"Skewering The Ripperologists" Bad Women Podcast- Hallie Rubenhold

[Gary Barnett]

There’s a blog in development that will be handling the case from a true intersectional feminist perspective. They have a Twitter up already and will be getting their other social media together very, very soon. Posts start very, very soon. Don’t ask how I know.

That will be interesting, Linotte. It may come as no surprise that I had to Google intersectional feminism.

[Gary Barnett]

I just called you a not very nice name. I read the above whilst swallowing a mouthful of tea. I won't go into details...

Sorry!

He’s got his own hash tag: #readthebookTrevor. That’s like having an ‘ology’, isn’t it?

I’m not totally sure what a hash tag is, to be honest, but perhaps HR should be awarded this one:

#readthebibliographyHallie.

[Michael Banks]

There’s a blog in development that will be handling the case from a true intersectional feminist perspective. They have a Twitter up already and will be getting their other social media together very, very soon. Posts start very, very soon. Don’t ask how I know.

That’s good news Linotte.

[Michael Banks]

That's an interesting idea and something I'd thought about too Michael but the biggest obstacle would be the amount of time it would take to build up any followers and get noticed as a fair few 'Ripperologists' do have Twitter accounts and it seems to be a drop in the ocean when they make any comment about what's been going on.
If only there was a 'celebrity' Ripperologist out there who already had millions of followers!

One who’s initials are PB for example Debra?

[Paul]

Trevor’s a bit of a celeb, isn’t he? 😂

I just called you a not very nice name. I read the above whilst swallowing a mouthful of tea. I won't go into details...

[Linotte]

I’ve wondered about this point too Gary. I don’t do social media so I have no way of judging any comments that might or might not have been made except for Trevor’s impersonation of Bernard Manning of course. We know that from the outset she was demonising ripperologists so that she had an ideal ‘bad guy’ that she could play Joan Of Arc against and now she’s piling it on.

Suggestion:

Coudnt a Twitter account be created by JTRForums members and admin where the real story is told from the beginning (I’d suggest ‘Ripperology’ or ‘Ripperologist’ in the name so that it’s more findable?) . The agenda of demonising ripperologists - with examples. The ongoing wave of negative comments. Then the question of why she is so determined to prove that the victims didn’t engage in prostitution and had just bedded down for 40 winks before being killed. The uncritical reviewers who thankfully haven’t injured themselves whilst jumping on the bandwagon. Then go for the full evidence for the victims engaging in prostitution followed by a dismissal of the ludicrous idea of them being asleep. And of course the feminist point of view and not just HR’s version. You could link to the Petticoat Parley podcast too.

All statements posted could be written/researched/agreed upon by, I’d suggest, yourself, Chris, How, Paul, Debra, Linotte for example. Just factual, honest, fair minded statements. Wouldn’t that at least get the truth out there to some extent? I don’t know. Perhaps it’s a crap idea?

There’s a blog in development that will be handling the case from a true intersectional feminist perspective. They have a Twitter up already and will be getting their other social media together very, very soon. Posts start very, very soon. Don’t ask how I know.

[Chris Phillips]

Trevor’s a bit of a celeb, isn’t he? 😂

"There are Trevors all around us". - H. Rubenhold.

[Gary Barnett]

That's an interesting idea and something I'd thought about too Michael but the biggest obstacle would be the amount of time it would take to build up any followers and get noticed as a fair few 'Ripperologists' do have Twitter accounts and it seems to be a drop in the ocean when they make any comment about what's been going on.
If only there was a 'celebrity' Ripperologist out there who already had millions of followers!

Trevor’s a bit of a celeb, isn’t he? 😂

[Debra Arif]

I’ve wondered about this point too Gary. I don’t do social media so I have no way of judging any comments that might or might not have been made except for Trevor’s impersonation of Bernard Manning of course. We know that from the outset she was demonising ripperologists so that she had an ideal ‘bad guy’ that she could play Joan Of Arc against and now she’s piling it on.

Suggestion:

Coudnt a Twitter account be created by JTRForums members and admin where the real story is told from the beginning (I’d suggest ‘Ripperology’ or ‘Ripperologist’ in the name so that it’s more findable?) . The agenda of demonising ripperologists - with examples. The ongoing wave of negative comments. Then the question of why she is so determined to prove that the victims didn’t engage in prostitution and had just bedded down for 40 winks before being killed. The uncritical reviewers who thankfully haven’t injured themselves whilst jumping on the bandwagon. Then go for the full evidence for the victims engaging in prostitution followed by a dismissal of the ludicrous idea of them being asleep. And of course the feminist point of view and not just HR’s version. You could link to the Petticoat Parley podcast too.

