A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[PaulB]

I’d forgotten about the A-Z Paul. Any rough ideas when it will appear?

To be honest, your guess is as good as mine. We've all been working very hard on it, but we've had to overcome lots of problems just working together. This ranges from keeping a 'database' that's up-to-date, that can be used cross-platform, trying to work around the database's habit of deleting material we've just entered... A lot of time was wasted trying to transfer the entries to a different 'database', which has delayed us. And then there's just the time-consuming day-to-day stuff like making sure the cross-referencing is in place. We have well over 1,000 entries, so that's doesn't make things easy. But we'll get there.

[Varqm]

Or even a link to a webpage were the reasons were given and they just ignored it?

[Varqm]

Of course we all use research of those who have come before us. The distinction is how many of us claim to be telling the "Untold Lives" of multiple people and then failing to provide a single new factual detail about those people and then claiming that the people's who research we stole have ignored the victims. See the slight difference?





She is not "giving back", she is giving. It is two years on from the publication of her book and she's still attacking Ripperologists for the sole reason that it gives her victimhood credit and raises her profile. She is, in short, a bully. Now if you choose to equate the actions of a bully as being no different than those of the people who are defending themselves against her, then that is of course a comparison you are entitled to make. It's not one I think can be defended from a position of reason however.

So I gather a response giving the reasons why the C5 were prostituting that early morning, either from their actions, their history, or the killer's victim profile, or where they were found, were given, and HR and her readers just ignored it?

[Ally]

As for Ms Rubenhold's stealing others research, don't we all use the research of those who have come before us.

Of course we all use research of those who have come before us. The distinction is how many of us claim to be telling the "Untold Lives" of multiple people and then failing to provide a single new factual detail about those people and then claiming that the people's who research we stole have ignored the victims. See the slight difference?

. Also I think the snarky comments about Ms Rubenhold are uncalled for even if she is giving back as good as she gets. This type of behavior really doesn't get us any where and should not be included in a debate over the merits of her work. There I have said my peace.

She is not "giving back", she is giving. It is two years on from the publication of her book and she's still attacking Ripperologists for the sole reason that it gives her victimhood credit and raises her profile. She is, in short, a bully. Now if you choose to equate the actions of a bully as being no different than those of the people who are defending themselves against her, then that is of course a comparison you are entitled to make. It's not one I think can be defended from a position of reason however.

[harry]

I haven't read HR's book,so cannot condemn or compliment her,but I have read numerous JTR books,and of course been entertained by my own and others comments on these boards.From memory,in all the years i have been posting,I have never reffered to the victims as prostitutes.Why?.Well I do not know exactly how a woman has to behave to be labelled one.I know the dictionary definition,I have been,through work and military experience,in situations which brought me into contact with
women described as prostitutes.Still I am not sure I would be correct in describing the rippers victims as of that class.
Maybe a more educated person could answer this simple question,what defines a prostitute? Should that not be first established.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wish I'd said that instead of the indulgent post I made. I'm not sure that eyes really are being opened. I've not personally seen much evidence of that. It would cheer me immensely if it is true.

If I’m being too optimistic then it’s a first for me Paul.

Lets hope. But I think that female voices (like the ones in the podcast) are the likeliest to get through and the most difficult to label. So the more that here from them the better. After all if they’re not going to listen to someone like you then they’re not going to listen to any male Ripperologist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd love to update the book and I have been in discussions with my publisher, but currently, I'm up to my eyes with the new A to Z, which has turned into a full-time job for all of us.

I’d forgotten about the A-Z Paul. Any rough ideas when it will appear?

[PaulB]

Semper, Rubenhold isn’t “giving back as good as she gets.” She initiated it. She began with an agenda. From the very beginning, she demonised Ripperologists. Her and her acolytes constantly and falsely accuse us of misogyny and sexism. Ripperology just reacted.
She is entirely to blame. This was her plan all along. A panel of women react and she even insults them by saying that men sent them. She has to be seen through eventually. I used to get pretty angry about her but lately I’ve been getting less so (especially after the podcast) because it’s getting so silly that I think eyes are finally being opened. I have zero time or sympathy for her.

I wish I'd said that instead of the indulgent post I made. I'm not sure that eyes really are being opened. I've not personally seen much evidence of that. It would cheer me immensely if it is true.

[PaulB]

As it’s been nearly 20 years since The Definitive History Paul. Any thoughts on an updated and even more extensive follow up with a chapter on The Five?

I'd love to update the book and I have been in discussions with my publisher, but currently, I'm up to my eyes with the new A to Z, which has turned into a full-time job for all of us.

[PaulB]

To be fair, I re-read The Five and I can see why it has merit, in the eyes of the layman, at least it has gotten people to re-examine the Victims, and by People I mean the general layman. I remember the furor over Patricia Cornwell's book. These books with general appeal, which include a revisionist slant make you think if nothing else about the perceived view of history.
I remember the Furor, capital F over Patricia Cornwell's book. In fact when I told my sister I was posting on JTR Forums at the time I got a lecture from her why I should not waste my time with such narrow minded Cliquish People, or words to that effect.
Now I do not like Revisionists as I think Richard III was guilty as hell, but I can concede that he is not the villain that Shakespeare paints him as.
As for Ms Rubenhold's stealing others research, don't we all use the research of those who have come before us. I also want to apologize for my comment on Page 2. I am not really in a position to be challenging Ms Rubenholds book or the merits of it. Also I think the snarky comments about Ms Rubenhold are uncalled for even if she is giving back as good as she gets. This type of behavior really doesn't get us any where and should not be included in a debate over the merits of her work. There I have said my peace.

