Victim Conversation (off-topic moved)

[Jeff Leahy]

A better analogy is, a man has had his license revoked. Is he a bad driver? Yep. Or at least we know he committed enough infractions to be on a permanent ban.

When your children move to get away from you, it's pretty much a good indication you committed more than one infraction.

No it is NOT. You are continuing to make assumptions.

A man has his licence revoked. What we know is only that. He had his licence revoked..thats all we know...anything else is pure assumption.

We don't know why Kate's daughter refused to see her. There could be a million reasons, and probably were.

To say 'Kate was a bad mother' from this fact is assumption.

All we know is that see did stop seeing her mother and she said because mother was after money. Thats what we know. We dont know per se whether or not Kate was a bad mother. Certainly there is NO evidence on record that her sons ever beleived so..

Your guessing

Pirate

P.S. Thanks for trying to bring some historical perspective AP. Choices have to be seen in there context.

[Ally]

AP,

You are making a case that doesn't exist. None of these women resorted to prostitution to feed their children. They were all drunks who resorted to prostitution to feed their alcohol addiction. Their children were left in the care of others while they went off to booze themselves into oblivion.

[Cap'n Jack]

I think there are a couple of important points that should be made at this junction of confusion.
Firstly, during the period of the LVP which we discuss, children were forcibly removed from their parents and placed into care if evidence was provided that the mother or father were living on the proceeds of immoral earnings. I know for a fact that this rather unfair and certainly draconian law was used against at least one possible victim of the person we call Jack the Ripper, but I do suspect it was used against most of them.
I have actually followed the future of many such children taken into 'care' - including the children of the woman I mention above - and it was the norm for them to reach a certain age, run away from the 'care' home, and then either resort to prostitution, or as maids - placed there by the 'care' homes - become pregnant from the uninvited attention of their middle class employers.
It was a vicious circle, with the majority of the mothers having no other option than to resort to prostitution to feed their children, resulting in the removal of those children into 'care' homes, where they eventually emerged as either future prostitutes, or unwanted sexual objects in a gravid state whom nobody wanted, or cared for.
I personally would not be willing to pass judgement on a woman exposed to such a narrow choice when it came to providing for her children.
My second point is that I am rather baffled by what appears, on the part of some, to a hardening of attitude towards the victims of these horrendous murders, as if that is some kind of justification or excuse for the murder and mutilation of purely innocent women.
Am I dealing with the ghost of Colin Wilson here or what?

[Ally]

A better analogy is, a man has had his license revoked. Is he a bad driver? Yep. Or at least we know he committed enough infractions to be on a permanent ban.

When your children move to get away from you, it's pretty much a good indication you committed more than one infraction.

And yes, Leahy, usually when I add two plus two it turns out to be 4. Seeing as how that's rational.

[Jeff Leahy]

Your adding two and two together and coming up with four.

Lets try and make this more simple: A man is driving a car and has an accident.

Is he a bad driver?

The answer is obviously: We don’t know. We only know that he can drive and that he had a accident.

To make the conclusion he is a BAD driver is purely guess work. It is making assumption drawn on insufficient evidence.

Pirate

PS and there is no record of any of Kates children saying that Kate was a bad mother. FACT. You are making assumptions.

[Ally]

Pirate, I realize you are going to try to turn the subject from what these women chose to do, to what was done to ONE woman because you need some desperate hook to hang your hat on, but sorry I am not going to play that game.

How long a woman is in labor, has NOTHING to do with the type of mother she is. I can judge a mother by a very simple standard: Do they abandon their children or not? In the case of all of these women, they abandoned their children, their children wanted NOTHING to do with them and I think their own children are a better judge of their ability as a mother than you or even me. So I am going to go by Kate's children's opinion of her which was: bad mother. I am going to go by the facts: Annie and Polly abandoned their children in favor of the bottle. Bad mother.

Period.

[Jeff Leahy]

Clearly we are discussing the victims of jack the Ripper so the inclusion of all the women would appear relevant..

And yet again you make the same assumptions with no proof to back up your ‘Bad Mother’ character assassinations.

We know nothing about Emma Smiths relationship with her children. When they were born, how long she breast fed them, whether she tucked them in at night. Whether she gave up food so they could eat?

WE JUST DO NOT KNOW.

