A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[MrBarnett]

I understand she got a majority of her work from Ripperologists and others who have studied the case. But she got some stuff from two of Walkowitz’s works, which Crooks has questioned. So not only is she basically taking a giant, steaming crap all over Ripperologists, but her work based on Walkowitz could be crap, too.

She actually referenced Walkowitz in one of her Twitter posts last week and added some comments based on it. Which was actually funny to me.

The biggest reason why I started looking for academic work is because she almost always pulls rank with her credentials and work in disagreements or when she talks about Ripperologists saying how wrong her conclusions are. So I was like, “Ok, smart***, let’s find some academic work on your book that refutes your conclusions and questions your methods.” I didn’t find what I was looking for, but I found something that shows she is dead wrong.

That’s something we genuinely need, Linotte, feminists with an academic background to challenge those aspects of HR’s work and its promotion.

As a man, if I say that the limited evidence we have convinces me that poor Polly Nichols was on occasion forced to sell her body to survive, its easy to stigmatise me as a misogynist or someone who is sexually stimulated by the idea.

And if I question HR’s grasp of English history, I’m told she is an unparalleled researcher with an academic background.

Until, of course, I’m blocked, as all the rational objectors were, leaving only a throwback to the 1970s with all his outdated attitudes to represent Ripperology.

[Linotte]

That’s something we genuinely need, Linotte, feminists with an academic background to challenge those aspects of HR’s work and its promotion.

As a man, if I say that the limited evidence we have convinces me that poor Polly Nichols was on occasion forced to sell her body to survive, its easy to stigmatise me as a misogynist or someone who is sexually stimulated by the idea.

And if I question HR’s grasp of English history, I’m told she is an unparalleled researcher with an academic background.

Until, of course, I’m blocked, as all the rational objectors were, leaving only a throwback to the 1970s with all his outdated attitudes to represent Ripperology.

I just have my bachelors degree in English lit and French language and lit. So no postgrad work, but I am a darned good researcher and if I am determined to find something, I’m going to find it. Or something close to it. I’m driven by defiance and spite.

[MrBarnett]

I just have my bachelors degree in English lit and French language and lit. So no postgrad work, but I am a darned good researcher and if I am determined to find something, I’m going to find it. Or something close to it. I’m driven by defiance and spite.

Sounds like you’re perfect for the job!

I’m not sure how much effort Hallie actually put into researching the 5. Apparently she had a researcher from Leeds (?) Uni at her beck and call and most of the work had already been done for her, so it was just a matter of adding some contextual padding and turning the raw research into a marketable narrative.

The result is certainly readable.

[Linotte]

Sounds like you’re perfect for the job!

I’m not sure how much effort Hallie actually put into researching the 5. Apparently she had a researcher from Leeds (?) Uni at her beck and call and most of the work had already been done for her, so it was just a matter of adding some contextual padding and turning the raw research into a marketable narrative.

The result is certainly readable.

Interesting information! It certainly explains why HR can’t readily answer any questions about the research and just replies, “Read the book.” And why she hasn’t been on a podcast like Most Notorious with a host who asks probing questions. She (very likely) didn’t do the work. Most people who HAVE done the research have that stuff seared into their brain. Tom Wescott is a perfect example.

[MrBarnett]

Interesting information! It certainly explains why HR can’t readily answer any questions about the research and just replies, “Read the book.” And why she hasn’t been on a podcast like Most Notorious with a host who asks probing questions. She (very likely) didn’t do the work. Most people who HAVE done the research have that stuff seared into their brain. Tom Wescott is a perfect example.

Hi Linotte,

What I meant by most of the work having been done for her was that most of the facts were already known. How much of the background material was researched by HR and how much by her researcher, I don’t know.

Gary

[Losmandris]

Interesting information! It certainly explains why HR can’t readily answer any questions about the research and just replies, “Read the book.” And why she hasn’t been on a podcast like Most Notorious with a host who asks probing questions. She (very likely) didn’t do the work. Most people who HAVE done the research have that stuff seared into their brain. Tom Wescott is a perfect example.