Thank you for your observations. I appreciate somebody standing up for The Five and it's interesting to read your reasons. It's also very rare to read this on a Ripper site like Casebook, so allow me the opportunity to indulge myself in a detailed reply. It's late (for me) and I am taking a break with a small coffee, so here goes...

The Five may have made people re-examine the victims, although I'm not sure that that is the case. It seems to me that people have uncritically bought into Hallie Rubenhold’s argument that the victims weren't prostitutes. People know that Ripperologists don't support her opinions, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody has asked them why.

The fury over Patricia Cornwell’s book had less to do with her book than with various comments she made about Ripperologists at publication time. Her book wasn’t revisionist, or no more so than many books proposing a new suspect.

Yes, revisionist history is a good thing, especially if it makes you think about the commonly accepted interpretation of an event or events. But The Five is not revisionist. As I understand it, revisionism is essentially looking at the known facts in a different way.Revisionism does not omit those facts that argue against one’s theory. The Five does that. Revisionism does not edit a source to make it appear to say something it didn’t. HR does that. For example, a police report says that Mary Nichols’ husband said he had stopped supporting her financially when he learned she had turned to prostitution, and that his actions had been upheld by the authorities. Wholly independently, women who knew Nichols and shared her lodgings stated that she earned her living on the streets. The Five claims that there is no evidence whatsoever that the victims were prostitutes. This testimony is NOT mentioned in The Five. There is no discussion of it. Not a jot of argument is offered to refute it. Ignoring the facts is not revisionist history. It’s plain bad history.

I wonder why your sister knew Ripperologists were narrow-minded and cliqish? Had she been on Casebook herself? Cliqish, I can maybe understand. I suppose any group that shares a common interest might appear to be that way, but narrow-minded is less easy to understand.

Yes, we all use the work of those who have gone before us, but we usually credit it when possible and if we’re honest we don’t claim or allow it to be claimed on our behalf that we discovered it. We don’t take the fruits of someone's labour, money and time, then knee him in the groin and paint him as a misogynist glorifying violence against women. That's what HR has done. Is it any wonder we're a bit snarky.

I’m afraid you have the wrong end of the stick about HR giving back as good as she gets. To put it bluntly, Ripperologists believe her book is wrong. In fact, we know it’s wrong. Facts are ignored, sources are edited, individuals like Edward Fairfield are misrepresented. It’s not Ripperologists being nasty about HR, its Ripperologists wanting HR to face up to the serious criticisms of her book. HR claims she’s a professional, Ripperologists want her to behave like one. We have Mark Ripper stressing he that he was not comparing her to a Holocaust denier, and we have HR straight away complaining wherever she could that Ripperologists had compared her to a Holocaust denier. This isn’t someone giving back as good as she gets, this is someone who initiates the trouble.

I agree with you that the behaviour of Ripperologists does not always reflect well on them., but then again Ripperologists are used to not being taken seriously, so from time to time their anger at being made to look foolish spills over. The merits of her work have been stated, but we’re belittled, dismissed, misrepresented and lied about. A snarky comment is small beer compared to all that, don’t you think?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Semper, Rubenhold isn’t “giving back as good as she gets.” She initiated it. She began with an agenda. From the very beginning she demonised Ripperologists. Her and her acolytes constantly and falsely accuse us of misogyny and sexism. Ripperology just reacted.
She is entirely to blame. This was her plan all along. A panel of women react and she even insults them by saying that men sent them. She has to be seen through eventually. I used to get pretty angry about her but lately I’ve been getting less so (especially after the podcast) because it’s getting so silly that I think eyes are finally being opened. I have zero time or sympathy for her.

[Semper_Eadem]

To be fair, I re-read The Five and I can see why it has merit, in the eyes of the layman, at least it has gotten people to re-examine the Victims, and by People I mean the general layman. I remember the furor over Patricia Cornwell's book. These books with general appeal, which include a revisionist slant make you think if nothing else about the perceived view of history.
I remember the Furor, capital F over Patricia Cornwell's book. In fact when I told my sister I was posting on JTR Forums at the time I got a lecture from her why I should not waste my time with such narrow minded Cliquish People, or words to that effect.
Now I do not like Revisionists as I think Richard III was guilty as hell, but I can concede that he is not the villain that Shakespeare paints him as.
As for Ms Rubenhold's stealing others research, don't we all use the research of those who have come before us. I also want to apologize for my comment on Page 2. I am not really in a position to be challenging Ms Rubenholds book or the merits of it. Also I think the snarky comments about Ms Rubenhold are uncalled for even if she is giving back as good as she gets. This type of behavior really doesn't get us any where and should not be included in a debate over the merits of her work. There I have said my peace.

[Losmandris]

Ah, there are a couple of problems with that. I can't write fiction and I don't know a lot about the real Wild West. The latter hasn't been a problem for some western writers, but the former is a bit of an obstacle.

Oh well worth an ask!

[Semper_Eadem]

Ditto

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, there are a couple of problems with that. I can't write fiction and I don't know a lot about the real Wild West. The latter hasn't been a problem for some western writers, but the former is a bit of an obstacle.

As it’s been nearly 20 years since The Definitive History Paul. Any thoughts on an updated and even more extensive follow up with a chapter on The Five?