Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

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

  • It’s like someone claiming that the victims found in the Green River were swimming when they were murdered.
    Why pick that hill to die on?

    JM

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jmenges View Post
      What are the odds that the Ripper would have explored the backyards along Hanbury Street looking for someone sleeping -and found someone-when, according to Rubenhold, people were sleeping rough nearly everywhere?

      JM
      If Chapman was looking for somewhere to sleep, she could have slept on the stairs inside, or on the landing why sleep outside where it is open to the elements when you can sllep inside out of the elements

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jmenges View Post
        What are the odds that the Ripper would have explored the backyards along Hanbury Street looking for someone sleeping -and found someone-when, according to Rubenhold, people were sleeping rough nearly everywhere?

        JM
        I would say about as likely as Polly going off to pawn a bonnet at 1:30 in the A.M.

        Let all Oz be agreed;
        I'm Wicked through and through.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          The question about whether the victims were actively soliciting or not at the time of the murders isn’t really important.
          Hi Herlock,

          setting aside Rubenhold, would it not be important from an investigative angle?

          Some, including a recent author, have aimed suspicion in the directions of James Hardiman and/or John Richardson.

          Neither are my cup of tea, but it would mean that the murderer need not have been randomly trying doorknobs along Hanbury Street to have encountered a woman in the hall or the backyard.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            Hi Herlock,

            setting aside Rubenhold, would it not be important from an investigative angle?

            Some, including a recent author, have aimed suspicion in the directions of James Hardiman and/or John Richardson.

            Neither are my cup of tea, but it would mean that the murderer need not have been randomly trying doorknobs along Hanbury Street to have encountered a woman in the hall or the backyard.
            Hi Roger,

            In the case of Harriman or Richardson I see what you mean.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Nichols was offered accomodation by her friend about 2.30 am,so the neccessity to prostitute for money for shelter ceased at that time.Eddowes could have remained at the police station till a later hour.Stride had accomodation and friends to go to.Kelly had accomodation.Only Chapman really needed accomodation,and by the early hours,that need had diminished.Now I understand there were other needs.There were also other means of obtaining money.I do not know enough about their day to day existence,but I do presume there were thousands living in poverty who did not resort to prostitution to get by.While we cannot overlook the information given by friends and aquaintances,each of the victims also had their good side spoken of,so when I read,'Another prostitute murdered' I wonder whether the writers are giving a balanced view,or using the word to simply degrade the victims.

              Comment


              • Yes Holland offered to take Nichols, they used to live together. Wilkinson, Eddowes deputy, said he would have taken them even if short since they were regulars.Eddowes was probably trying to go home soon and would get a "fine hiding", PC Hutt believed she was going home.. Which went against the "vagrancy" argument.

                Nichols pawning/selling the bonnet, there was nobody in Bucks Row except PC Neil on his beat .Until 2 witnesses saw her on the floor. And where were the witnesses she did. Chapman and Eddowes was seen with a man minutes before they were killed. So they were not yet asleep ,if vagrants, where they were found, and would have heard a man approaching. There would have been commotion, but instead they were killed in a controlled manner, most likely the killer from behind, the victim unaware.

                The early morning was the time to earn money as daylight would expose them on the act. It would not have been surprisong if they wanted more drink when daylight came, like Prater. They did what they had to do, no judgement.
                Last edited by Varqm; 11-12-2021, 02:14 AM.
                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                M. Pacana

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  This gem comes from ‘Dr’ Katherine Crooks.

                  ‘Newspapers identified the Ripper victims as members of the same class of vagrants from which Scotland Yard drew the majority of their Ripper suspects.’

                  Is that right? Were the majority of Scotland Yard’s suspects ‘vagrants’?


                  As for this sentence:

                  ’Victorians’ conflation of this group of prostitutes with the men who also engaged in unconventional and unreliable forms of work suggests that Victorian prostitution might be reconceptualised not only as a gendered and pathologized form of sexual deviance, but also as a partially normalized form of labour.’


                  What on earth does it mean?

                  What, indeed. Quite a lot of academic-speak. I'll try to translate, though I'm only a retired academic librarian.

                  She thinks the Victorians confused and mingled together the idea of homeless prostitutes ( I think we call them "casual sex-workers") with the lower class of men doing odd jobs, day work, and possible criminal work. Because of this, she suggests scholars change how they look at Victorian prostitution into a view that it was separated in type by gender and always considered to be "sexual deviant behavior."
                  Then she adds the notion that prostitution is also a somewhat normal form of work. Okay. . But don't "deviance" and "normalized" mean opposite things? How can they be both at the same time??
                  Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                  ---------------
                  Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                  ---------------

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post


                    Then she adds the notion that prostitution is also a somewhat normal form of work. Okay. . But don't "deviance" and "normalized" mean opposite things? How can they be both at the same time??
                    Yes, as I pointed out earlier I think she slips up when writing "reconceptualised" because the sentence ends up implying that she thinks it actually should be conceptualised as "gendered and pathologized form of sexual deviance"

                    I think her intention is clear: she intended to write that prostitution, instead of being understood as pseudo-Victorian concept involving deviant sexuality, could in fact be understood as an accepted and partially normalised form of labour. I.e. it was actually more socially accepted in Victorian times for "unfortunates" to engage in prostitution than we traditionally have thought.

