A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will add though that we shouldn’t define these women simply as prostitutes of course. They were human beings and women first and foremost. Woman in horrendous circumstances. And they were victims of those circumstances as much as they were victims of the person that has come to be known as Jack the Ripper. But we have to accept the reality that they were women forced by circumstances into prostitution. This isn’t a moral judgment it’s simply a factual statement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we know how prostitutes have been denounced, denigrated and mistreated up to the present day. This is irrelevant to the point at hand which is that it’s being suggested that we shouldn’t call the ripper’s victims prostitutes. This is ludicrous and achieves nothing. If someone delivers the mail each day then we can call them a Postman. If someone sells themselves for money then they are a prostitute (although of course that word tends to be replaced with ‘sex worker’ these days) Part-time, full-time or even very occasional it makes no difference. If there was evidence that these women never engaged in prostitution then there might be a point but all of the evidence points the other way.

We know how Victorian morality viewed prostitutes. By calling someone a prostitute we aren’t agreeing with that opinion. We are just stating a fact. We don’t call Polly Nichols a prostitute because we think that she was a terrible, immoral, wicked person. We call Polly Nichols a prostitute because the overwhelming evidence tells us that she engaged in prostitution. From necessity of course.

This issue should be black and white. Why is it being pursued?

Ally’s just summed it up but her post appeared at the same time as mine.

[Ally]

As has been pointed out, when people make a huge fuss about labeling them prostitutes, when it is clear to any rational person that they were engaged in prostitution, then yeah, there's a moral judgement being made on the act of prostitution. No one is disputing any other profession of any other player listed in the newspapers, other than this sole occupation, which they were no doubt engaged.

They were prostitutes. Dissembling about it as if it is some slur upon them is straight up sexist. What the Victorians thought of prostitutes, is irrelevant. What the discourse was then, or what the killer's views of these women are is likewise irrelevant. Because we aren't living in the 19th century any more and we aren't obligated to entertain their antiquated values or thoughts when justifying OUR discourse. They were prostitutes. They exchanged sex for money.

And attempting to whitewash their lives, as if that's doing them some kind of a service, is sexist. Those who argue vehemently against labeling them as prostitutes no doubt have very judgmental views about sex workers in general. Probably ought to examine why that is, precisely. Because they weren't selling flowers at 1:30 in the morning to earn their doss money.

[The Baron]

"Prostitution in the United Kingdom


19th century


The evangelical movement of the 19th century denounced prostitutes and their clients as sinners, and society for tolerating it.^[40] The Vagrancy Act 1824 introduced the term "common prostitute" into English Law and criminalised prostitutes with a punishment of up to one month hard labour.^[41] The act also made it a crime for a man to live on the earnings of a prostitute (often known as "living off immoral earnings").^[42]

Victorian morality held that prostitution was a terrible evil, for the young women, for the men and for all of society. One of the first pieces of legislation introduced during the Victorian period to restrict prostitution was the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, which made it an offence for common prostitutes to assemble at any "place of public resort" such as a coffee shop.<sup>[43]"


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pros...United_Kingdom</sup>


The Baron

[The Baron]

"US Federal and State Prostitution Laws and Related Punishments



Presented below are federal laws on prostitution, state laws on prostitution, and Nevada county laws on prostitution. Prostitution is illegal in the United States with the exception of 10 Nevada counties. On Nov. 3, 2009, Rhode Island closed a legal loophole that had allowed indoor prostitution to exist since 1980. Most states punish the prostitute and the customer equally; however, nine states have harsher penalties for the customer (CO, KS, MA, MT, NE, NY, NC, TN, UT) and two have harsher penalties for the prostitute (DE, MN)"


https://prostitution.procon.org/us-f...d-punishments/




The Baron

[bolo]

Hi all,

it has always been my impression that a certain number of women of the victims' class saw street prostitution as a last resort to make ends meet when other sources of income were not available and the Workhouse was not an option. Others were working the streets fulltime but judging from what I've read in Mayhew et al., there were not a lot of clear-cut biographies in that class in the East End, and I think that also goes for the victims.

Grüße,

Boris

[The Baron]

Let me try to explain, because I think I understand the impulse that Harry and The Baron are expressing.

The counterargument, as odious as it will sound to many here, and perhaps to you and Ally, is that by insisting on calling the women prostitutes, we are giving them the same name that the killer would have given them.

And this is one thing (I think) that concerns Harry and the Baron. Why would we want to do that?

If this argument sounds outrageous or phony, think about it.

It's all well and good to claim there are no moral distinctions being drawn, but like it or not, Harry and The Baron instinctively know that there is a type of male--and not an uncommon type--who does make 'moral distinctions' about prostitutes. I could go on a fifteen-minute rant here and even argue that there might be a biological reason for this--that evolution and the need to pass on one's genetic material inadvertently turned males into hypocrites--but I will avoid the temptation.

