A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[PaulB]

Don't be ridiculous. He's with the media. He doesn't have to actually verify the facts on anything before jumping to a conclusion and putting it before the public. We've left that world behind.

Some people in the media still care about the facts. Dr Matthew Sweet evidently isn't one of them, but there are some poor souls out there who can still recall more enlightened times when the truth sort of mattered. Or at least I hope so.

[Losmandris]

As I have mentioned before. in the eyes of many a good story outweighs the facts. It is really a sad state of affairs. Makes you wonder where it will actually end?

[PaulB]

As I have mentioned before. in the eyes of many a good story outweighs the facts. It is really a sad state of affairs. Makes you wonder where it will actually end?

I know where it will end for me, packing in Ripper studies altogether, which looks an increasingly attractive possibility. I'm afraid I see 'Jack the Ripper' as a legitimate subject for study, and it would be horrible to see it said in serious history books that the police routinely branded homeless and destitute women prostitutes, just on the say-so of Hallie Rubenhold. But you're probably right and the good story will prevail, and I'll write westerns... I used to read a lot of Louis L'Amour once upon a time.

[Varqm]

As I have mentioned before. in the eyes of many a good story outweighs the facts. It is really a sad state of affairs. Makes you wonder where it will actually end?

The influence of TV, movies ,media is too much, not anytime soon. Like I cannot believe Qanon worked.

[Varqm]

I know where it will end for me, packing in Ripper studies altogether, which looks an increasingly attractive possibility. I'm afraid I see 'Jack the Ripper' as a legitimate subject for study, and it would be horrible to see it said in serious history books that the police routinely branded homeless and destitute women prostitutes, just on the say-so of Hallie Rubenhold. But you're probably right and the good story will prevail, and I'll write westerns... I used to read a lot of Louis L'Amour once upon a time.

People who are interested in the case and actually read the inquests and newspaper reports will know otherwise. There will always be the ill-informed.With a big caveat that this was in 1888, with scant info, this case will be "solved". So there is more to the "story".

[PaulB]

People who are interested in the case and actually read the inquests and newspaper reports will know otherwise. There will always be the ill-informed.With a big caveat that this was in 1888, with scant info, this case will be "solved". So there is more to the "story".

The question is whether the ill-informed will outnumber the informed. We're talking about Rubenhold's stuff being uncritically accepted, finding its way into mainstream history books, and being taught in schools. We shouldn't be complacent about the already muddied waters of Ripper history being muddied further.

[AndrewL]

At the risk of sounding obsequious, Paul, please don’t leave Ripper studies! You are needed as much as ever.

[PaulB]

Thank you, Andrew. I appreciate that. I actually have no immediate plans to leave Ripper studies. This thread is about what I thought was a particularly professional panel discussion in which time was given to The Five, or rather the impression the book, the author, and the author's considerable number of followers give of Ripperology as largely misogynists glorifying the Ripper and violence against women. We bitch among ourselves, but nobody hears our voices because we are discounted. The book's praises are loudly sung over on Twitter, especially by a large number of teachers and academics, even a serious suggestion made to alter a school text book to fit with Rubenhold's narrative, To the best of my knowledge, not one of those people has checked out the concerns of Ripperologists. Not one. It seems they don't attach importance to what we say. That's what concerns me. I don't think 'Jack the Ripper' is all about the identity of the murderer, I think it is a subject for legitimate historical study: the time, the place, the people, and the whys and wherefores. There seems to be very little point in investing time, effort and money into researching the subject, if all that's going to happen is that we're ignored, or have some author scour the websites and take and publish the fruits of all that effort without acknowledgement. Or in the case of Rubenhold, take the information Ripperologists found and imply that it's her research and that she's giving the voice back to the victims, who we have otherwise treated as little more than cardboard cutouts. If that is what happens, then that's when I shall quit Ripper studies. That's what I meant, I think. I suppose I kind of see historical Ripperology drifting aimlessly down the Swanny and nobody is doing anything about it. Or maybe they are and I'm not seeing it. Or maybe I'm just depressed, having realised that I have reach the age when those quick cremation ads on daytime telly are targeted at me. That's very sobering that is.

[Losmandris]

I know where it will end for me, packing in Ripper studies altogether, which looks an increasingly attractive possibility. I'm afraid I see 'Jack the Ripper' as a legitimate subject for study, and it would be horrible to see it said in serious history books that the police routinely branded homeless and destitute women prostitutes, just on the say-so of Hallie Rubenhold. But you're probably right and the good story will prevail, and I'll write westerns... I used to read a lot of Louis L'Amour once upon a time.

I am in no way encouraging you to leave the field especially as a result of the machinations of HR but I would love to read one of your westerns, should you write one! Make it all gritty and dark and you will have a fan for life in me. I think you would be great at it I reckon.

[PaulB]

I am in no way encouraging you to leave the field especially as a result of the machinations of HR but I would love to read one of your westerns, should you write one! Make it all gritty and dark and you will have a fan for life in me. I think you would be great at it I reckon.

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.

[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?

[Semper_Eadem]

Ditto

[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]

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.

[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.