors and selective quoting.

Come on authors.

[jmenges]

Rubenhold argues that newspaper articles and police reports can not be considered reliable sources due to sexist, blinkered male domination and those potential tells spoken at the inquests are subject to other interpretations.
While she hasn’t entirely proven her argument, it would be difficult if not impossible to prove her entirely wrong. Pointing out what Ripperologists see as “evidence” is futile given the vast difference between the two camps as to the reliability of the evidence.
Given that she argues from this particular position- a safer position-as a starting point I feel that any attempt by Ripperologists at countering her would most probably fail. All is grist for the mill.

JM

[Trevor Marriott]

I’d say that what’s needed is a book in response to Rubenhold. Calmly pointing out with evidence the obvious agenda. The unfair labelling of Ripperologists as misogynists. Input from female researchers/writers interested in the case. A list of books written on the victims and all of the ongoing research into their lives. A rebuttal to her ludicrous suggestion that the women were sleeping (give me strength) Asking her why she’s soooo desperate to try and show that these women weren’t prostitutes when no one disputes that they might not have been full-time (as if that’s important.) And then pointing out the research errors and selective quoting.

Come on authors.

I have included a chapter on her and her misguided beliefs in my revised edition of "Jack the Ripper-The Real truth"

https://amzn.to/2CKnzqt

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Rubenhold argues that newspaper articles and police reports can not be considered reliable sources due to sexist, blinkered male domination and those potential tells spoken at the inquests are subject to other interpretations.
While she hasn’t entirely proven her argument, it would be difficult if not impossible to prove her entirely wrong. Pointing out what Ripperologists see as “evidence” is futile given the vast difference between the two camps as to the reliability of the evidence.
Given that she argues from this particular position- a safer position-as a starting point I feel that any attempt by Ripperologists at countering her would most probably fail. All is grist for the mill.

JM

I'd have to agree with you there John.

The books still fairly new, well, recent at any rate. Pretty much all that was going to be said has been. Hallie has chosen to go and grab a bad customer review to stick on Twitter. Not that the customer said anything new, different or original. He wasn't personally offensive. What was so special about that particular review? Nothing at all. It's just yet another reader who's not on board.

But it generates a bit of discussion and keeps her book alive for a bit longer.

I understand the feeling of frustration at being lumped into this group of misogynistic 'old guard' ripperologists. I totally understand the frustration that a book that takes liberties with fact seems to be impervious to criticism. But yes, any attempts at refuting her research, from the point of educating those who may have only read her book alone, is pointless. Facts can't be forced on others, they need to find them for themselves. Many of her fans will never do this. Many will never try to establish where this fantasy tale of Mary Kelly in Paris came from. We can refute all we like, it's never going to get through.

The Five was the big fish in 2019. But like all great media hypes, it's fading. Hallie can't keep it alive based on historical accuracy, because it's fundamentally flawed. It needs to survive based on its feminist angle, on challenging the established order and by continually bringing up bad reviews from Joe Public and using it as evidence to prove that her point's still valid. Any formal rebuttal (properly sanctioned by the Lords Of Ripperology of course) would only serve, like you say, as "grist for the mill".

The Five will continue to be the bright shining light in the dark world of Ripperology, that's for sure. If Rubenholds followers want to find out for themselves, then great. Come on in. Many don't though. No one's going to change that. But as a community, we can be responsible for our approach, for how we treat the subject and more importantly, how we react to those who accuse us of being sexist fiends getting thrills from murder.

Until Hallie Rubenhold comes out with something new, something that's not just bashing those who disagree, I really don't have any interest in what she and her followers think. They can stay in their Twitter safe zone. But I would say that. I can't bear the idea of the establishment being rocked.

[caz]

I’d say that what’s needed is a book in response to Rubenhold. Calmly pointing out with evidence the obvious agenda. The unfair labelling of Ripperologists as misogynists. Input from female researchers/writers interested in the case. A list of books written on the victims and all of the ongoing research into their lives. A rebuttal to her ludicrous suggestion that the women were sleeping (give me strength) Asking her why she’s soooo desperate to try and show that these women weren’t prostitutes when no one disputes that they might not have been full-time (as if that’s important.) And then pointing out the research errors and selective quoting.

Come on authors.

