Yet more dapper laughs
For more on the horrifying Jack the Ripper “museum” check out the historian Fern Riddell on Twitter, starting with her Storify of her visit to the “museum” itself.
I’m in the middle of doing that now, so I’ve just encountered this tweet:
Fern Riddell @FernRiddell Sep 30
@tkingdoll no, they’ve made a change apparently, just not on any of the shop stuff…
Because there’s just nothing funnier than the murder and mutilation of women.
Perhaps a deep dig into the lineage of the musealist might cast light upon the mystery of who “Jack” was? Except he would hardly have had any progeny.
(Oh, oughtn’t have specified gender like that, what with erasure and so forth – so sorry about that.)
The continuing ghoulish fascination of the public with the Jack the Ripper murders after over a century really grosses me out, the more so because there is so little substance there. The police investigation was perfunctory, if not incompetent (an ass-covering exercise because, hey, it was only whores being killed, big whoop) with evidence lost or stolen for souvenirs. The letters purporting to be from the killer were almost certainly forgeries by journalists to keep the sensation going– hell, the name “Jack the Ripper” itself was an invention of the press. No-one– no-one— has any idea who the murderer(s) was; every theory– deranged artist, upper-class toff, etc., etc.– is so much hot air.
The only solid fact is that five women (possibly more; and, oh, the amount of ink spilled over which unfortunate counts as an “official” victim or not!) were murdered and mutilated in a most horrible way… and in the popular narrative, they almost fade away. The important character is the murderer, about whom nothing is known. I wonder if any of the people who this museum hopes to attract, the kind of person who would actually want to have such a vile article in their house as a “Jack the Ripper” pint glass, even remembers the victims’ names. Some do, I guess; the super-ghouls, still obsessing and gloating over the mutilation of women a century dead…
Me too. I hadn’t properly realized how fucked up it all is until now.
It’s also a way of minimizing violence against women. “The only women who were killed were the victims of an anonymous madman.”
So not true.
You have to read through pages and pages before you get a glimpse of the life those poor women lead. Imagine if that museum had focussed on the women. That would have contributed to history. With the exception of Mary Ann Kelly, they were all homeless, living in lodgings and trying to earn enough money to pay for a place to sleep that night. We’re talking about a few shillings. They all drank heavily and were abused by at least one partner. They lived day to day. Every day they got up and made it through another day, hoisted up their skirts, looked for a place to eat and sleep.
I’m not surprised the media focusses on the idea of their supposed murderer: but it’s really time we stopped.