|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through May 16, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Mary kelly:
Archive through May 16, 2000
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 02:18 pm |        | Yes, David, I fear you're about to be scalded soon. Mind you, I have no affection for either Kelly or Barnett; I have a cynical view of human nature anyway and have never seen or experienced a relationship (male/female, male/male, female/female, what have you) where there wasn't - if only at the subconscious level - some sort of distrust or opportunism.
But still - a black widow spider sucking out the essence of a man? Really, David - to paraphrase Moe the bartender, "I support most any kind of prejudice you can name" but that's a pretty virulent strain of misogyny there.
I know this question has been raised before, but - what is it about Mary Jane Kelly that makes her such a polarising figure to some people? She seems to be regarded as either a monstrous, scheming viper or a cupid-lipped beauty lightly scented of violets. Is it the relationship between her and Barnett (and Morganstone and Fleming)? Is is her supposed youth and beauty? Is it the sheer fact of prostitution? What?
CMD |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 04:41 pm | | Hi, CMD:
I would say we are still chasing shadows in regard to knowing the real Mary Jane Kelly. As we well know, the woman who has passed into myth and legend is not substantiated by real facts. David's monolithic condemnation of MJK as "a black widow spider" sucking the life out of a man is at best editorializing and does not get us any closer to the truth about the real woman. Head for the bunkers, guys!!! :-)
Chris |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 05:29 pm | | David,
I congratulate you on your ability to use big words to say essentially nothing. That must be the abstract nature of man to which you referred. And how clever to quote a noted male philosopher to support your claim while only giving passing reference to an anonymous "feminist" and her supposed moronic quote about the jerk-like nature of man. Perhaps they misogyny of both your and Nietzsche's claims stem more from your own frustrated sexual aims and less from any basis in fact. As a notorious femi-nazi, allow me to point out several errors in your rather cute little diatribe. First of all, feminists do not think that men are jerks, we think they are useless for any purpose other than procreation. Allow me to use your habit of falling back on quotes ( which, frankly, I feel demonstrates your pathetic lack of conviction in your own ideals..I digress.) "Let us look to nature..Go out in the lush garden..study the bees in their hives and the ants who labor as they have always done. They are females, by the millions. A male is only an aberration and a matter of function. They learned the wise trick a long time before me of limiting the males. And we may now live in an age where males are utterly unneccessary." There you have a more complete "typical appraisal of men by women." Secondly, by saying your (in all probability) one encounter with the female sex entitles you to speak on the subject as if you were a veteran, is laughable. MJK may have been a black-widow sucking the life force from Barnett, but as long as she was sucking other things he wasn't complaining, so why should you? Overidentify, much? If anything Barnett was a willing victim of her "abuse". The lesson that so chokes you is Barnett, you and men the world over cannot be the victims of women without you first consenting to be victims. Do not blame women because you lack the balls to be strong in the face of a strong woman. And please re-read your argument. Perhaps you will see that you have once again failed to make any sort of connection between being dependent and being a schemer, a fraud, or a black widow. It doesn't cut it to say: A therefore C. We need step B. Or in more simpler terms as befits your non-concrete understanding of simple logic, you have failed to prove that being an unethical user is synonomous with dependency.
Alegria: the Femi-Nazi
To all men other than David: I do believe that men have uses other than procreation. My husband also takes out the trash. :) |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 05:46 pm | | | David , I think it was unwise to quote from Nietzsche as he really didn't like women much at all and therefore is not offering an unbiased opinion of the matter. But back to the point in hand. If Mary was dependent , then it was because in the 19th century she would have had few prospects of earning a decent wage as she was not respectable in the eyes of society. So she would have needed a man to earn the money for her. But this is not true because , even though she had to sell her body to do it , she went out and earned her own income. This suggests to me an INDEPENDENT character. She manipulated Barnett , yes , but she was not a black widow but a person limited by circumstance doing the best she could. Remember Barnett wanted himself to keep her off the streets , and left when she returned to prostitution. If he wanted to throw money and presents at her , well fine. She probably liked being spoiled but she didn't hesitate to get him out when she had tired of him. Mary was not dependent , it was her own choice to be looked after by a man and was not a necessity for her. |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 07:06 pm | | Simon,
You are wasting your breath, er..fingers. To David, prostitutes are dependent creatures. Period. I also made the claim to him that MJK was a person wih limited job opportunities who survived as best she could and therefore was not dependent. He refuses to admit that prostitution is just a form of commerce with an item for sale and a customer willing to buy it. |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 02:37 pm | | If the information we have about Barnett and Kelly is correct, then I believe we'd be within the bounds of reason to conclude that theirs was a significant-other cohabitation agreement, similar to that of Kelly and Eddowes, and also to those of thousands of other such couples living in the doss and flop houses of Whitechapel.