What gets me is that HR doesn't even realise that she is effectively letting Victorian men off the hook for their role in making women like Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly turn to prostitution, in any form, in the first place. If she had good evidence that they were sleeping rough when attacked, or had the luxury to turn down men who may have approached them for cheap sex, that would be one thing, but there were thousands more women who had no such choice. I'm not sure why HR wanted to elevate her 'five' above the rest, as if it was simply a question of their moral values as females, and not one of survival in a society where male morals were judged less harshly, if at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

What gets me is that HR doesn't even realise that she is effectively letting Victorian men off the hook for their role in making women like Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly turn to prostitution, in any form, in the first place. If she had good evidence that they were sleeping rough when attacked, or had the luxury to turn down men who may have approached them for cheap sex, that would be one thing, but there were thousands more women who had no such choice. I'm not sure why HR wanted to elevate her 'five' above the rest, as if it was simply a question of their moral values as females, and not one of survival in a society where male morals were judged less harshly, if at all.

Love,

Caz
X

It’s not even an agenda guided by a decent motive Caz. We know that most Victorian men (especially the better off classes) believed that these women went into prostitution because they had poor morals or were nymphomaniacs so they weren’t just victims in terms of being murdered. They lived in unimaginable poverty, they were forced into a position of having to resort to prostitution (and were damned for doing so) and then that desperation got them horribly murdered with many people then taking the opinion that they were pretty much asking for it. And with those that weren’t killed living in fear of becoming a victim could those women have been in a worse position and deserving of more sympathy? Does Rubenhold think that it’s somehow an insult to their memory to mention prostitution? If so then she’s displaying a particular attitude that we would have expected to have heard from a Victorian school mistress or Duchess. Or is it just a justification for writing a book? An “I’ve found out something that you hadn’t found out?” Which she hadn’t of course.

[caz]

Misguided feminism and shallow thinking would be my verdict, Herlock. I wonder if HR would have attracted the same fans and sold as many books if she'd tried the same trick with the Yorkshire Ripper's prostitute victims in the 1970s? Even then, the suggestion was that they were asking for it, because his other victims were described as "innocent", making a clear moral distinction between the two victim types. I thought everyone knew better now, but here we have a woman who still doesn't appear to get it, and seeks to make some of JtR's victims more "innocent" than others. The distinction in the Yorkshire Ripper case was down to who had the rougher deal in life. And life didn't get much rougher than it was for any of HR's five.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Misguided feminism and shallow thinking would be my verdict, Herlock. I wonder if HR would have attracted the same fans and sold as many books if she'd tried the same trick with the Yorkshire Ripper's prostitute victims in the 1970s? Even then, the suggestion was that they were asking for it, because his other victims were described as "innocent", making a clear moral distinction between the two victim types. I thought everyone knew better now, but here we have a woman who still doesn't appear to get it, and seeks to make some of JtR's victims more "innocent" than others. The distinction in the Yorkshire Ripper case was down to who had the rougher deal in life. And life didn't get much rougher than it was for any of HR's five.

Love,

Caz
X

I recall the point being made in the excellent ITV series This Is Personal, Caz. I did read somewhere that fewer woman these days are identifying themselves as Feminists. Not because they want to be the submissive ‘little woman’ at home in the kitchen but because of the aggressive strain that has developed in recent years which appears as the equally stereotypical ‘man-hater.’ This can happen within any worthwhile cause when a sense of balance is lost or abandoned. HR and her disciples seem keen to show that the prevailing attitude of men in the Victorian era is mirrored by Ripperologists today. Is this sexism?

Typical of birds.

Sorry, couldn’t resist it

[caz]

If HR genuinely thought Ripperologists in general had always spent far too much time searching for Jack, while ignoring the lives of his alleged victims, all she had to do was to tip the scales with her own research into the women who were murdered, but do it well enough to impress not only the newcomers to the subject who might buy her book, but also honestly enough to inform and educate the historians, her fellow researchers and the very Ripperologists she had found lacking.

Instead, in her crusade against 'the prevailing attitude of men', from the time of the crimes to today, she chose - for as yet unexplained reasons - to manipulate the evidence in order to play down the sheer desperation of these women, having to survive as best they could from one day to the next, no thanks to this same 'prevailing attitude of men in the Victorian era', that women were put there to provide cheap labour, service them sexually or have their babies. Calling a shovel a shovel, and sticking to the reality of what these wretched women were reduced to, would have helped highlight man's responsibility for leaving them especially vulnerable to the predator known as JtR. How does sanitising any of this this help anyone but the men who failed these women?

And she wonders why she didn't get a good reception!

Love,

Caz
X