Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by PaulB View Post
    Hallie Rubenhold is wrong and she knows she's wrong, that's why she avoids engaging with her critics and does everything she can to diminish them. But this isn’t about Hallie Rubenhold, it's about correct historical methodology and historical accuracy. No self-respecting historian omits evidence that’s counter to their argument. No responsible historian edits a source to make it appear to say something it didn’t. These are among the things Rubenhold is accused of having done. No self-respecting historian (or anyone else) should decide whether she did these things or not without establishing the facts. Her fans haven’t done that. One day responsible historians will do it.
    Well said Paul. The fact that she refuses to engage and challenge the points made against her speaks volumes. She just hides behind the protective wall of her uncritical supporters who simply ‘want’ her to be correct.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-02-2021, 10:27 AM.
    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


    • #77
      Originally posted by PaulB View Post
      Hallie Rubenhold is wrong and she knows she's wrong, that's why she avoids engaging with her critics and does everything she can to diminish them. But this isn’t about Hallie Rubenhold, it's about correct historical methodology and historical accuracy. No self-respecting historian omits evidence that’s counter to their argument. No responsible historian edits a source to make it appear to say something it didn’t. These are among the things Rubenhold is accused of having done. No self-respecting historian (or anyone else) should decide whether she did these things or not without establishing the facts. Her fans haven’t done that. One day responsible historians will do it.
      I suspect a lot of historians know perfectly well what she has done and behind closed doors are either appalled or bemused. However they are likely unwilling to put their reputations on the line to call it out publicly knowing they could be accused of all sorts.
      Best Regards,

      Tristan

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by PaulB View Post
        Hallie Rubenhold is wrong and she knows she's wrong, that's why she avoids engaging with her critics and does everything she can to diminish them. But this isn’t about Hallie Rubenhold, it's about correct historical methodology and historical accuracy. No self-respecting historian omits evidence that’s counter to their argument. No responsible historian edits a source to make it appear to say something it didn’t. These are among the things Rubenhold is accused of having done. No self-respecting historian (or anyone else) should decide whether she did these things or not without establishing the facts. Her fans haven’t done that. One day responsible historians will do it.

        I honestly don’t think a paper or something questioning her methods and conclusions is going to come from a UK historian anytime soon. With COVID, the economic situation, and budget issues in a lot of university history departments, I just don’t think they feel comfortable doing that, or they have their own reasons for hitching their star to her wagon.

        Because this book and the case cross into so many fields, I think we’d be more likely to see something coming out of gender studies, sociology, social work, or even some other humanities field. And I think it would come from outside the UK, outside of her sphere of influence, probably the US or even Canada or Australia or Ireland. If someone is ambitious enough and is willing to take on the risk, they’ll do it.
        Last edited by Linotte; 11-02-2021, 01:32 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Linotte View Post



          I honestly don’t think a paper or something questioning her methods and conclusions is going to come from a UK historian anytime soon. With COVID, the economic situation, and budget issues in a lot of university history departments, I just don’t think they feel comfortable doing that, or they have their own reasons for hitching their star to her wagon.

          Because this book and the case cross into so many fields, I think we’d be more likely to see something coming out of gender studies, sociology, social work, or even some other humanities field. And I think it would come from outside the UK, outside of her sphere of influence, probably the US or even Canada or Australia or Ireland. If someone is ambitious enough and is willing to take on the risk, they’ll do it.
          I don't expect any historian to write a paper questioning her methods or the accuracy of her facts and arguments, but I'm surprised that they haven't questioned those things for the sake of their own curiosity. I appreciate that most of them may think of Ripperologists as several rungs down the ladder below flat earthers, and listening to Trevor Marriott will have done nothing to diminish that view, but you'd think that somewhere, someone would have had the curiosity to find out what our objections are.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Ally View Post

