A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[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]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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 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]

HR’s work is based on decades of research undertaken, largely, by those she demonises as Ripperologists. It is not an academic feminist tract, it’s a work of popular history which uses feminism as a shield against those more knowledgeable than her who might challenge her conclusions. The TV mini series must have been discussed even before the book was published. Or perhaps that’s a cynical, uninformed, male non-academic view.

Perhaps we could discuss Rubenhold’s 35-page contribution to our understanding of Mary Kelly in terms of its academic significance.

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.

[MrBarnett]

Yes, but HR’s work is based on studies done in the 1980s-1990s, and the research is very dated. Crooks is suggesting a different viewpoint that actually reiterates what Ripperologists already know. It supports the standard narrative of the case. Hallie is relying more on 20th-century feminist thought about it, whereas I believe Crooks’s paper identifies why this is problematic.

HR’s work is based on decades of research undertaken, largely, by those she demonises as Ripperologists. It is not an academic feminist tract, it’s a work of popular history which uses feminism as a shield against those more knowledgeable than her who might challenge her conclusions. The TV mini series must have been discussed even before the book was published. Or perhaps that’s a cynical, uninformed, male non-academic view.

Perhaps we could discuss Rubenhold’s 35-page contribution to our understanding of Mary Kelly in terms of its academic significance.

[Linotte]

Thanks Linotte. I had sort of figured that out.

But if an academic doesn’t grasp the meaning of the word ‘vagrant’ and suggests prostitution - allegedly the world’s oldest profession - and manual labour are ‘unconventional’ forms of work, why should we bother to wade through her almost impenetrable prose to try to work out whether she has anything of value to say?

‘I know big words’ comes across very clearly. ‘I have a unique insight into Victorian East End life’ seems somewhat unlikely.

HR, or more often her acolytes, have played the academic card time and again when mere mortals have questioned her research.

Yes, but HR’s work is based on studies done in the 1980s-1990s, and the research is very dated. Crooks is suggesting a different viewpoint that actually reiterates what Ripperologists already know. It supports the standard narrative of the case. Hallie is relying more on 20th-century feminist thought about it, whereas I believe Crooks’s paper identifies why this is problematic.

[MrBarnett]

1. I think she means the poorer classes by that.
2. The second sentence suggests to me that at that time it was understood that casual prostitution was a form of casual labor for poor women.

One of the things that ticked me off was HR asking how a ‘labourer’ like Louis Boekee* could have afforded to acquire a property portfolio. Leaving aside the fact that there’s no evidence that he was ever more than a tenant at 79, Pennington Street, the evidence suggests he was a gas fitter, not a ‘labourer’.


*The spelling I use after discussions on JTRForums with a descendant of the family.

[MrBarnett]

I agree. Which again drives home an inconvenient point for Rubenhold et al.: even though the victims were considered prostitutes, society still spared no expense in trying to catch the killer, and the political pressure was immense.

The police and other authorities actually did not care that the victims were prostitutes, they still did their best. Shocking - and at odds with Rubenhold’s narrative.

It’s funny how Katherine Crooks slips up and writes “reconceptualised”, this ends up implying she accepts understanding prostitution “a gendered and pathologized form of sexual deviance”.

We don’t always agree, Kattrup, but this time we do.

Just imagine if five young men had been brutally murdered in the East End in the space of a few weeks in 1888. Would we still be searching for their killers today?