This notion is buttressed by the length of the relationship, the fact that it continued when the couple moved to another apartment, the fact that Barnett apparently didn't like the loss of exclusivity when Mary Jane began inviting other prostitutes to sleep in Miller's Court, the fact that he also didn't like it when she took back to the streets after he'd lost his work, the fact that they'd had arguments about these matters--why would the couple be arguing about the nature of their relationship if there were no relationship?--and the fact that the arguments apparently began or at least intensified after the loss of earnings took place. In my experience, I've found that a loss of income very frequently brings stress to a relationship. (Many things get swept under the rug when the money's okay, but let the money stop being okay, then issues are often opened up. When I worked in a CPA firm, a great many times I'd have an unemployment compensation income report submitted to me by tax clients in year1, to be followed by a divorce decree in year2, and often from highly-placed professional couples with children and lots of money, such as school principals, executives, etc.) Further, Barnett appears to have been worried by his lack of money and its effect on Mary Jane, and gave what he could even after he'd moved out. I daresay he must have thought there still was a chance at resurrecting the relationship if he were giving her money under these circumstances, indicating a continued sense of responsibility on his part, and she accepting it.
Notwithstanding the above, Mary Jane specifically told her friends at this time that she "couldn't bear" Barnett. Presumably, she was referring to his echolalia--an echo-like speech impediment the symptom of which is the repeating of the last few words of a previous sentence at the beginning of a new sentence. Joe's echolalia had apparently not been a problem for Mary Jane before this time.
So what have we got? Mary Jane is straddling the fence of dumping Joe, but hasn't done so at least yet because she's broke and needs his money to help pay her rent. If he gets back into money she can take him back, echolalia forgotten. If he can't get back into money she will continue to take whatever he can give her, based on the promise of possible future relationship. Win-win situation for Mary Jane, albeit requiring deception insofar as Joe is led to believe there will be a future, while, as far as Mary Jane is concerned, it's primarily a commodity brokerage deal.
I was raised to be nice. I try to be a good person, considerate and honorable to everyone, no matter who, treating each person as an end in him- or herself. I cannot make out how Mary Jane is being respectful to Joe in this deception. If there is significant ongoing deception in a relationship, there is dependence. It seems to me a violation of ethics on her part, albeit a less eggregious one in light of her poverty.
Perhaps "black widow spider" was too strong a term to use on my part. However, I consider the label gratuitously applied to me of misogynist by Mr. DiGrazia entirely inappropriate and uncalled-for, and request an apology.
David |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 04:14 pm | | David,
As previously stated several times, there were not many jobs available to women in the late 1800’s. I would feel safe to say that 90% of all women entered into a relationship with a man as a means of support. That relationship may have been that of husband/wife, mistress/master, or prostitute/john. Let us suppose that MJK and Barnett’s relationship most closely matches that of husband/wife as they did cohabitate, move together, etc . Barnett did support her financially as most ‘husbands’ of the time did. Then Barnett loses his job and his means of support. So what does MJK do? She goes out and proceeds to support herself, albeit in a manner of which Barnett does not approve. So he leaves her. She doesn’t attempt to stop him. This does not exactly constitute dependency on her part. In your post you several times say such things as “I daresay he thought..” and “presumably she was referring to..” You cannot make such claims as to what he or she thought. You don’t know. No one does except MJK and Barnett and they are dead. However, let us look at it from your perspective. So, let us first suppose she was referring to his echolalia , when saying she couldn’t stand him, even though this impediment had ‘apparently’ not been a problem before. Have you ever been in a relationship where a character trait that you once found endearing in your mate, begins to grate on your nerves as the relationship sours? And she may very well have simply meant that she could not stand his holier-than-thou attitude when she was the one now bringing home the bacon. Now to address Barnett continuing to give her money in the hopes of getting together again and she accepting it though she had no plans to do so. In viewing that they had lived together for over a year and a half, many would argue that she could have viewed this money as alimony at the termination of a common-law marriage. None of her other live-ins lasted as long. Many ex-wives do accept money from their former hubbies without ever intending to return to their loving arms. You also claim that “ significant ongoing deception in a relationship constitutes dependence.” Uhhhh…how? If a husband deceives his wife as to an affair and deceives his mistress in regards to his wife, which is he dependent on? Both? Deception is an ethical violation, I agree, but indicative of dependence? There is no basis for that claim.
