"Skewering The Ripperologists" Bad Women Podcast- Hallie Rubenhold

[Howard Brown]

Curious that she never mentions where she gets 'trolled', ain't it ?

https://inews.co.uk/news/i-get-troll...enhold-1334501

[Gary Barnett]

Curious that she never mentions where she gets 'trolled', ain't it ?

https://inews.co.uk/news/i-get-trolled-for-revealing-jack-the-rippers-victims-werent-prostitutes-reveals-historian-hallie-rubenhold-1334501

There she goes again, trolling the Ripperologists.

Her work has been criticised by people who know at least as much, often more, than she does about the subject. Her claim that the women weren’t prostitutes and her deliberate omission of the evidence that suggests they were is only one aspect of the book that has been questioned.

[Gary Barnett]

How makes a valid point: where is this trolling happening?

On here, because we are questioning the Ballad Myth? Has Hallie’s entry into the field of Ripperology made it inappropriate to question the research/theories of authors who follow her lead, or minor celebrities who parrot her nonsense on daytime TV?

[Howard Brown]

Gary;

What I meant to say, was while Rube continually bleats about how she's being trolled.....she never mentions where ( as in on JTRForums or Casebook) because if she told her followers where she was being treated like a victim of the Bataan Death March, they might go there and see the arguments being made against her and do a little thinking on their own. Keeping her already uninformed fan base in the dark and the trolls unidentifiable is the path she's chosen to maintain.

[Gary Barnett]

Gary;

What I meant to say, was while Rube continually bleats about how she's being trolled.....she never mentions where ( as in on JTRForums or Casebook) because if she told her followers where she was being treated like a victim of the Bataan Death March, they might go there and see the arguments being made against her and do a little thinking on their own. Keeping her already uninformed fan base in the dark and the trolls unidentifiable is the path she's chosen to maintain.

That’s a good point, How. You never hear her saying, ‘Have a look at the so and so thread on JTRForums - they’re trying to argue that there’s no evidence that Kate and Tom ever sold ballads let alone wrote them etc etc.’ Or, ‘They’re debating whether all of the WM victims were prostitutes again, as they have done periodically for decades’.

[Gary Barnett]

I’m ever hopeful that some of the guests we have, or even better some of the new members, are people whose curiosity was piqued by HR’s relentless trolling of Ripperologists.

What a disappointment we must be to those hoping to find drooling, Ripper-worshiping misogynists to gawp at.

Sorry, folks, I left my top hat and cape on a number 5 bus yonks ago and the handle has fallen off my JTR mug.

[Howard Brown]

Just exactly where are these trolls ?
I don't have a Twitter account anymore and even if I did, I'd be blocked....as I was while I was on Twitter from even seeing her page....and I think most people who do have a Twitter account
and are also a member of this site and Casebook are prevented by the Power That Be from commenting on her page....with one exception who shall remain nameless.

Her rants have a paranoiac edge to them....she makes it seem as if hoards of people are 'after her'.....you may recall that one short video where she looks distressed that researchers here and
elsewhere are 'against academics..." She actually looked like her Prada bag went walkabout and she had to attend a soiree in 15 minutes...

As we say in Philly, no one gives a flying f___ about her as a person...but the content of her 'research'.

[Gary Barnett]

I sent this to the ‘i’. I have a feeling I may live to regret it. The link was to the Alice McKenzie relatives thread.



I was rather disappointed by Serina Sandhu’s one-sided account of the trolling of Hallie Rubenhold by ‘Ripperologists’. If anything, the opposite is true. In order to deflect criticism of her book by people who have studied the lives of the victims for decades she has created a fictional bogeyman - the drooling, Ripper-worshipping, misogynistic, male (always male) Ripperologist whose very identity is somehow inextricably linked to a belief that the victims were prostitutes.


The term Ripperologists is actually rather meaningless, it is applied to anyone who has an interest in the Whitechapel Murder cases (there were 11, not just the 5 which appear in the book) and the environment in which they occurred. By that definition, Hallie Rubenhold was, at least temporarily, herself a Ripperologist - a fact she readily admits in her book. Many Ripperologists are women and many male Ripperologists are just as interested in the lives of the victims as they are the identity of the killer. But you wouldn’t know that from how Rubenhold has portrayed them.


