A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[Varqm]

Pearly Poll's "info" was so compelling that Inspector Reid put her under caution at the inquest.

Sure focus on Pearly Poll to escape. Cheap way to argue. What about Emily Holland,Timothy Donovan,lLawende and Co's.,Liz Long,Polly Nichols husband. the women were Polly used to lodge with.What about the other victim's profile and location where their body was found. Keep on fantasizing that women do not have to resort to prostitution to survive, this is about "street sense" not morality\philosophy.
If there are no inquests and newspaper reports. we are starting from a blank slate, there is no info whatsoever about the woman and the women who were JTR's victims, then the fact that the overwhelming majority of women are not prostitutes is the starting point. But this is not the case here.

[rjpalmer]

Whilst nobody would deny that Victorian society was male orientated and that the poor and destitute of both sexes were treated appallingly, the book uses the victims to deliver a feminist polemic which is based on the premise that the victims were not prostitutes, but had been automatically labeled as such because they were homeless. Rubenhold goes on to make clear that this passed a moral judgement on these women, and made out that they were responsible for their deaths.

She also avoids exploring a grim and rather interesting reality: that there were East End women, quite a lot of them it seems, who betrayed other women by seducing them into prostitution, or by procuring 'girls' for the trade. The social problem of prostitution couldn't have been so widespread without the cooperation of many unethical women.

Thus, the 'battle of the sexes' theme is too simplistic. In exploring Victorian prostitution, we shouldn't ignore the Ghislaine Maxwells of the world, and only focus on the Epsteins and the punters.

[rjpalmer]

I rather think that you're missing the point that HR's book has a following and that her theories are passing into mainstream history books and could start infecting school text books. Hardly any Ripper books do that. If one cares about the historical waters being muddied then one has to condemn the book and the uncritical way in which it accepted by people who really should know better. That'smy opinion anyway.

Hi Paul. I don't think I'm missing the point; I just have a different point of view.

One deeply divisive issue is that Rubenhold or members of her clique insinuated (or outright stated, in some cases) that students of the Whitechapel Murders are perverted voyeurs who have been dead-set on portraying the victims as whores. And that the lives of the victims have been ignored.

This is deeply insulting, as well as psychologically inaccurate, and I can understand the ire.

With a few exceptions, this is clearly not true, but we should at least acknowledge that there is inherently something 'exploitive' about those who are peddling 'Jack the Ripper' candy bars and figurines, and that it is not uncommon to see a cloaked figure with a dripping knife on the cover of a 'Ripper' book, with an attractive female standing in the shadows.

The irony is that the dustcover of Rubenhold's own book toys with this same image in a way that is not readily recognizable as irony. And, further, that her own book could be open to the accusation of exploitation, in the same way that (at least a few) of the surviving family members thought of Five Daughters as exploitive, though it should be said that most didn't, and cooperated with the project.


It is not harmful to society to point out that victims are human beings, but there is something inherently harmful in portraying 'Jack the Ripper' as a criminal genius, which some have done. (And I hasten to add that you have never done this).

Ultimately, Rubenhold's clique have painted their fellow historians or would-be historians with a broader brush than was ever used on the victims. One simply has to look at Sugden's book, or at your 'Facts,' or Neil Sheldon's book, or at a number of websites, such as Howard Brown's, to see that the lives of the victims are explored in a sensitive and exhaustive manner, and I can fully understand why you would want to call her out on this, and why something like the above podcast was made. Kudos.

I also think that Gary Barnett hit the nail on the head when he speculated that Rubenhold herself once thought of the victims of Jack the Ripper as 'prostitutes' of the Moulin Rouge variety, and was shocked to learn that they were more akin to bag ladies. And when she made this realization, she thought she had discovered a Brave New World, and went out to share her discovery, even though it has been a recognized fact since 1888.

But Rubenhold's theories are ultimately self-defeating and I don't share your fear that her ideas will catch on, for the simple reason that hers is an extreme view in that she offers a black & white answer to a complex issue, and that any serious historian who looks at the case will see that there are no black & white answers. The truth is and always will be a shade of gray, and historians will always debate the nature of prostitution under the rule of Queen Victoria and her ministers, and social scientists will always debate the nature and meaning of 'prostitution.'

The point I was trying to make, perhaps poorly, is why would I wish to explore complex and sensitive issue under the umbrella of what has become a very bitter debate? I would dearly like to discuss some aspects of genetics and how they relate to evolution by natural selection or the theories of Lamarck, but I'm not going to do it during a debate between Richard Dawkins and a Christian fundamentalist, because everything becomes too black & white and too bitter. When discussing something with someone with an extreme view, we have a tendency to state things that we would not normally state, and to pretend that we have a monopoly on the truth, when, in fact, no one has a monopoly on the truth; we can only own a percentage of it.

Let me give you an example of something I think would be worth discussing. Dr. Phillips wrote that there was 'strong evidence' of prostitution in the case of the Pinchin Street victim.

