Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

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

  • Of course it’s proven beyond any reasonable doubt the these women indulged in prostitution whether occasionally or not. This has been stated explicitly (by Police, family and friends) and also implied (with the implication being beyond all other interpretation.) It’s even been strongly implied by people who were obviously very reluctant to tarnish the name of their dead friend. This couldn’t be clearer. Why would anyone on here want to support Rubenhold’s agenda? I find it strange.

    What other ‘proof’ are we expecting? A Prostitutes Union card found in their possession? An ‘I Am A Prostitute’ badge? Their name on the registered Guild Of Prostitutes? Droves of clients all coming forward to say ‘I did it with her for cash?’ Let’s be real.

    These women engaged in prostitution. If it wasn’t for Rubenhold’s nonsense we wouldn’t be discussing this issue.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post
      I do not know,Herlock,that Bucks Row was an intended destination.Do you?I know not how Nichols or Chapman expected to come by the money needed.Perhaps after a while it became clear to them the money was not to be had,and like other homeless persons,they would have to stay outdoors.So it's not a case of only one thing remaining,is it?A night on the 'Cobbles' was a regular resort of many at that time it has been reported.
      I do not know they were engaged in prostitution.Not enough real evidence to say they were.Did they themselves acknowledge it?
      What appears strange to me is the insistance,for 'Historical' reasons,that I and others should accept they were prostitutes.Does it matter?
      Hi Harry!

      I don't think it really does matter (to me, or most other posters).

      Personally, I think the evidence that these women engaged in prostitution is pretty overwhelming (Kate being a possible exception).

      I think the point for the purposes of this thread is that it sure seems to matter to HR, as a fundamental part of her argument is that the women have been maligned all these years and incorrectly labelled as prostitutes.

      To me that says far more about where she's coming from (and perhaps what she feels about prostitutes) than it does about anything else.

      Comment


      • Exactly Ms D. As if we are insulting their memory by stating that they were forced by necessity to resort to prostitution when the reality was that for them it was often that or starve. Why would we, in 2021, seek to insult them? This is what HR appears to be saying. Which is pretty bizarre.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          Exactly Ms D. As if we are insulting their memory by stating that they were forced by necessity to resort to prostitution when the reality was that for them it was often that or starve. Why would we, in 2021, seek to insult them? This is what HR appears to be saying. Which is pretty bizarre.
          Agreed, Herlock!

          Personally I find this bizarre whitewashing and sanitisation of their lives rather more insulting than just telling it like it is (was!).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

            Agreed, Herlock!

            Personally I find this bizarre whitewashing and sanitisation of their lives rather more insulting than just telling it like it is (was!).
            And isn’t it rich that a woman supposedly railing against ripperology’s alleged poor opinion of women can accuse a panel of intelligent and totally independent women of being somehow the willing dupes of male ripperologists. You couldn’t make it up.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              And isn’t it rich that a woman supposedly railing against ripperology’s alleged poor opinion of women can accuse a panel of intelligent and totally independent women of being somehow the willing dupes of male ripperologists. You couldn’t make it up.
              For a feminist, it appears she has a rather low opinion of other women (in the world of ripperology anyway).

              Or perhaps I'm just saying that because a man made me.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                Because it is not a proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt that they were prositutes.


                "if it were proven that they were prostitutes"


                Is a big if Ally.




                The Baron
                Since when does history deal in 'proven facts'?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                  For a feminist, it appears she has a rather low opinion of other women (in the world of ripperology anyway).

                  Or perhaps I'm just saying that because a man made me.

                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                  “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                    Because it is not a proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt that they were prositutes.


                    "if it were proven that they were prostitutes"


                    Is a big if Ally.




                    The Baron
                    You selectively edited out the substantial part of my question to answer the part that was morally comfortable. So I'll be more direct. What difference does it make? Why is it a "big if"? Would you be making a fuss if they were labeled as Flower-sellers and not prostitutes?

                    Four of the five were definitely prostitutes. It's not a big if. You want to dance around the givens because you make a moral distinction between them being labeled as prostitutes, and flower sellers. So what's the moral distinction? Do you find prostitutes morally objectionable? Bad people? Do you think... less of them?