The vast majority of the information about the victims that appears in The Five was in fact unearthed by Ripperologists. The bibliography of The Five is effectively a Who’s Who? of Ripperology, in which Rubenhold acknowledges the contribution made by some of her fiercest critics. There is very little that is new in the book. And there is a great deal that is questionable.


Ripperologists aren’t threatened by Rubenhold’s theory that the victims weren’t prostitutes, but they are critical of her omission of certain evidence and of the numerous errors and baseless conjecture in the book. In this respect she has received the same treatment as dozens of other authors whose offerings were flawed.


When the first murmurings of criticism of her theory were raised, Rubenhold took to Twitter and began her trolling campaign. The Twitter exchange below will give you an idea of how she reacted to reasonable questioning of some of her pre-publication claims. When people started to question the content of The Five on Twitter by asking simple questions, she immediately blocked them. All except one character, who shall remain nameless, a real throw-back to the Stone Age. She strung him along for some time and in doing so gave her Twitter follows an entirely false impression of what ‘Ripperology’ is all about.


From Twitter 27/8/2018 - this is where the ‘discussion’ fell into the gutter:


“Paul Mangan:

I’m convinced that some people want them all to be prostitutes because it makes them not only less human but somehow it becomes partly their fault. Basically because some men just hate women.


Hallie Rubenhold:


Yep. And don’t forget the sexual fantasy element.


Paul Mangan:


Oh yes the masterful man who dominates women. And of course women secretly love it because they’d have to or otherwise you’d be a rapist. The trouble with many men is they discover sex in adolescence and that’s where, mentally, they stay.”



I would urge anyone who has any interest in the the lives of the victims to pay a visit to the JTRForums or Casebook websites and take a look at the wealth of material they contain about the victims. This particular thread (link) concerning the victim Alice McKenzie (for some inexplicable reason overlooked by Rubenhold) should be sufficient to dispel the myth of the ghoulish male Ripperologist. It contains more new factual information about Alice than Rubenhold managed for all of her 5.

I wonder whether you would consider producing a companion piece to give the other side of the story. You will find a considerable amount interest in the Ripper mystery on these websites, but you will also find a considerable amount of research into the lives of the victims. What you will not find is any glorification of the killer or the ‘sexual fantasy element’ imagined by Rubenhold.

Suggesting that thousands of people worldwide, of all genders, ages, ethnicities etc have sexual fantasies about the tragic Whitechapel victims is an extreme example of trolling. Pointing out that an historian has been somewhat selective with their sources is not.


Gary Barnett

[Howard Brown]

Succinctly stated, Gary....well done, boss

[Gary Barnett]

Just exactly where are these trolls ?
I don't have a Twitter account anymore and even if I did, I'd be blocked....as I was while I was on Twitter from even seeing her page....and I think most people who do have a Twitter account
and are also a member of this site and Casebook are prevented by the Power That Be from commenting on her page....with one exception who shall remain nameless.

Her rants have a paranoiac edge to them....she makes it seem as if hoards of people are 'after her'.....you may recall that one short video where she looks distressed that researchers here and
elsewhere are 'against academics..." She actually looked like her Prada bag went walkabout and she had to attend a soiree in 15 minutes...

As we say in Philly, no one gives a flying f___ about her as a person...but the content of her 'research'.

What are we supposed to do if we read something that is obviously wrong - check the academic qualifications of the author first before we comment?

What an elitist idea!

If someone writes something about knacker’s yards or Breezers Hill and I think it’s wrong, I don’t care whether they’re a Prof. or a plumber, I’ll speak up, because I think my opinion is every bit as valid as theirs.

[Chris Phillips]

What are we supposed to do if we read something that is obviously wrong - check the academic qualifications of the author first before we comment?

What an elitist idea!

If someone writes something about knacker’s yards or Breezers Hill and I think it’s wrong, I don’t care whether they’re a Prof. or a plumber, I’ll speak up, because I think my opinion is every bit as valid as theirs.

I don't know which is worse - the silly idea that academic qualifications rather than the merits of the criticism should be the criterion, or the attempt to give people the impression she has academic qualifications that she doesn't!

[Gary Barnett]

It’s just another tactic to avoid actually debating anything. She’s on such a higher intellectual and moral plane than us that she can’t be expected to demean herself by answering our silly questions. At least that’s what her followers are lead to believe.

[Paul]

How makes a valid point: where is this trolling happening?