Do you agree with this? What strong evidence? (And one only has to look at 'Lechmere' discussions to see people claiming outright that the unknown victim shared the 'victimology' of a prostitute).

This is daft. It's idiotic. Phillips did know the woman's identity, nor where she came from. She had no wedding band, had been murdered, and was sexually active.
That makes her a prostitute?

Had Phillips never heard of Henry Wainwright? The victim couldn't have been a servant from the suburbs, who was raped by her employer? The Foundling Hospital records are filled with such cases, at least as far as rapes.

So, there are cases of the Victorians police -- or a police surgeon, in Phillip's case-- painting with a broad brush, and one that could have been directly detrimental to a competent homicide investigation. There was no 'strong evidence' of prostitution, unless one is exceedingly naïve. Unmarried Victorian women had sex, sometimes unwillingly.

But why am I foolish enough to bring this up on a 'Rubenhold' thread, where I will be accused of supporting her extreme views? As I say, these issues are worth discussing--just not in the middle of a fist-fight.

If you've read this far, cheers,

RP

[rjpalmer]

We have enough info about that early morning and what the people they interacted with said, to say they were prostituting that early morning. Moralization by itself is not proof or a basis for deciding this.

Pearly Poll's "info" was so compelling that Inspector Reid put her under caution at the inquest.

[Varqm]

We have enough info about that early morning and what the people they interacted with said, to say they were prostituting that early morning. Moralization by itself is not proof or a basis for deciding this.

[harry]

Now maybe there are those that believe the above description best fit the the Ripper victims,and those other unfortunates of Whitechapel.
I am aware of the numbers that have been handed down.What I find interesting,is that of the 8,000+ unfortunates to be found in Whitechapel each day,only 1200 were deemed to resort to prostitution to survive.Admitted those 8,000+ would include a large number of males,but the number of women exceeding the 1200 mentioned somehow got by.The victims will not be included in the latter group,they have,rightly or wrongly,and without being able to defend themselves,been labelled.

[PaulB]

My instinct is to steer clear of this discussion. Some of these issues are well worth discussing...or even debating...just not in the context of Hallie Rubenhold.

In the same way that it is well worth exercising...just not in a gym that is in the middle of a Covid-19 controversy.

At least that's how I see it.

If one really wanted to hit Hallie where it hurts, one would point out that her book is old hat.

I've never seen anyone mention it, but some years ago there was a made for t.v. movie (in three parts) called Five Daughters.

It told the story of the lives of five women whose only connection was that they were all victims of the Ipswich Strangler, Steven Wright.

Sound familiar?

It didn't whitewash their lives, however.

But the harsh part is that one of the victim's father was outraged by the project. He didn't care for the gimmick.

In the end, historians are voyeurs...including Hallie.

There is no guarantee that the victims or their families would want us to have been poking around in their lives.

In the case of Five Daughters, most did, but some didn't.

I rather think that you're missing the point that HR's book has a following and that her theories are passing into mainstream history books and could start infecting school text books. Hardly any Ripper books do that. If one cares about the historical waters being muddied then one has to condemn the book and the uncritical way in which it accepted by people who really should know better. That'smy opinion anyway.

[Trevor Marriott]

"Seen committing the offense" is overly vague and changed meaning after the Cass case, as I noted earlier in the thread.
A constable couldn't just assume a woman was a prostitute if she's seen loitering or speaking to a man.
He needed an additional level of verification.

Edit- which is also why I think the "1200 prostitutes" number as estimated by the incoming reports of the beat cops might need to be viewed as a very rough estimate.

JM

I think she had to be seen approaching more than one male that would have been grounds to take their details and record them on a police record.
the women clearly knew this and that is why they used so many different names

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jmenges]

"Seen committing the offense" is overly vague and changed meaning after the Cass case, as I noted earlier in the thread.
A constable couldn't just assume a woman was a prostitute if she's seen loitering or speaking to a man.
He needed an additional level of verification.

Edit- which is also why I think the "1200 prostitutes" number as estimated by the incoming reports of the beat cops might need to be viewed as a very rough estimate.

JM

[Trevor Marriott]

The conclusion was reached when Warren roughly tabulated the numbers based on what his constables reported over a period of a few months.

Letter sent by Commisioner Warren to the Home Office on Oct 25, 1888. ( Mepo file 3/141, ff. 158-9)

'In reply to your letter of 22nd October there has been no return hitherto of the probable numbers of brothels in London, but during the last few months I have been tabulating the observations of Constables on their beats, and have come to the conclusion that there are 62 houses known to be brothels on the H or Whitechapel Divn and probably a great number of other houses which are more or less intermitently used for such purpose.

The number of CLH's ( Common lodging houses) is 233, accomodating 8,530 persons. We have no means of ascertaining what women are prostitutes and who are not, but there is an impression that there are about 1200 prostitutes, mostly of a very low condition.

...Mr. Charrington has been very active in evicting the holders of brothels... the result however is not conductive to morality. The unfortunate women are driven to plying for hire among respectable people, or else execise their calling in the streets.