            I was really quite flabbergasted by the Mark Ripper thing. Either I missed that bit of drama entirely or it went down during one of my migraine weeks and it slid right out of my head. Truly flooring. She's still spinning that outrageous garbage on Twitter even today. I went back and listened to that bit in the podcast to see if there was ANY possible way that she could have misinterpreted it, just because I'm a fool and do attempt to see all sides before judging, but boy do I have my judgy pants on thoroughly after I re-listened to that bit. There was no way to misinterpret it, I mean he said about 9 times, "I am in no way comparing these two situation on any level, just using a quote from a book I think applies", and he said it like 9 different ways. I mean at this point it's clear, that this is her "great opus" upon which she intends to hitch her wagon and any criticism, no matter how valid, is viewed as nothing more than an attack. She can't take it on board, so she's just wildly spinning us all as frothing, insane azzholes out to "get her". It's quite a textbook example of bigotry in action. Broadbrush a group with bad actions and therefore attempt to dehumanize and delegitimize them. And yes, I am calling her a bigot. Because her actions fit the literal textbook definition of bigotry.

            Bigot - a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

            Based on my interaction with Ms. Rubenhold this morning, I will state that appears to be the case.

            Thank you for your compliments on the podcast, they are appreciated!
            I don't know why I missed this response from Ally. In case anyone was wondering what it is about, HR said that Ripperologists compared her to a Holocaust denier, which in itself is a claim that comes from low in the gutter. Especially if it is untrue, which it is. As we know, HR edited a source to make it appear that it was saying something it didn't. Mark Ripper was reading a book about - please note, about, not by - a Holocaust denier named David Irving. The book was Telling Lies About Hitler by a very distinguished and highly respected historian, Sir Richard J Evans, who had been Regius Professor of History at Cambridge University until his retirement in 2014. In the book Mark read a condemnation of several things Sir Richard said no responsible historian would do, such as altering sources, and Mark cited Sir Richard on a podcast review of The Five. He named his source, of course, but stated that he was not drawing any comparison between Irving and Rubenhold, and he emphasised that they were in altogether different leagues.

            The next thing we know is that Rubenhold is claiming that Mark - or Ripperologists - had compared her to a Holocaust denier. And it was a lie she repeated several times.

            Not only did Mark state very clearly that he was not comparing Rubenhold to Irving, he was discussing the alteration of source materials and he cited the opinion of a distinguished historian on that matter (just in case there were some uneducated wallies out there who think it's okay to commit such venality). It so happened that Sir Richard said it in a book about a Holocaust denier. That was enough for Rubenhold to declare what she did, despite it being denied that no such comparison was being made.

            All you can do is shake your head in wonderment.

            Last edited by PaulB; 11-03-2021, 12:55 PM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by PaulB View Post

              Not only did Mark state very clearly that he was not comparing Rubenhold to Irving, he was discussing the alteration of source materials and he cited the opinion of a distinguished historian on that matter (just in case there were some uneducated wallies out there who think it's okay to commit such venality). It so happened that Sir Richard said it in a book about a Holocaust denier. That was enough for Rubenhold to declare what she did, despite it being denied that no such comparison was being made.

              All you can do is shake your head in wonderment.
              As I stated at the conference, it is my opinion that Rubenhold is intellectually lazy and worse, she is intellectually dishonest. While this trait won't matter a hill of beans in the Jack the Ripper case because, ...who cares? .... it will catch up with her one day. Her book on Crippen won't do as well, I don't believe because Crippen lacks the name recognition that Jack the Ripper does. And as I stated in the podcast, though she claims to abhor all the commercialism surrounding Jack the Ripper, it didn't prevent her from slapping HIS name on a book about the victims, purely for the commercial viability of it. She'll eventually attempt another book with more broad commercial appeal, and the same tricks on a broader appeal subject will be what brings her down. Well that and she's incapable of responding to anything without resorting to tantrums worthy of a toddler. From a psychological perspective, she's quite fascinating. I plan to follow her career with interest, purely for the entertainment value. With popcorn.