On here, because we are questioning the Ballad Myth? Has Hallie’s entry into the field of Ripperology made it inappropriate to question the research/theories of authors who follow her lead, or minor celebrities who parrot her nonsense on daytime TV?

I thought I knew what "trolling" meant, but I am beginning to wonder... Writing about someone isn't trolling them. Legitimately criticising someone's work isn't trolling them, at least I didn't suppose it was, especially if it's here, somewhere neither she nor her followers come.

[Paul]

I sent this to the ‘i’. I have a feeling I may live to regret it. The link was to the Alice McKenzie relatives thread.



I was rather disappointed by Serina Sandhu’s one-sided account of the trolling of Hallie Rubenhold by ‘Ripperologists’. If anything, the opposite is true. In order to deflect criticism of her book by people who have studied the lives of the victims for decades she has created a fictional bogeyman - the drooling, Ripper-worshipping, misogynistic, male (always male) Ripperologist whose very identity is somehow inextricably linked to a belief that the victims were prostitutes.


The term Ripperologists is actually rather meaningless, it is applied to anyone who has an interest in the Whitechapel Murder cases (there were 11, not just the 5 which appear in the book) and the environment in which they occurred. By that definition, Hallie Rubenhold was, at least temporarily, herself a Ripperologist - a fact she readily admits in her book. Many Ripperologists are women and many male Ripperologists are just as interested in the lives of the victims as they are the identity of the killer. But you wouldn’t know that from how Rubenhold has portrayed them.


The vast majority of the information about the victims that appears in The Five was in fact unearthed by Ripperologists. The bibliography of The Five is effectively a Who’s Who? of Ripperology, in which Rubenhold acknowledges the contribution made by some of her fiercest critics. There is very little that is new in the book. And there is a great deal that is questionable.


Ripperologists aren’t threatened by Rubenhold’s theory that the victims weren’t prostitutes, but they are critical of her omission of certain evidence and of the numerous errors and baseless conjecture in the book. In this respect she has received the same treatment as dozens of other authors whose offerings were flawed.


When the first murmurings of criticism of her theory were raised, Rubenhold took to Twitter and began her trolling campaign. The Twitter exchange below will give you an idea of how she reacted to reasonable questioning of some of her pre-publication claims. When people started to question the content of The Five on Twitter by asking simple questions, she immediately blocked them. All except one character, who shall remain nameless, a real throw-back to the Stone Age. She strung him along for some time and in doing so gave her Twitter follows an entirely false impression of what ‘Ripperology’ is all about.


From Twitter 27/8/2018 - this is where the ‘discussion’ fell into the gutter:


“Paul Mangan:

I’m convinced that some people want them all to be prostitutes because it makes them not only less human but somehow it becomes partly their fault. Basically because some men just hate women.


Hallie Rubenhold:


Yep. And don’t forget the sexual fantasy element.


Paul Mangan:


Oh yes the masterful man who dominates women. And of course women secretly love it because they’d have to or otherwise you’d be a rapist. The trouble with many men is they discover sex in adolescence and that’s where, mentally, they stay.”



I would urge anyone who has any interest in the the lives of the victims to pay a visit to the JTRForums or Casebook websites and take a look at the wealth of material they contain about the victims. This particular thread (link) concerning the victim Alice McKenzie (for some inexplicable reason overlooked by Rubenhold) should be sufficient to dispel the myth of the ghoulish male Ripperologist. It contains more new factual information about Alice than Rubenhold managed for all of her 5.

I wonder whether you would consider producing a companion piece to give the other side of the story. You will find a considerable amount interest in the Ripper mystery on these websites, but you will also find a considerable amount of research into the lives of the victims. What you will not find is any glorification of the killer or the ‘sexual fantasy element’ imagined by Rubenhold.

Suggesting that thousands of people worldwide, of all genders, ages, ethnicities etc have sexual fantasies about the tragic Whitechapel victims is an extreme example of trolling. Pointing out that an historian has been somewhat selective with their sources is not.


Gary Barnett

Well done, Gary. I would be very interested to know what, if any, response you get. My feeling is that these stories are no more than re-worked stories sent out by her publicists or by herself. The articles are nearly always penned by women, nearly always seem to be a piece of puff from Rubenhold's point of view, and little or no effort is ever made to balance the story with the Ripperologist's perspective. I know the standard of journalism has gone down hill since I was a lad, as have I, but a journalist would once have been hauled over the coals for not getting the story from the other side.