The lower class of CLH's is naturally frequented by prostitutes, thieves and tramps as there is nowhere else for them to go, and no law to prevent their congregating there.

I fear that in driving the brothel keepers away from certain neighbourhoods much is being done to demoralize London generally. It is impossible to stop the supply when the demand exists...

I think that it is probable that a good number of people who are not married live together at the CLH's, but this also takes place in hotels in the West End.

I do not think there is any reason whatever for supposing that the murderer of Whitechapel has necessarily any connection with the condition of Whitechapel (or) is one of the ordinary denizens of that place..."

JM

Something that may have been overlooked here is an extract from Sir Howard Vincents police code and might explain why these vicitims used different aliases and adds to the belife that they were engaged in prostitution either on a casual basis or a full time basis,

A constable may arrest, without warrant, any person whom he sees committing one of these offences. It is, however, necessary to prove that the woman is a common prostitute, and therefore the usual practice is that she should be cautioned the first time she is seen committing the offence, a note being made of the fact of the caution having been given.

Makes it difficult to enforce unless the same constable catches the same woman and having been cautioned if then arrested she is recorded on record as a common prostitute

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

It suits her agenda as lone moral guardian of the victim's memory.

My instinct is to steer clear of this discussion. Some of these issues are well worth discussing...or even debating...just not in the context of Hallie Rubenhold.

In the same way that it is well worth exercising...just not in a gym that is in the middle of a Covid-19 controversy.

At least that's how I see it.

If one really wanted to hit Hallie where it hurts, one would point out that her book is old hat.

I've never seen anyone mention it, but some years ago there was a made for t.v. movie (in three parts) called Five Daughters.

It told the story of the lives of five women whose only connection was that they were all victims of the Ipswich Strangler, Steven Wright.

Sound familiar?

It didn't whitewash their lives, however.

But the harsh part is that one of the victim's father was outraged by the project. He didn't care for the gimmick.

In the end, historians are voyeurs...including Hallie.

There is no guarantee that the victims or their families would want us to have been poking around in their lives.

In the case of Five Daughters, most did, but some didn't.

[c.d.]

Decent men constantly demanding cheap sex from indecent women.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

c.d.

[caz]

'...It is impossible to stop the supply when the demand exists...'

And there you have it, Harry.

Decent men constantly demanding cheap sex from indecent women.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Do'nt we all speculate without facts.Now Nichols and Chapman were turned away from lodgings because they didn't have the money for a bed,not because they were prostitutes.How they spent the time between then and the time they were killed,is not known.That they were alledged to have prostituted themselves on occassions is not proof they regularly did so.Yes I have read there were thousands of such women in Whitechapel,but how that conclusion was reached is not disclosed.If true,it begs the question of why so few women were reported on the streets ,by witnesses ,on the nights of the murders.They were frightened off one might reply,but the real scare didn't begin immediantly,probably not untill after Chapman's death,so where and what were those thousands doing in the meantime.
I could cite authors who speak of dark and deserted streets of Whitechapel.Others who declare the streets to be thronged day and night.What the truth is would be a guess on my behalf,so I cannot determine the probability of what I read.So thousands of prostitutes?Were there any decent women In Whitechapel in 1888?

Depends how one defines 'decent', Harry.

Isn't that precisely the problem with Hallie R? That she seems to equate prostitution with 'indecent' behavior, rather than the direst financial need imaginable?

Love,

Caz
X

[jmenges]

I have read there were thousands of such women in Whitechapel,but how that conclusion was reached is not disclosed.

The conclusion was reached when Warren roughly tabulated the numbers based on what his constables reported over a period of a few months.

Letter sent by Commisioner Warren to the Home Office on Oct 25, 1888. ( Mepo file 3/141, ff. 158-9)

'In reply to your letter of 22nd October there has been no return hitherto of the probable numbers of brothels in London, but during the last few months I have been tabulating the observations of Constables on their beats, and have come to the conclusion that there are 62 houses known to be brothels on the H or Whitechapel Divn and probably a great number of other houses which are more or less intermitently used for such purpose.

The number of CLH's ( Common lodging houses) is 233, accomodating 8,530 persons. We have no means of ascertaining what women are prostitutes and who are not, but there is an impression that there are about 1200 prostitutes, mostly of a very low condition.

...Mr. Charrington has been very active in evicting the holders of brothels... the result however is not conductive to morality. The unfortunate women are driven to plying for hire among respectable people, or else execise their calling in the streets.

The lower class of CLH's is naturally frequented by prostitutes, thieves and tramps as there is nowhere else for them to go, and no law to prevent their congregating there.

I fear that in driving the brothel keepers away from certain neighbourhoods much is being done to demoralize London generally. It is impossible to stop the supply when the demand exists...

I think that it is probable that a good number of people who are not married live together at the CLH's, but this also takes place in hotels in the West End.

I do not think there is any reason whatever for supposing that the murderer of Whitechapel has necessarily any connection with the condition of Whitechapel (or) is one of the ordinary denizens of that place..."

JM