All statements posted could be written/researched/agreed upon by, I’d suggest, yourself, Chris, How, Paul, Debra, Linotte for example. Just factual, honest, fair minded statements. Wouldn’t that at least get the truth out there to some extent? I don’t know. Perhaps it’s a crap idea?

That's an interesting idea and something I'd thought about too Michael but the biggest obstacle would be the amount of time it would take to build up any followers and get noticed as a fair few 'Ripperologists' do have Twitter accounts and it seems to be a drop in the ocean when they make any comment about what's been going on.
If only there was a 'celebrity' Ripperologist out there who already had millions of followers!

[Michael Banks]

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’ve wondered about this point too Gary. I don’t do social media so I have no way of judging any comments that might or might not have been made except for Trevor’s impersonation of Bernard Manning of course. We know that from the outset she was demonising ripperologists so that she had an ideal ‘bad guy’ that she could play Joan Of Arc against and now she’s piling it on.

Suggestion:

Coudnt a Twitter account be created by JTRForums members and admin where the real story is told from the beginning (I’d suggest ‘Ripperology’ or ‘Ripperologist’ in the name so that it’s more findable?) . The agenda of demonising ripperologists - with examples. The ongoing wave of negative comments. Then the question of why she is so determined to prove that the victims didn’t engage in prostitution and had just bedded down for 40 winks before being killed. The uncritical reviewers who thankfully haven’t injured themselves whilst jumping on the bandwagon. Then go for the full evidence for the victims engaging in prostitution followed by a dismissal of the ludicrous idea of them being asleep. And of course the feminist point of view and not just HR’s version. You could link to the Petticoat Parley podcast too.

All statements posted could be written/researched/agreed upon by, I’d suggest, yourself, Chris, How, Paul, Debra, Linotte for example. Just factual, honest, fair minded statements. Wouldn’t that at least get the truth out there to some extent? I don’t know. Perhaps it’s a crap idea?

[Linotte]

Thanks, Linotte. I have a feeling the letter won’t make a blind bit of difference, but I thought it was worth a try. I don’t think there’s been a single example of a challenge to Rubenhold’s book or her characterisation of Ripperologists that has found its way into mainstream media. As you may know she refused to engage in any debate on Twitter, so we’re left with moaning about her antics among ourselves on here and, to a lesser extent, on Casebook.

All it really is, is a puff piece on how she’s scrapping her first business plan for Plan B. And all authors have a business plan. I have a business plan, but mine isn’t as involved and isn’t reliant on so many variables like hers probably was.

And something one of my intersectional feminist friends said in a conversation with me after reading the article: “Okay, but why is she splitting hairs here? What is SHE trying to gain by saying that they ‘weren’t prostitutes?’ To make them more sympathetic! They were murdered by a sick guy all the same.” So people are seeing it. It’s just taking time.

[Paul]

Thanks, Linotte. I have a feeling the letter won’t make a blind bit of difference, but I thought it was worth a try. I don’t think there’s been a single example of a challenge to Rubenhold’s book or her characterisation of Ripperologists that has found its way into mainstream media. As you may know she refused to engage in any debate on Twitter, so we’re left with moaning about her antics among ourselves on here and, to a lesser extent, on Casebook.

As you predict, it probably won't make any difference, but it only takes one journalist to question Rubenhold's claims and look at what Ripper historians are saying, then the fallacy Rubenhold has created will begin to show the cracks. After all, all Ripper historians are saying is that Rubenhold has omitted all the evidence that runs counter to her theory, has peddled the trolling story to undermine those best able to judge her arguments, and has let it be believed that she researched the lives of the victims instead of lifting it from sites such as this. So I think we should keep this up. I, like Howard, don't care about Rubenhold, but I do care about the evidence, honesty, and good history. There are some standards we should strive to hold onto.

[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.

Thanks, Linotte. I have a feeling the letter won’t make a blind bit of difference, but I thought it was worth a try. I don’t think there’s been a single example of a challenge to Rubenhold’s book or her characterisation of Ripperologists that has found its way into mainstream media. As you may know she refused to engage in any debate on Twitter, so we’re left with moaning about her antics among ourselves on here and, to a lesser extent, on Casebook.

[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.

[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.