A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[The Baron]

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.

Well said Harry!



The Baron

[jmenges]

Does all the evidence in this case have to have been corroborated by a third-party observer and then that police report survive in order for you to accept that evidence as reliable? “Proof” that something actually happened? Or is it just this topic you’ve placed that fashionably high bar onto?

JM

[Mark J D]

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?

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.

[caz]

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?

Hi Ally,

We had all this back in the 1970s, when a moral distinction was made between the Yorkshire Ripper's victims who engaged in prostitution and those who didn't. The latter were described as "innocent", with the clear implication that the former were not, and therefore shared the blame with their killer for what happened to them.

This is history repeating itself, but with Hallie R's bee in her bonnet, attempting to distinguish between JtR's victims on the same basis, but doing it by ignoring or altering the evidence in order to make that distinction, which is just bizarre. What does she think she is doing, if not mentally separating the wheat from the chaff?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

So you would decide on a victim's innocence or guilt on the basis of whether she had to sell sex to her murderer?

We ARE back in the 1970s!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi Mark,

I have not read the book either, but I do know she omitted and changed evidence to appeal to her target audience. To me that suggests she doesn't give a rat's arse about the 'horrific pressure-cooker of suffering and want' [nice phrasing] that made/makes people - men and women, boys and girls - do what they would not, if their basic needs were met in other ways. If she did, she would have emphasised the plight of the Whitechapel victims, using all the available evidence to show what made each one especially vulnerable to lone male predators.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mark J D]

... that suggests she doesn't give a rat's arse about the 'horrific pressure-cooker of suffering and want' that made/makes people - men and women, boys and girls - do what they would not, if there basic needs were met in other ways. If she did, she would have emphasised the plight of the Whitechapel victims, using all the available evidence to show what made each one especially vulnerable to lone male predators.

Thanks for the agreement. When asked in another place what I thought of the book, months ago, I admitted to not having read it, and said that I was prepared to bet in advance that I could describe it at a distance: there is in fact a very narrow range of possibility that an ostensibly non-fiction history/humanities book can inhabit if it is going to be successful in the modern bien pensant liberal marketplace; and any release that gathers a female Twitter army to dogpile all dissent is clearly offering them the reddest of red meat.

M.

[PaulB]

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.

As I have asked, Harry, why do you keep referring to proof? What to you would be proof? Because, whatever it is, you will almost certainly never have it. The very best you have is what is in the sources. That's all. And your job is to make the very best use you can of what's there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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. This argument is just silly I’m afraid.

[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

[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.

[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'

[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?

[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.