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

                    Comment


                    • ‘Selective editing,’ where have we seen that before? Oh yeah….in The Five.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ally View Post

                        You selectively edited out the substantial part of my question to answer the part that was morally comfortable. So I'll be more direct. What difference does it make? Why is it a "big if"? Would you be making a fuss if they were labeled as Flower-sellers and not prostitutes?

                        Four of the five were definitely prostitutes. It's not a big if. You want to dance around the givens because you make a moral distinction between them being labeled as prostitutes, and flower sellers. So what's the moral distinction? Do you find prostitutes morally objectionable? Bad people? Do you think... less of them?

                        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

                        Comment


                        • What would constitute proof?

                          Apart from the police, their family and their friends saying that they were prostitutes of course. What else would constitute proof?
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                          Comment


                          • Quite true Baron,there is no proof the victims of the Ripper were prostitutes,or were soliciting the nights they were killed.There are claims they were,that is all.There are claims against over 200 men that these men were the customers of the victims the nights they were killed.I am referring to the alledged killers of course.
                            Just give us one name,Herlock,of a policeman who proved a victim was a prostitute

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              Quite true Baron,there is no proof the victims of the Ripper were prostitutes,or were soliciting the nights they were killed.There are claims they were,that is all.There are claims against over 200 men that these men were the customers of the victims the nights they were killed.I am referring to the alledged killers of course.
                              Just give us one name,Herlock,of a policeman who proved a victim was a prostitute
                              Why do you and Baron keep talking about proof? Don't you understand that we're talking about events of 130 years ago? The police said these women were prostitutes. The police were there. The police actually questioned people who knew them. Why do you doubt what the police have told you? In the case of Nichols, her husband and, independently, fellow lodgers said she was a prostitute. Even her friend Holland said Chapman wasn't particular about how she earned her money, which is about as close as you can come to an admission that she was a prostitute. She was broke and went off to get some money and was confident she'd get some, but there weren't many alternatives in the early hours of the morning. And she was found in a lonely, dark place, prostitution providing a plausible explanation for her being there. But for you this doesn't constitute proof. What would you need, a photograph of her in the act? I bet you'd then claim it had been Photoshopped!

                              The point is that you are expecting the impossible. There will be, cannot be proof. All you have is an assembly of facts that are constructed into a picture, like putting a jig-saw together. Unlike a jig-saw, you can put the pieces together in different ways to create a slightly different picture, but can't reject the picture just because you don't like it. And that's pretty much what you are doing.

                              As unfair as you think it might be to call these women prostitutes without cast-iron proof that that is what they were, we are dealing with probabilities and the conclusion that they were prostituting themselves is the best possible construction of the facts. You can present a better construction of the facts if you have one, but saying that the construction being offered isn't proof is pointless. We know it isn't proof. If it was proof, there wouldn't be any room for debate about it.

                              Comment


                              • There is no more proof that the victims were prostitutes,than there is of the many named as their killer.There are claims,and there are suspicions,nothing else.Now suspicion in itself is fine,but mere suspicion isn't proof.It doesn't matter if it was 230 years ago,the subject matter is a police investigation into a series of murders of which women were the victims.Provided the evidence hasn't been changed,or distorted,it should be possible to reach a consideration of suspicion of persons or events involved in those murders.To help in this respect there is the law and the police who investigated.The official version,as it is referred to.Officially,were the victims proven to have been prostitutes? Was prostitution cited as a significant factor in their deaths.
                                In seaking answers the police were faced with certain problems.Did the victims at any time admit to being prostitutes.Did any customers come forward to prove an act of prostitution had taken place?Were the victims observed and reported to have prostituted themselves?Was there physical indications prostitution had taken place.
                                All we seem to have in reply,is some persons today saying,but they were homeless and pennyless,and there was only one way a woman could earn money in the night hours.By prostitution.
                                I am not expecting the impossible Paul.Simple soul that I am,I am just a follower of the principle that a person is considered innocent untill proven guilty.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X