As for the apology owed to you by Mr. DiGrazia for his 'inappropriate and uncalled-for’ labeling of you as a misogynist… You called women self-centered, self-serving, immature, helpless and second-handedly referred to them as the evolutionary equivalent of cows. Why exactly do you object to the label of misogynist? You may have been raised to be nice and treat each individual with respect but you clearly do not feel the need to do so to womankind as a whole. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 04:50 am | | Hi Alegria,
You wrote:
'You [David] also claim that “ significant ongoing deception in a relationship constitutes dependence.” Uhhhh…how? If a husband deceives his wife as to an affair and deceives his mistress in regards to his wife, which is he dependent on? Both?'
Absolutely my dear.
The wife, to wash his dirty sox and unmentionables, keep the kiddies occupied and continue being his substitute mother, and the mistress to suck the life out of him. ;-)
Inter-dependence rules ok! Vive la difference etc etc.
I agree with what you say about Barnett being the one to leave when the balance changed and MJK had reverted to earning her own money in her own way, whether she had a choice of profession or not. We have no evidence that she pleaded with him to return, or would have if he got another job. I get the impression Joe would have chosen to support Mary if he could, regardless of how Mary felt about it. The worst thing that happened to Joe was losing the ability to do so. She didn't storm off calling him a useless bugger, did she? He left of his own accord, stripped of his chosen role of having a woman dependent on him the day he lost his job.
I took David's comments to mean that he thinks most of his fellow men are a bit simple to fall for devious, plotting females. If I were a man I'd feel my intelligence had been far more severely insulted than anything he has said about women. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 06:21 am | | Caz,
:) Quite right! Perhaps he does owe the men on the board an apology.
An aside to all: I shall be in London for a few days this coming winter and have a question regarding my trip and the area of Whitechapel. Where would be the proper place to post this question?
Thanks!
Alegria |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 08:57 am | | Hi Alegria,
You could click on Topics, then General Discussion, Miscellaneous, and you could either post your question on the 'Heading For Whitechapel' board, or invent your own title.
Pity you are not here in London this time of year. It's absolutely gorgeous today and my washing is waiting to be pegged out on the line as I type, so I'm off to the garden, peg off nose on sox. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 04:22 pm | | David -
Usually I do apologise if I find I have insulted someone needlessly. However, as a gentleman of my acquaintance says, "words mean things." If you write - and I quote directly - "Barnett, it seems to me, was just another man having his essence sucked out by a black widow spider," then you ought to prpeare to be called on such a gross characterization. I can assure you I hold no brief for much of what is called "feminism," but I think that in this particular case your zeal for a particular point of view overrode your basic good manners.
I am sorry if you feel offended by the term "misogyny" when applied to your statement, but that is certainly how I perceived it and can think of no other appropriate term.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 07:10 pm | | Mr. DiGrazia,
How long have you been reading my posts? Four years? How many posts of mine, where I speak about my values, have you read? Five hundred? You are in a position to know where I stand and how I think on a number of things. Have I given in my many postings any genuine indications that I am a misogynist? Show me where I have done so, be specific. In order for you to consider that you had the right to apply an extremely negative label to me, one that thousands of people see and might remember about me, all you felt you had to have was one single quotation in one single place at one single time, that you could distort out of context. Did you consider the context in terms of what I was saying there? Did you consider the context in terms of the rest of my postings? I can't imagine how you could have.
When you call someone a misogynist you are diagnosing a serious, ongoing personality problem, not complaining about bad manners. Yawning with your mouth open is bad manners, being a misogynist gets you fired, among other things. Did you think of the implications you were putting on me when you wrote? I sign my real name here, you know.
I don't think you have any more right to call me a misogynist in public than to call me a paranoid schizophrenic, a child molester, or an embezzler in public. Making such a strong statement based on how I worded one phrase is, in my opinion, an example of petitio principii, or fallacy of the small cause. You are extrapolating invalidly from something very small to something very big, when in fact the small thing is not a microcosm of the big thing, its just smaller.
Based on what you've done, I believe you were simply looking for some nice, soft, round a** to kick when you wrote that. Among perhaps some other things I am mature enough not to label you with here. I hope you're happy with yourself.