[Linotte]

I sent this to the ‘i’. I have a feeling I may live to regret it. The link was to the Alice McKenzie relatives thread.



I was rather disappointed by Serina Sandhu’s one-sided account of the trolling of Hallie Rubenhold by ‘Ripperologists’. If anything, the opposite is true. In order to deflect criticism of her book by people who have studied the lives of the victims for decades she has created a fictional bogeyman - the drooling, Ripper-worshipping, misogynistic, male (always male) Ripperologist whose very identity is somehow inextricably linked to a belief that the victims were prostitutes.


The term Ripperologists is actually rather meaningless, it is applied to anyone who has an interest in the Whitechapel Murder cases (there were 11, not just the 5 which appear in the book) and the environment in which they occurred. By that definition, Hallie Rubenhold was, at least temporarily, herself a Ripperologist - a fact she readily admits in her book. Many Ripperologists are women and many male Ripperologists are just as interested in the lives of the victims as they are the identity of the killer. But you wouldn’t know that from how Rubenhold has portrayed them.


The vast majority of the information about the victims that appears in The Five was in fact unearthed by Ripperologists. The bibliography of The Five is effectively a Who’s Who? of Ripperology, in which Rubenhold acknowledges the contribution made by some of her fiercest critics. There is very little that is new in the book. And there is a great deal that is questionable.


Ripperologists aren’t threatened by Rubenhold’s theory that the victims weren’t prostitutes, but they are critical of her omission of certain evidence and of the numerous errors and baseless conjecture in the book. In this respect she has received the same treatment as dozens of other authors whose offerings were flawed.


When the first murmurings of criticism of her theory were raised, Rubenhold took to Twitter and began her trolling campaign. The Twitter exchange below will give you an idea of how she reacted to reasonable questioning of some of her pre-publication claims. When people started to question the content of The Five on Twitter by asking simple questions, she immediately blocked them. All except one character, who shall remain nameless, a real throw-back to the Stone Age. She strung him along for some time and in doing so gave her Twitter follows an entirely false impression of what ‘Ripperology’ is all about.


From Twitter 27/8/2018 - this is where the ‘discussion’ fell into the gutter:


“Paul Mangan:

I’m convinced that some people want them all to be prostitutes because it makes them not only less human but somehow it becomes partly their fault. Basically because some men just hate women.


Hallie Rubenhold:


Yep. And don’t forget the sexual fantasy element.


Paul Mangan:


Oh yes the masterful man who dominates women. And of course women secretly love it because they’d have to or otherwise you’d be a rapist. The trouble with many men is they discover sex in adolescence and that’s where, mentally, they stay.”



I would urge anyone who has any interest in the the lives of the victims to pay a visit to the JTRForums or Casebook websites and take a look at the wealth of material they contain about the victims. This particular thread (link) concerning the victim Alice McKenzie (for some inexplicable reason overlooked by Rubenhold) should be sufficient to dispel the myth of the ghoulish male Ripperologist. It contains more new factual information about Alice than Rubenhold managed for all of her 5.

I wonder whether you would consider producing a companion piece to give the other side of the story. You will find a considerable amount interest in the Ripper mystery on these websites, but you will also find a considerable amount of research into the lives of the victims. What you will not find is any glorification of the killer or the ‘sexual fantasy element’ imagined by Rubenhold.

Suggesting that thousands of people worldwide, of all genders, ages, ethnicities etc have sexual fantasies about the tragic Whitechapel victims is an extreme example of trolling. Pointing out that an historian has been somewhat selective with their sources is not.


Gary Barnett

Hi Gary!!
I know I’m not on here a lot, but I wanted to take the time to tell you that this was a very well-written letter to the journalist in question. I hope something comes of it.

There’s actually been a lot of work put out in the last year or two that’s really critical of the lens through which she conducted the research and wrote the book. Now she did try to walk some of that back and expand on it in the Bad Women podcast, and it’s been packaged as intersectional feminism. But I can 100% tell you without a doubt that it is not intersectional feminism. Her work is based on a lot of outdated views that are not reflective of current intersectional feminist thought. And the work and the way it’s been promoted hit so many of the points in the stuff I’m reading right now, it’s really disturbing.