I think this is it. There is no doubt she is a very good storyteller (I thought the five read like something written by Catherine Cookson) but I would question her credentials as a 'real' historian or academic. If she was I don't think there would be such a brouhaha as is. Lets face it, the book should be considered borderline fiction. All this claptrap around the victims no being prostitutes and being killed when sleeping is, as has been readily pointed out just a marketing ploy. It is really easily to come up with a theory if that theory is essentially based on a work of fiction. Just look at the whole royal conspiracy, sounded great and totally believable to those who read the book (and nothing else on the subject but the book), hence they believed it entirely. The same has happened here. By branding herself as both a feminist and a historian HR has been able to secure herself a very vocal and influential group of supporters. She is no expert in the field that's for such, just a half decent fiction writer with a canny sense for marketing. Would be give her some respect, if she wasn't so conceited.

[Linotte]

I think this is it. There is no doubt she is a very good storyteller (I thought the five read like something written by Catherine Cookson) but I would question her credentials as a 'real' historian or academic. If she was I don't think there would be such a brouhaha as is. Lets face it, the book should be considered borderline fiction. All this claptrap around the victims no being prostitutes and being killed when sleeping is, as has been readily pointed out just a marketing ploy. It is really easily to come up with a theory if that theory is essentially based on a work of fiction. Just look at the whole royal conspiracy, sounded great and totally believable to those who read the book (and nothing else on the subject but the book), hence they believed it entirely. The same has happened here. By branding herself as both a feminist and a historian HR has been able to secure herself a very vocal and influential group of supporters. She is no expert in the field that's for such, just a half decent fiction writer with a canny sense for marketing. Would be give her some respect, if she wasn't so conceited.

She has an MPhil in 18th century women’s history. So she does not have a doctorate, despite the odd wording in one of her biographies, and even if she did, it’s not applicable to this particular time in history. So really, she’s coming into Ripperology on an equal level with me with my bachelor’s or John Doe who went to a trade school but loves studying history in his spare time. I’d be much more inclined to listen to Dr. Fern Riddell, who actually has credentials in the era, or a local historian, than I would Hallie Rubenhold about this case.

[MrBarnett]

She has an MPhil in 18th century women’s history. So she does not have a doctorate, despite the odd wording in one of her biographies, and even if she did, it’s not applicable to this particular time in history. So really, she’s coming into Ripperology on an equal level with me with my bachelor’s or John Doe who went to a trade school but loves studying history in his spare time. I’d be much more inclined to listen to Dr. Fern Riddell, who actually has credentials in the era, or a local historian, than I would Hallie Rubenhold about this case.

Yes, and it’s clear from how she approached the Kelly section of the book that she is far more familiar with the historical west end sex trade than she is with that in the east end.

She implies ‘Johnto’ may have been a guards officer based in west London and supports that with two misleading statements. Deception or inadequate research?

[MrBarnett]

Yes, and it’s clear from how she approached the Kelly section of the book that she is far more familiar with the historical west end sex trade than she is with that in the east end.

She implies ‘Johnto’ may have been a guards officer based in west London and supports that with two misleading statements. Deception or inadequate research?

She tells us that in the 1880s the 2nd Scots Guards were based in Westminster and overseas. What she leaves out is that at the beginning of October, 1886, they relocated to the Tower barracks, effectively in the east end, a few minutes walk away from Breezers Hill and Pennington Street.


She claims it is unlikely that a young man from rural Wales would have joined a London-based Scottish regiment. Nonsense. The enlistment records of the Scots Guards show they attracted lads from across Britain and Ireland.

[Losmandris]

She has an MPhil in 18th century women’s history. So she does not have a doctorate, despite the odd wording in one of her biographies, and even if she did, it’s not applicable to this particular time in history. So really, she’s coming into Ripperology on an equal level with me with my bachelor’s or John Doe who went to a trade school but loves studying history in his spare time. I’d be much more inclined to listen to Dr. Fern Riddell, who actually has credentials in the era, or a local historian, than I would Hallie Rubenhold about this case.

She is just making things up to fit the story. With all the added fiction I am sure it is pretty convincing to the lay person. As you mention her academic credentials do not apply her but again they are just enough to convince her followers she is an expert. Other academics in the field should know better. However I am sure they are scared of the backlash that would inevitably come if they challenged her. Therefore they are willing to let it go. Its not like she is challenging some great historical event (though I am sure a lot of here would disagree maybe?).

