Originally posted by PaulB
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-02-2021, 10:27 AM.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
-
Originally posted by PaulB View PostHallie 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.Best wishes,
Tristan
Comment
-
Originally posted by PaulB View PostHallie 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
-
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.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
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!
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.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
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.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
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.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
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.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by jmenges View PostI’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
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jmenges View PostI’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.
JMRegards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by jmenges View PostI’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
Comment