In short, the Peter Sutcliffes of the world are not killing flower girls; they are, in my opinion, killing women that are deemed 'unworthy' or 'immoral' by society, or at least by their fellow males. It is a type of 'toxic masculinity' to the inth degree, to use a fashionable phrase, and the worry is that by setting a class apart as 'prostitutes' we may be feeding this toxicity. Whether you agree with this or not is another question, but I think that is the impulse. You and Ally might tell The Barron to 'grow up' and shed himself of his whore-Madonna impulse, but isn't your beef with God and/or Darwin and not The Baron? He knows all too well how males can be; he doesn't like it, but he acknowledges it.

If it's just a matter of occupation, why doesn't anyone write that Jack the Ripper killed keychain hawkers, charring women, and bottlestopperers? Didn't the victims also have those occupations?

We designate them prostitutes because we believe, rightly or wrongly, that sexuality was an aspect of the crimes, and that their risky occupation is what led to their deaths. And since it is not good to die, there is the shadow of 'victim blaming' lurking up that dark alley, and this is what obsesses Rubenhold the most, and is what led to her taking it way too far by denying prostitution altogether. You perhaps think her impulse is misguided, but I can't in all honesty think that it is 100% wrong. Is it perhaps 5% right? 10%? As I wrote earlier, even one's enemy owns a percentage of the truth, though, of course, we seldom acknowledge it.


This is why these crimes obsessed the Victorians. They ticked a lot of boxes. They posed uncomfortable questions. They still do. There are ambiguities and people tend to 'politicize' murder for their own reasons. Currently, a gun doesn't go off in the USA without there being a political debate afterwards. Not necessarily a bad thing; society is trying to negotiate how we should react. In the meantime, we argue.

Well said RJ


This is from Cambridge Dictionary, see the first example they give:


prostitute:

a person who has sex with someone for money

Examples

• She sued the paper for damages after they wrongly described her as a prostitute.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/prostitute

I don't think Ally will like this, but there it is.



The Baron

[Mark J D]

It seems absurd in the extreme to suggest that feminism isn't a critique of 'dominant power structures.' RP

I write well and carefully, and I really can't be bothered with people who can't or won't read me with sufficient care or thought.

M.

[rjpalmer]

Not addressed to me, of course; and the actual addressee I wouldn't help if I could. But looking at the Rubenhold phenomenon from outside (I've only read reviews) while knowing all too well the actual nature of faux-left pseudo-feminist liberal performance art as manifested in pampered arts/humanities settings, I believe she may have hit the 'sweet spot': posthumously rescuing these poor women from what privileged society considers a bad word is vastly more appealing to those with discretionary spending than would be a proper indictment of capitalist society for forcing so many innocent people into a horrific pressure-cooker of suffering and want -- which, of course, it still does today. The point about modern critiques is that, if they want to avoid being smashed to pieces by the guardians of the system (in the manner of Jeremy Corbyn), they must steer the rage safely away from dominant power structures (capitalism and the captured state), and towards some bugaboo we can all unite against ('misogyny!') and whatever outgroup is available that can be made to seem malign but in reality has no power at all ('Ripperologists').

So: Does the book contain a meaningful critique of capitalism, or does it dodge that and prove me right?

M.

I imagine that a feminist would argue that your 'meaningful critique of capitalism' would be wide of the mark if it didn't acknowledge that Victorian women were paid less than half the wages of men. It seems absurd in the extreme to suggest that feminism isn't a critique of 'dominant power structures.'

RP

[rjpalmer]

You kinda proved Ally's point here Baron.

"It is for me not good enough to label a woman a prostitute."

That sounds awfully like a moral distinction to me.

Just sayin'

Let me try to explain, because I think I understand the impulse that Harry and The Baron are expressing.

The counterargument, as odious as it will sound to many here, and perhaps to you and Ally, is that by insisting on calling the women prostitutes, we are giving them the same name that the killer would have given them.

And this is one thing (I think) that concerns Harry and the Baron. Why would we want to do that?

If this argument sounds outrageous or phony, think about it.

It's all well and good to claim there are no moral distinctions being drawn, but like it or not, Harry and The Baron instinctively know that there is a type of male--and not an uncommon type--who does make 'moral distinctions' about prostitutes. I could go on a fifteen-minute rant here and even argue that there might be a biological reason for this--that evolution and the need to pass on one's genetic material inadvertently turned males into hypocrites--but I will avoid the temptation.

In short, the Peter Sutcliffes of the world are not killing flower girls; they are, in my opinion, killing women that are deemed 'unworthy' or 'immoral' by society, or at least by their fellow males. It is a type of 'toxic masculinity' to the inth degree, to use a fashionable phrase, and the worry is that by setting a class apart as 'prostitutes' we may be feeding this toxicity. Whether you agree with this or not is another question, but I think that is the impulse. You and Ally might tell The Barron to 'grow up' and shed himself of his whore-Madonna impulse, but isn't your beef with God and/or Darwin and not The Baron? He knows all too well how males can be; he doesn't like it, but he acknowledges it.