                    Comment


                    • That explains the seeming contradiction in terms, Kattrup. Good observation. Sloppy work, again, on HR's part.
                      Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                      ---------------
                      Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                      ---------------

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
                        That explains the seeming contradiction in terms, Kattrup. Good observation. Sloppy work, again, on HR's part.
                        Thanks. I should point out the quote is not by HR, it's by Katherine Crooks.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          Nichols was offered accomodation by her friend about 2.30 am,so the neccessity to prostitute for money for shelter ceased at that time.Eddowes could have remained at the police station till a later hour.Stride had accomodation and friends to go to.Kelly had accomodation.Only Chapman really needed accomodation,and by the early hours,that need had diminished.Now I understand there were other needs.There were also other means of obtaining money.I do not know enough about their day to day existence,but I do presume there were thousands living in poverty who did not resort to prostitution to get by.While we cannot overlook the information given by friends and aquaintances,each of the victims also had their good side spoken of,so when I read,'Another prostitute murdered' I wonder whether the writers are giving a balanced view,or using the word to simply degrade the victims.
                          Good points, Harry!

                          I have often wondered why Polly refused Ellen Holland's offer of a bed.

                          It's a possibility that the offer was a little embellishment made up by Ellen after the fact to paint herself in a positive light (and perhaps assuage her guilt) at how things turned out for Polly that night.

                          No evidence for that at all. It was merely a passing fancy on my part.

                          In the same circumstances, I think most of us would opt for a bunk up with a pal over selling ourselves on the streets.

                          I'm not sure that there would have been thousands (of women) living in (this extreme of) poverty and not resorting to prostitution though.

                          From what I have read it seems to have been common practice among extremely destitute women.

                          We know that these women tried other means of earning money where possible (Polly as a servant, Annie making trinkets, Kate picking hops seasonally and Liz cleaning) but I'm sure that in such extremes of deprivation (and where other means were not forthcoming) survival for women depended on them selling themselves.

                          I too dislike slogans like "Another Prostitute Murdered" .

                          It's extremely reductive.

                          Do I believe these women were prostitutes by necessity though?

                          Yeah, absolutely.

                          No judgement. No less horror at their fates.

                          Just sympathy and a grateful acknowledgement of how lucky I am not to live in such times and circumstances.









                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                            Good points, Harry!

                            I have often wondered why Polly refused Ellen Holland's offer of a bed.

                            It's a possibility that the offer was a little embellishment made up by Ellen after the fact to paint herself in a positive light (and perhaps assuage her guilt) at how things turned out for Polly that night.

                            No evidence for that at all. It was merely a passing fancy on my part.

                            In the same circumstances, I think most of us would opt for a bunk up with a pal over selling ourselves on the streets.

                            I'm not sure that there would have been thousands (of women) living in (this extreme of) poverty and not resorting to prostitution though.

                            From what I have read it seems to have been common practice among extremely destitute women.

                            We know that these women tried other means of earning money where possible (Polly as a servant, Annie making trinkets, Kate picking hops seasonally and Liz cleaning) but I'm sure that in such extremes of deprivation (and where other means were not forthcoming) survival for women depended on them selling themselves.

                            I too dislike slogans like "Another Prostitute Murdered" .

                            It's extremely reductive.

                            Do I believe these women were prostitutes by necessity though?

                            Yeah, absolutely.

                            No judgement. No less horror at their fates.

                            Just sympathy and a grateful acknowledgement of how lucky I am not to live in such times and circumstances.
                            Would it matter so much if the headline had read 'Another Bank Manager Murdered' or 'Another Docker Murdered'? 'Prostitute' was and is an acceptable name for a 'streetwalker' or 'unfortunate'. It's only now that the word is seen as demeaning. The victims were believed to have been prostitutes and the victims were referred to by a common feature, their occupation. I don't even know for sure whether the victims and those among whom they lived would have thought 'prostitute' demeaning. It was just something one did to survive, and I'm sure in the East End it was accepted as that.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                              Would it matter so much if the headline had read 'Another Bank Manager Murdered' or 'Another Docker Murdered'? 'Prostitute' was and is an acceptable name for a 'streetwalker' or 'unfortunate'. It's only now that the word is seen as demeaning. The victims were believed to have been prostitutes and the victims were referred to by a common feature, their occupation. I don't even know for sure whether the victims and those among whom they lived would have thought 'prostitute' demeaning. It was just something one did to survive, and I'm sure in the East End it was accepted as that.
                              Agreed "prostitute" is a completely acceptable term for a woman of that profession then and now (although I believe "sex worker" is currently de rigeur).

                              I have no issue with that word and unlike HR, I'm confident that these women did indeed engage in prostitution.

                              Denying this, and playing fast and loose with the facts to fit your own (rather lucrative?!) agenda is, to me doing them a disservice.

                              I simply find slogans like "Another Prostitute Murdered" somewhat jarring in this case.

                              Not wrong per se, just a bit reductive.

                              With the probable exception of Mary, I wouldn't personally describe prostitution as being their "occupation" (in the way that a bank manager is a bank manager or a docker is a docker).

                              It was just something that they, along with many others, did when necessity dictated.

                              I see it as being a relatively inconsequential facet of their lives rather than a defining feature I suppose.

                              I too am unsure of whether "prostitute" would have been regarded as demeaning among the inhabitants of the worst parts of Whitechapel at that time, but I'm confident in stating that the "working poor", middle class and upper class, who would also have been reading the papers, would have regarded it as such (and probably not a little bit distasteful and shocking too).

                              Perhaps I am just trying to apply my 21st Century sensibilities to things which occurred in another age though!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                                Thanks. I should point out the quote is not by HR, it's by Katherine Crooks.
                                My mistake. Thank you for the correction.
                                Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                                ---------------
                                Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                                ---------------

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X