[MrBarnett]

She is just making things up to fit the story. With all the added fiction I am sure it is pretty convincing to the lay person. As you mention her academic credentials do not apply her but again they are just enough to convince her followers she is an expert. Other academics in the field should know better. However I am sure they are scared of the backlash that would inevitably come if they challenged her. Therefore they are willing to let it go. Its not like she is challenging some great historical event (though I am sure a lot of here would disagree maybe?).

Facts are distorted or omitted to support the narrative. One classic example is this (from JTRForums):


Hallie tells us:

“An 1844 inquiry undertaken into the state of housing in populous London districts found that buildings situated in enclosed courts and narrow alleys, like the one in which the Walkers lived, ‘were some of the ‘worst conditioned ... badly ventilated and filthy ... in the entire neighbourhood.’ Most families shared one room, the average size of which ‘measured from 8 to 10 feet, by 8 feet, and from 6 to 8 feet from floor to ceiling.’ (5) Into these compact rooms were pushed entire families. Dawes Court, which had once been a large timber-framed and plaster house had been subdivided into three separate dwellings, before being apportioned once more into individually rented rooms, inhabited by no fewer than forty-five individuals.

(5) First Report of the Commissioners for Inquiring Into the State of Large Towns and Populous Districts, vol. 1 (London, 1844), pp. 111-13”


If you look at the source cited, you’ll see that HR’s methodology of leaving out the inconvenient bits is employed yet again. The report actually says, ‘Each room measure[sic] from 8 to 10 feet by 8, and from 6 to 8 feet from the floor to the ceiling, in the neighbourhood of Field Lane.

Field Lane was on the other side of Holborn, in an area that had not been consumed by fire in 1666 and therefore contained many pre-fire timber-framed and plastered houses.

Hallie presumably couldn’t find a source which supported her claim that Polly had been born in a ‘cramped old room’, so she used a quote about rooms in another area of London and left out the street name.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/victoriana/1888/places-aa/31853-dawes-court

[Losmandris]

Facts are distorted or omitted to support the narrative. One classic example is this (from JTRForums):


Hallie tells us:

“An 1844 inquiry undertaken into the state of housing in populous London districts found that buildings situated in enclosed courts and narrow alleys, like the one in which the Walkers lived, ‘were some of the ‘worst conditioned ... badly ventilated and filthy ... in the entire neighbourhood.’ Most families shared one room, the average size of which ‘measured from 8 to 10 feet, by 8 feet, and from 6 to 8 feet from floor to ceiling.’ (5) Into these compact rooms were pushed entire families. Dawes Court, which had once been a large timber-framed and plaster house had been subdivided into three separate dwellings, before being apportioned once more into individually rented rooms, inhabited by no fewer than forty-five individuals.

(5) First Report of the Commissioners for Inquiring Into the State of Large Towns and Populous Districts, vol. 1 (London, 1844), pp. 111-13”


If you look at the source cited, you’ll see that HR’s methodology of leaving out the inconvenient bits is employed yet again. The report actually says, ‘Each room measure[sic] from 8 to 10 feet by 8, and from 6 to 8 feet from the floor to the ceiling, in the neighbourhood of Field Lane.

Field Lane was on the other side of Holborn, in an area that had not been consumed by fire in 1666 and therefore contained many pre-fire timber-framed and plastered houses.

Hallie presumably couldn’t find a source which supported her claim that Polly had been born in a ‘cramped old room’, so she used a quote about rooms in another area of London and left out the street name.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/vict...53-dawes-court

As the saying goes 'What are a few facts to get in the way of a good story?'

[MrBarnett]

As the saying goes 'What are a few facts to get in the way of a good story?'

There are numerous examples of this kind of thing which in my opinion damage the author’s credibility. Those who raised them were immediately blocked on Twitter, leaving only Trevor with his jokes about lawnmowers and dildos to represent Ripperology.

[MrBarnett]

She claimed Charles Dickens was a shoe black…

So she seems to be a little bit shaky about what was probably London’s most significant historical event (the fire) and about the life of its most famous author.

An ‘historian’? Really?

[MrBarnett]

Of course, this is all a distraction from a discussion of her feminist integrity. Sorry.