If it's just a matter of occupation, why doesn't anyone write that Jack the Ripper killed keychain hawkers, charring women, and bottlestopperers? Didn't the victims also have those occupations?

We designate them prostitutes because we believe, rightly or wrongly, that sexuality was an aspect of the crimes, and that their risky occupation is what led to their deaths. And since it is not good to die, there is the shadow of 'victim blaming' lurking up that dark alley, and this is what obsesses Rubenhold the most, and is what led to her taking it way too far by denying prostitution altogether. You perhaps think her impulse is misguided, but I can't in all honesty think that it is 100% wrong. Is it perhaps 5% right? 10%? As I wrote earlier, even one's enemy owns a percentage of the truth, though, of course, we seldom acknowledge it.


This is why these crimes obsessed the Victorians. They ticked a lot of boxes. They posed uncomfortable questions. They still do. There are ambiguities and people tend to 'politicize' murder for their own reasons. Currently, a gun doesn't go off in the USA without there being a political debate afterwards. Not necessarily a bad thing; society is trying to negotiate how we should react. In the meantime, we argue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, Herlock!

Am I correct in thinking that there was indeed a registration of prostitutes in Sweden and Liz Stride was on it?

I know that whatever she was doing previously is not necessarily relevant to what she was doing in 1888, but cumulatively all these bits and pieces add up to a pretty clear indication that the women were engaged in prostitution.

There's not really any more evidence which could be provided, and for me what we have is sufficient.

It makes no odds to me either way,.

I'm not judging them or condemning them, just acknowledging which way the evidence points.

Hi Ms D,

You’re correct of course that Sweden registered prostitutes. I’ve no knowledge of the subject but it might have been the case in other countries too? Not here though.

The evidence that we have is certainly more than sufficient.

Its not important as you say though. The only question from a criminological point of view is whether the ripper had a specific issue with prostitutes or was it simply that they were the easiest targets? We have no way of knowing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure you'd be on such solid ground with all posters, Herlock.

By sweeping the evidence for prostitution under the carpet, one can pretend there was no demand for it. I can see why a certain type of male might find that appealing, but for the life of me I can't understand why a feminist would, unless they are either thick or insincere - or both.

Love,

Caz
X

I can’t see why either Caz. It’s in no way insulting to a woman to say that the horrific position that the society of the time placed them in left them with no choice. It’s a reflection on the society that they lived in and not in them. Some men at the time certainly saw prostitutes as doing what they did because they had poor morals or because they were to some extent nymphomaniacs but thankfully we’re past that now (hopefully at least) So we’re not insulting anyone. We’re simply stating a reality. I can’t understand why this is being questioned can you?

[Ms Diddles]

I don't know what you are talking about.

I don't think I've seen a definitive proof they were prositutes, I know you can support your claim, but it is for me not good enough to label a woman a prostitute.


"you make a moral distinction between them being labeled as prostitutes, and flower sellers"

I don't know when did I make such a thing, are you sure you are not mistaking me with some one else?


"What difference does it make?"

It is not a proven fact they were prostitutes, that is the difference.


The Baron

You kinda proved Ally's point here Baron.

"It is for me not good enough to label a woman a prostitute."

That sounds awfully like a moral distinction to me.

Just sayin'

[Ms Diddles]

I’ll ask again Harry. What would constitute proof in your eyes? There was no registration of prostitutes so there can be nothing of that kind. So we would have no ‘proof’ that any Victorian woman resorted to prostitution. So do you (and The Baron for that matter) think that we shouldn’t claim that there were prostitutes in Victorian London to avoid the risk of offending anyone? Or should we keep our feet planted on Earth? When we have the Police (who dealt with prostitutes every day and knew most them) family and friends all saying that someone engaged in prostitution then we can take it to the bank that that person did indeed engage in prostitution. We don’t need CCTV footage, or a written and signed statement from clients to back this up.

You are asking for the impossible in order to try and deny the unavoidably obvious. These women engaged in prostitution beyond all reasonable doubt. That should be the end of it. This is arguing for arguing sake I’m afraid.

Well, Herlock!

Am I correct in thinking that there was indeed a registration of prostitutes in Sweden and Liz Stride was on it?

I know that whatever she was doing previously is not necessarily relevant to what she was doing in 1888, but cumulatively all these bits and pieces add up to a pretty clear indication that the women were engaged in prostitution.

There's not really any more evidence which could be provided, and for me what we have is sufficient.

It makes no odds to me either way,.

I'm not judging them or condemning them, just acknowledging which way the evidence points.

[caz]

I can’t prove that someone didn’t type Paul’s post #248 for him. It’s not impossible but I’d say that I’m on solid ground to assume that he typed it himself.

I'm not sure you'd be on such solid ground with all posters, Herlock.

By sweeping the evidence for prostitution under the carpet, one can pretend there was no demand for it. I can see why a certain type of male might find that appealing, but for the life of me I can't understand why a feminist would, unless they are either thick or insincere - or both.

Love,

Caz
X