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

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Ally View Post

                As I stated at the conference, it is my opinion that Rubenhold is intellectually lazy and worse, she is intellectually dishonest. While this trait won't matter a hill of beans in the Jack the Ripper case because, ...who cares? .... it will catch up with her one day. Her book on Crippen won't do as well, I don't believe because Crippen lacks the name recognition that Jack the Ripper does. And as I stated in the podcast, though she claims to abhor all the commercialism surrounding Jack the Ripper, it didn't prevent her from slapping HIS name on a book about the victims, purely for the commercial viability of it. She'll eventually attempt another book with more broad commercial appeal, and the same tricks on a broader appeal subject will be what brings her down. Well that and she's incapable of responding to anything without resorting to tantrums worthy of a toddler. From a psychological perspective, she's quite fascinating. I plan to follow her career with interest, purely for the entertainment value. With popcorn.
                She'll come crashing down alright, and she may take down a few of the supporters who have spoken out in her favour whilst not checking the facts. The trouble is that she's already infected a couple of books by authors who've just swallowed her nonsense without checking, and I also noticed somewhere a newspaper report somewhere that repeated her crap about Edward Fairfield, and she (and her pet patsy, Trevor) have probably set back the public perception of Ripperology by about ten years. But, as you say, 'who cares'. It's a pity though. Make it a big tub of popcorn.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                  She'll come crashing down alright, and she may take down a few of the supporters who have spoken out in her favour whilst not checking the facts. The trouble is that she's already infected a couple of books by authors who've just swallowed her nonsense without checking, and I also noticed somewhere a newspaper report somewhere that repeated her crap about Edward Fairfield, and she (and her pet patsy, Trevor) have probably set back the public perception of Ripperology by about ten years. But, as you say, 'who cares'. It's a pity though. Make it a big tub of popcorn.
                  Yes, I suppose I don't have any shred of pity for people who jump on bandwagons without doing due diligence like "Doctor" Matthew Sweet of the BBC or anyone else who hitches themselves to her wagon without first kicking the tires (well that's a god-awful mixed metaphor). And I suppose I am immune to caring about the damage to the field of Ripperology, because we've been here before with PC and she had far bigger name recognition than Rubenhold, and also, because I have always been utterly indifferent to giving a flip for the opinions of others on my interests, my actions or my hobbies, but I do know that there are others who actually care about the good opinions of others and they might be affected by this. Which is a shame, and I feel for them. Being utterly indifferent to the opinions of the mob comes in handy, right up until they show up at your door with the torches and the pitchforks. That's when the armament comes in handy, though....

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

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I’m holding out hope that her book on the Crippen case will be infinitely better than ‘The Five’.
                    In that there’s a real potential for new information.

                    JM

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                      I’m holding out hope that her book on the Crippen case will be infinitely better than ‘The Five’.
                      In that there’s a real potential for new information.

                      JM
                      The world needs wide-eyed optimists like you to balance out pessimistic curmudgeony types like me. Like Charlie Brown, and that football.

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

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        We pessimists are the happy people who work out what will go wrong before it happens.

                        Optimists are the unhappy ones that do not.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                          I’m holding out hope that her book on the Crippen case will be infinitely better than ‘The Five’.
                          In that there’s a real potential for new information.

                          JM
                          I’m wondering if she’ll suggest that Cora committed suicide
                          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


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            I’m wondering if she’ll suggest that Cora committed suicide
                            I think the suggestion will be that Cora was asleep in the cellar when...

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                              I’m holding out hope that her book on the Crippen case will be infinitely better than ‘The Five’.
                              In that there’s a real potential for new information.

                              JM
                              The potential is there, but The Five doesn't encourage one to think that she'll try very hard to find it, or that she has the ability to find it even if she does (everyone who writes about Crippen looks for new information, so if it hasn't been found it is probably hard to find). Did HR have any interest in Crippen until recently? I mean, there is a suggestion that HR discovered the Ripper victims when casting about for a prostitutes topic after her previous books or maybe after Harlots, and she said then that she was surprised to discover that the Ripper's victims weren't brothel prostitutes or even regular street prostitutes. So her knowledge of the case was nearly nil to nil. Crippen is likely the same. A couple of years from conception to publication doesn't leave much time to go digging lots of new information. Not that I am prejudging. I have a completely open mind. HR can now say that I am prejudging with a closed mind.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                                I think the suggestion will be that Cora was asleep in the cellar when...
                                Have you received your review copy already then Paul?
                                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

                                Working...
                                X