We don’t know how long Martha was in labor whether she rejected them at birth, suffered from depression, had them adopted. Or if she told them bed time stories?

WE JUST DO NOT KNOW

We do not know why Rose Mylett let her mother bring up her child. We do not know if she ever gave her a hug or just totally ignored her daughter..

In short we don’t know what sort of mothers these women were because there is NO historical record.

Yet you continue with this constant fantasizing, they must have done this, they must have done that…

We don’t know. We are not even certain whether or not Mary Kelly ever had children. Its not known.

So lets get to the chase:

ALLY “As for whether or not Kate was beaten by her husband or not, what actual relevance does it have to her being a crap mother? She was a crap mother. I don't care if her husband beat her, one has nothing to do with the other.”

I don’t know what silver spoon world you evolved from Ally but this is exactly the sort of Mary Antoinette comment that we have come to expect from you. What difference does it make that these women lived in a world where beatings from men were common place? Where there was no health care, no public sanitation. Where you could be thrown in debtors prison and left to rot because of a few shillings. Where life expectancy was low and infant mortality was high. Where these women dreaded being taken to hospital because they new they would probably die there.

You criticize these women as mothers yet they were probably far more familiar with child birth than you in your twenty first century luxury home could ever imagine, there were no maternity units. Try researching some of the squalid conditions that existed in JtR whitchapel. There were no cleaning products or vacuum cleaners. And very little money. Life was very hard.

No one has ever suggested that these women were angels they clearly were NOT. But why it would be historically inaccurate to suggest they were, it is equally ridiculous to pass judgment without considering the time and social conditions in which they lived. They were a product of their age. And however much you spin and vent your poison the FACT remains you have NO idea what these women were actually like as mothers.

We don’t know, so trying to pretend that somehow Ally Ryder has a mystic ball into the past and can witness these women with their kids is about as ridiculous as the latest episode of Most Haunted.

Mystic Ally have you any more predictions? What these woman were like at horse riding? Whether they might have taken to running marathons? Whether they were good cooks?

Yes lets condemn them now…the Victims of Jack the Ripper were all crap in the kitchen

Admit it you don't know and you have nothing to back your sweeping claims against these women.

Pirate

[Ally]

Yes I am talking about the canonical five since the topic of conversation is how the canonical five are viewed as saints and not as actual people merely because they were the victims of Jack the Ripper. SO the important factor there would be "victims of jack the Ripper" and the others would not be of importance. But if you want to expand on the topic to every woman in the east end who was murdered, sure let's get to those women that you mentioned:

MArtha Tabram: ""The marriage ended in 1875. Henry left due to Martha's heavy drinking. He gave her an allowance of twelve shillings per week for three years but reduced it to 2s 6d due to her pestering him in the streets for money. She had a warrant taken out against him and had him locked up. He had also learned that she was living with another man. At this time he refused to support her any further.""

So at the time of her marriage dissolving she had children aged 3 and 5 and there is absolutely no mention of these children throughout the rest of the accounts of her life. There were no children living with her in any of the places where she resided or mentioned by any of the men she cohabitated with from then on out. Conclusion? Family abandoned due to her incessant drinking. Yet another mother, choosing the bottle of her babies.

Four for Four at this point.


Emma Smith: ""Emma claimed to have both a son and a daughter living somewhere in the area of Finsbury Park, and was often heard to say that they should do something to help her situation. She had been a prostitute for some time now, at least since she last saw her husband (she claimed to have been a widow, but also claimed she left her husband in 1877). Emma was also somewhat of a belligerent woman, often seen with a black eye and other various cuts and bruises as a result of many a drunken brawl.""

So Emma's only comments about her two grown children was that they should be helping her out of her situation. She was apparently such a wonderful mother that her children would rather leave her to drunken prostitution than help her out. A fabulous example of motherhood, you are right.


Rose Mylett: A woman who was so taken with drink that she was called Drunken Lizzie and who had a daughter who did not live with her and who was 8 years old at the time of her mother's death.

Have you noticed a common thread here? Drunk women, who abandon their families and take to prostitution to support their drinking. You know if you are going to try and put up examples of motherhood to support your argument you really ought to make sure the examples are those of GOOD parents if you are arguing that I am making a generalization that isn't supported by fact, because all you just did, was prove my point. Thanks.

