The mass-murderer of women Peter Sutcliffe died in prison yesterday. Women everywhere braced for more reporting that focused on him instead of the women whose lives he stole. The Yorkshire Post got it right.
The mass-murderer of women Peter Sutcliffe died in prison yesterday. Women everywhere braced for more reporting that focused on him instead of the women whose lives he stole. The Yorkshire Post got it right.
Comments
14 responses to “Those who mattered”
I see the West Yorkshire Police have apologized to these women’s families for referring to them at the time as “Women of loose morals”.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/13/police-offer-heartfelt-apology-to-families-of-yorkshire-ripper-peter-sutcliffe-victims
Better late than never, I suppose. But how do we root out this attitude that always tries to find some way to convey “She was asking for it”? I do despair. Prostitute or saint, every woman was a victim of an horrendous crime.
Perhaps the press needs to also apolgise for giving him his nickname, harking back to an earlier murderer who targeted prostitutes.
If you ever figure this out, please pass it on…I have friends who claim to be feminist, and are mostly, who still reach for this particular tool of the patriarchy.
iknklast, I wish I did have the answer. To me, it’s as simple as:
What a woman is wearing, where she goes, who she goes with, what her past sexual history is, what her state of sobriety is, is not an invitation to rape or murder. We do not judge men like this.
When a woman appears in court as a rape victim, her past sexual behavior is used against her. But a man’s previous history as a rapist cannot be revealed until after the trial.
Tell me again how woman have all the power.
Woman’s Hour did a really good segment on it yesterday. They talked to Joan Smith, whose classic Misogynies was inspired by her experience as a reporter in Manchester while Sutcliffe was active.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000p8xq
Pedantic note: Sutcliffe was a serial killer, not a mass murderer. (There is a distinction. Though maybe only made in US law enforcement?)
This makes the point:
https://youtu.be/51-hepLP8J4
I consider murdering women in bulk mass-murder. I don’t really think it’s a scientific issue, but rather a value judgement. Yes, I could have said “serial killer,” but that’s part of the boilerplate that Joan Smith is talking about – the stale routinized phrases that distance us from the horror. But sure, if I join the police I’ll promise to use the police terminology.
Huh. I find “serial killer” pretty damn horrific.
13 Reasons to not name the guy that dies, nor give a shit that he died.
Lady M, fine, you call it that then, but I don’t really need you telling me what to call it.
@Roj:
Well there’s evidence that the women the other Ripper murdered were not necessarily prostitutes but rather assumed to be by the police. For the usual reasons, presumably.
But latsot, why would any woman be on the street if she wasn’t a prostitute? Or outside her house at all? Especially after sunset? Without a man? No, there couldn’t possibly be any other reason besides being a prostitute.
Yep, those’ll be the usual reasons :(