Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Victim Conversation (off-topic moved)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Originally posted by Ally View Post
    Polly left her husband several times before the final split. It was bullcrap that the husband had an affair and that led to the break up. The fact is, she would go on drinking binges and leave. Not the other way around.

    So basically all of the women who were mothers (and Martha's circumstances are fairly clear unless you think five and 3 year olds can be hidden)...all women with living children either abandoned them totally or were such crap that their adult children wanted nothing to do with them.

    Those are the actual facts.


    1. Emma Smith – Isn't even a Ripper victim so useless for this discussion but...children grown up *and want nothing to do with her*
    2. Martha Tabram- possibly Abandoned children. Facts unclear. Yeah because 3 and five year olds vanish all the time.
    3. Poly Nichols- . *actually abandons her family time and time again until she finally ditches them permanently in 81.
    4. Chapman- abandoned her children.
    5. Stride- child still born. Doesn’t abandon children.
    6. Eddowes- Children grown up. Boys taken away. And grown daughter wants nothign to do with her.
    7. Kelly- doesn’t abandon children.
    8. Mylett- Isn't a ripper victim at all or even possible so useless for this discussion but ...where are her kids?
    Unless my maths is out you still havent made 50%. And by your own admission they did not all abandon their children, which proves me totally vindicated in my claim that they were NOT all bad mothers..

    You lost to the Pirate fair and square now eat humble pie

    pirate

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Polly left her husband several times before the final split. It was bullcrap that the husband had an affair and that led to the break up. The fact is, she would go on drinking binges and leave. Not the other way around.

    So basically all of the women who were mothers (and Martha's circumstances are fairly clear unless you think five and 3 year olds can be hidden)...all women with living children either abandoned them totally or were such crap that their adult children wanted nothing to do with them.

    Those are the actual facts.


    1. Emma Smith – Isn't even a Ripper victim so useless for this discussion but...children grown up *and want nothing to do with her*
    2. Martha Tabram- possibly Abandoned children. Facts unclear. Yeah because 3 and five year olds vanish all the time.
    3. Poly Nichols- . *actually abandons her family time and time again until she finally ditches them permanently in 81.
    4. Chapman- abandoned her children.
    5. Stride- child still born. Doesn’t abandon children.
    6. Eddowes- Children grown up. Boys taken away. And grown daughter wants nothign to do with her.
    7. Kelly- doesn’t abandon children.
    8. Mylett- Isn't a ripper victim at all or even possible so useless for this discussion but ...where are her kids?
    Last edited by Ally; 06-05-2009, 10:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Well that’s good we have now established something on which we are all agreed (apart from the fact that Tom is a D**k Head) namely that women who drink are not necessarily ‘Bad Mothers’ and that women who are prostitutes ‘are not necessarily ‘bad mothers’

    So what does Ally turn to? Abandonment as her BAD mother criteria.

    OK lets have a better look at Allys claim.

    1. Emma Smith – children grown up
    2. Martha Tabram- possibly Abandoned children. Facts unclear.
    3. Poly Nichols- Successfully brings up her children for 15 years before her husband has an affair. Forced to leave.
    4. Chapman- abandoned her children.
    5. Stride- child still born. Doesn’t abandon children.
    6. Eddowes- Children grown up. Boys taken away.
    7. Kelly- doesn’t abandon children.
    8. Mylett- doesn’t abandon children.

    So by Ally’s own criteria only around 25% of the Victims actually abandon their children and yet Ally tars and brushes them all as BAD MOTHERS.

    Would it surprise anyone that Tom has again chosen the losing side?

    Pirate

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    What a crock of crap,
    and rhyming claptrap.
    Not a one of these whores
    Had a scenario like yours.
    They peddled their ass
    To put gin in their glass.
    Not food on a kid's table.
    That's your fairy fable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cap'n Jack
    replied
    Cap'n Jack to you, Ally, as I expect you to accord me good self the same respect you offer to other posters who post under an assumed identity, like SPE. We all like to get away from ourselves.
    I'll ask you kindly to permit, and respect, my freedom to do so without let or hinderance. Thank you kindly.
    Now to business.

    'Would you rather make a match
    or sell your snatch?
    You'll die if you do one
    and you'll die if you do other
    support your son
    and be a good mother
    to give up your daughter
    to the man who bought her?'