As for whether or not Kate was beaten by her husband or not, what actual relevance does it have to her being a crap mother? She was a crap mother. I don't care if her husband beat her, one has nothing to do with the other.

[Jeff Leahy]

Pirate,
You are making a sweeping generalizion about millions of women.

No I was using ironic humour

I am talking about five women

Yes I guessed you would be using the Andrew Cook counting system.

Emma Smith mother of two grown up children.

Martha Tabram mother of two grown up children

Rose Mylett mother of at least one girl.

and of these women, everyone who was a mother was a BAD mother.

No they were NOT. This is an interpretion from a twenty first century perspective. You have no idea what sort of mothers these women made. For a start they had no epidurrels in 1888.

You are judging them by modern standards and condeming them without any historical source about there abilities as mothers. Where are your pictures of these women failing to change nappies? sorry dippers?

I notice you are completely overlooking the other two mothers in this group Annie and Polly. Want to know why? Because Polly walked out on her family again and again finally abandoning them for good in 81. And Annie dove into the bottle and abandoned her surviving daughter for others to take care of.

Three mothers:

Kate: daughter moves to have nothing to do with her. Sons taken because of her drinking.
Annie: drunk, abandons her children.
Polly: Drunk, abandons her children several times.

Those aren't generalities. Three mothers. Three bad mothers.

Annie Chapman was clearly an alcoholic and from what can be gleaned her old man doesn't seem that bad. But to condemn her out right as a bad mother without more detail information seems unfair. Annie actually had a long period of being sobber and may have had periods of being a very good mother...we just do not know.

Now are you going to answer the question about Kates beatings or are you going to wriggle?

Pirate

[Ally]

Pirate,

You are making a sweeping generalizion about millions of women. I am talking about five women and of these women, everyone who was a mother was a BAD mother. I notice you are completely overlooking the other two mothers in this group Annie and Polly. Want to know why? Because Polly walked out on her family again and again finally abandoning them for good in 81. And Annie dove into the bottle and abandoned her surviving daughter for others to take care of.

Three mothers:

Kate: daughter moves to have nothing to do with her. Sons taken because of her drinking.
Annie: drunk, abandons her children.
Polly: Drunk, abandons her children several times.

Those aren't generalities. Three mothers. Three bad mothers.

[Jeff Leahy]

Tom, I am clearly not critisising any group of people. I wish people to be considered as individuals. I am attempting to demonstrate through ironic humour that Ally’s sweeping condemnation of the JtR‘victims’ as ‘Bad Mothers’ is an idiotic statement and gross generalization much as it would be if you condemned all the mothers in American of being bad mothers because one mother chooses to stuff her child with McDonalds burgers…

I also like the comical notion of comparing Kate Eddowes options with twenty first century thinking….Can we condemn kate for driving a gas guzzling car?

No we cant because Kate must be seen in her time and period context…

As must of course the ‘Mothers of America’

My annoyance with Ally’s position is that she is trying to condemn these women through modern spectacles…And now she’s gone off into some bizarre attack on women who draw benefits?

Well there were no benefits or rights for Kate, just a good hiding (ironic intent)

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

I'm confused. If you're angry at Ally, then why do you keep complimenting her by calling her an 'American'? It's no secret everyone wants to be an American. But just because you feel Americans are superior, doesn't make it so. We're all equal in God's eyes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

There's no reason to stay on topic until someone worthy of debating comes along. Your illogic and constant tangents into la la land, make you a very boring and irrational debate partner. I'll wait til Paul gives you some better ammo and rational points before continuing further.

What, like the social attitude to men beating there wives in 1888.

Is this approved or condemned by 'Mothers of America'?

Did kate bring the beatings on herself? was she asking for it?

And what did the neighbours think? were the boys also free from such brutality?

Clearly I know Paul's opinion. I was wondering if you could enlighten us with some period incite on the matter.

Pirate

[babybird67]

no problem Ally

most of my life was a three tier system: working/studying/mothering. Maybe i just burnt out!

washing machine has just arrived, just as the weather has turned bad!

[Ally]

There's no reason to stay on topic until someone worthy of debating comes along. Your illogic and constant tangents into la la land, make you a very boring and irrational debate partner. I'll wait til Paul gives you some better ammo and rational points before continuing further.