David |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 08:54 pm | | Radka,
You may continue to ignore my questions if you wish, that is your prerogative, however, your claim that Mr. DiGrazia labeled you as a misogynist based solely on your black widow comment is ludicrous. Either this is just another example of your faulty logic or it is blind obstinancy on your part. Mr. Digrazia may have been the first to label you thusly, but he was not the only. Now, I know you’re thinking that if he had not used the term first, I would never have applied it to you in my argument because as a woman my cow-like nature would not have enabled me to use a 4-syllable word. However, I do have a firm grasp of the English language, firmer than you it seems, because if you re-read his post you will see that he does not call you a misogynist, he says that your characterization of MJK is a “virulent strain of misogyny.” The argument, therefore, not the man, is misogynistic. And in all frankness, if you are going to spew such sewage in a public forum, expect the backlash and be man enough to take it. Why should Mr. D worry about the effect of his comments on your future when you clearly weren't concerned about the effect of your own? Saying that his comment about your supposed misogyny will be the one to stand out in the memory of the masses is a sad attempt to exonerate you of and distance you from your wretched characterization of wome. I will be more likely to remember the gem about women having a "self-serving concept of fairness" while men have an "acute distinction of fairness from unfairness." I know all my friends are STILL laughing over that one. Mr DiGrazia isn't responsible for any negativity you experience due to your post. You are. Don’t whine about using your real name and possible consequences to your future. Stand by your convictions or abandon them. But for God’s sake, quit pouting.
Back to MJK, anyone? |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 03:05 am | | | Beeeuuuuuuuuuuuuh (aka 'yes') |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 03:33 am | | Hi David,
I would reccomend the novel 'The mill on the Floss' by George Elliot in relation to the self perceived justice of a man and the emotional one of a woman. |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 06:49 am | | Hi all,
In regards to the estimation of Kelly's TOD: is the argument that she may have been murdered later in the morning based solely on the article in the Times quoting Phillips' estimated time of death? This puzzles me. In almost every murder case I know of TOD is a very important aspect, if for no other reason than to rule out suspects. Was time of death given in the inquests of the other victims? Regardless, why wsn't it given at Mary's? In the other cases, the window of time between when the victim was last seen or the murder location was walked past and the body then found; is very narrow and therefore makes the ETOD more obvious so perhaps an official verdict on TOD was not needed. But this was not the case with MJK. Therefore, it would seem to me that a TOD would have been one of the first things asked for by the investigators. Sorry if this is a bit scrambled, the coffee is still perking and my brain hasn't had the required stimulus yet. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 07:56 am | | Hi Alegria,
At the inquests of the other victims the doctor who examined the victim told his narrative at what hour he began his examination, how far rigor mortis was on the victim, and his time estimation of how long the victim probably already was dead. So even there it was only a ETOD, not a TOD. |
Author: Jim Leen
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 01:49 pm | | Hello Everybody,
I've skimmed through the anti-male/anti-female things, and marvelled at how ludicrous and inane it all was. To Alegria specifically, perhaps you may be proud to be a feminist but the term femi-Nazi is as offensive as my old friend David (misogynist? moi) Radka's post. "Women are like heroin or war..." seems to me to be a fairly specific example of misogyny.
Anyway, to my point. There is nothing wrong with Barnett reading the paper to MJK, whether she could read or not. Do not place a contemporary perspective on the situation. Imagine how Kelly subsisted. No daytime tv, radio, etc. The beginning of winter. What else could a girl do but snuggle up into a threadbare blanket, stay warm, and snooze through the day.
If that's the case then, when Barnett came in with the newspaper he would stay beside the closest form of illumination in order to read the paper. Telling the jokes, talking of the impending conflict, and of course discoursing on the Whitechapel Horrors.
Do you know, bearing in mind the UK only had two tv channels broadcasting for around six hours per day until roughly 1967, that this sort of activity was fairly commonplace.
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 02:29 pm | | Hi Jill,
I would recommend Harvard's John Rawls' "The Theory of Justice" in relation to the concept of justice as fairness.
Rabbi Leen,
You are correct, you skimmed my post. If you had read it thoughtfully, perhaps you wouldn't say what you did.
David |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 02:33 pm | | Okay, I have now re-read the inquest and ETOD is stated in ALL of them except MJK's. I am still puzzled as to why that would be. In one of the others( maybe Eddowes-I'm not sure) the coroner specifically asked what the ETOD was when the doctor's testimony did not make reference to it. A small mystery in the scheme of things but irritating to me none the less.
Jim: Femi-Nazi may be offensive to you, but as long as I label myself thus and do not apply it to you, do you really have grounds to complain? |
|
|
|
|