    You are out of whack here, Ally, by a century.
    You better bat well.
    best wishes, from 'ell.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Yeah I am starting to get the whiff as well. We'll see.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by Ally View Post
    Paul Webb saves the day...but in this case no as AP's train derailed worse than Leahys.

    I am still trying to figure out what my being raped by a middle class LVPer has to do with anything under discussion.
    Well, you are still ahead of me. I'm still trying to figure out this whole discussion, period. 165 posts? I smell dead horses.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Paul Webb saves the day...but in this case no as AP's train derailed worse than Leahys.

    I am still trying to figure out what my being raped by a middle class LVPer has to do with anything under discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by Pirate Jack
    Your adding two and two together and coming up with four.
    I have not been able to read anything past this line. I'm still cracking up. If the argument wasn't lost long before this, I'd say this is pretty much Pirate's 'Jumping the Shark' moment. It was a good call bringing in the far more eloquent Cap'n Jack when he did.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    I have said nothing whatsoever about them as prostitutes and mothers except that Stride became a mother via prostitution. Drinking doesn't make you a bad mother. Prostitution doesn' tmake you a bad mother.

    Abandoning your children because you'd rather drink makes you a bad mother. And you are the one who insists on seeing these women as part of a collective rather than individuals. Not me. I have looked at each woman and individually found them wanting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Again Ally you are making wilde accusations and drawing out there conclusions.

    I also find it a little rich that you suddenly choose to draw the male misogynist card given that it is you that are destroying these women with sweeping one size fits all accusations. Yes they all drank. But this fact alone does not necessarily make them bad mothers. Yes they were all prostitutes, but are you trying to argue that any woman that becomes a prostitute by its very nature, they become a bad mother?

    Pirate

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    I think attempting to excuse their behavior as typical and the norm for women of that time is insulting and misogynistic. I think it would appall the thousands and thousands of poor women of the LVP who didn't abandon their children and who didn't dive head first into a bottle to know that the standard by which they are judged is measured by the worst of them.

    To say that the behavior or a drunken child abandoner is typical and the norm for that time is an insult to all the women who bore up under those hard circumstances and held the line.

    And truly it is insight into your MALE disparaging minds, that you would excuse these women of the responsibility to their children because you don't believe that anything else could be expected of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Ally that is precisely what we are trying to do.

    We have already established that you are making assumptions.

    Well to some extent that is OK. Its what Historians do, they take the known facts and try and draw a conclusion.

    However once you start down the path of ASSUMPTION you are giving OPINION not FACT.

    And once you start making ASSUMPTIONS then you need to start considering the context as a WHOLE.

    So obviously the social reality of the place, time and period is extremely important to how we draw ASSUMPTION.

    If we take what we know about Kate as a whole there is nothing to draw the conclusion that she was a particularly BAD person. In fact quite the opposite, as you can see from my earlier posts she was apparently well liked.

    So we have contradiction, some good, some bad. What we do not have is any direct evidence that Kate was a ‘BAD MOTHER’. We must therefore draw on the circumstance of the environment in which she existed to form our conclusion.

    AP’s background information gives us a window into the world that we are trying to understand. It was in places a hard and brutal world.

    So trying to draw assumption based on 21st century values is pointless, it cant be done.

    Pirate

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    AP,

    None of the women we are talking about here had children by rape. Except for stride, who got pregnant through prostitution, we are talking about women who were in committed relationships, got pregnant and abandoned their families.

    Scenarios that have NOTHING to do with the circumstance that you are describing. You can throw up every what if scenario :what if they were all impregnated by Satan and their children were really devil spawn: but we are actually looking at the FACTS of these particular womens lives. You are attempting to view them as some sort of symbol for all women in the LVP and hold them up as icons ascribing attributes to them that they do not possess.

    Deal with the reality of these women and the reality is they had families that they tossed aside to drown themselves in the bottle.
    Last edited by Ally; 06-05-2009, 09:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cap'n Jack
    replied
    So, Ally, if your middle class employer had raped you in the LVP, forcing you into the workhouse infirmary to give birth to a daughter that nobody wanted, what do you believe your level of care would have been for that poor child?
    When your child was taken into 'care' shortly after birth, and you were slung out of the workhouse with no income whatsoever, what then would you have done to feed yourself?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X