I expect this will get downvoted, but I’m a professional historian who works on this era. And there were a few things I really didn’t love about this book.

But first— she’s completely right about the sometimes disgusting and exploitative approach that much popular media has shown toward the ripper’s victims, and the media’s assumptions that they were all prostitutes (and that that only means one thing). She’s right about all of that, and I think it’s great that she’s giving histories to these women who too often have just been portrayed as victims.

BUT… two things…

Despite what she claims, we (current historians) don’t really talk about “prostitutes” as much as we talk about “transactional sex,” which exists on a spectrum. Even from her book it’s clear that some of the five participated in transactional sex. Certainly hooking up with a man for a few weeks or months in order to provide yourself with food and shelter, then moving in to the next man. is a type of transactional sex common in this period, and is often framed as a type of prostitution, although a more stable and safer one than working in the house of prostitution, which itself is more stable and safer than streetwalking. Exchanging shelter/food/clothing/protection for sex was seen sometimes as different from taking cash (as is true now) but all are forms of transactional sex.

I was also uncomfortable with how much she seemed to need to argue that these women were not prostitutes. So what if they were? It leads her to speculate beyond her evidence. In particular, where she was arguing that a woman was out at midnight because she was planning to pawn a hat to get some money seemed like a massive reach to me, those shops wouldn’t be open at that hour— but she can’t admit that there’s even a possibility that sex was involved, and that’s a weakness.

I wanted the book to just be more up-to-date with its approach to transactional sex. If some of these women did engage in transactional sex – and there were a lot of different ways that could’ve happened – and it was also clear from the book at a couple of them did at times – well, so what? It’s a chance to talk about the social structures that made it impossible for women to earn a decent living and any disposable income in the absence of a male provider— which she does at times to her credit!— but not as much as she could’ve. She’s so busy dodging the prostitution charge that she doesn’t talk about the role transactional sex plays in a society with those kinds of restrictions… And the ways that in turn is absolutely a benefit to men in such a society.

I also wanted a little more on why there’s this prurient aspect to the media approach to the ripper’s victims. Again, if one or more of them were prostitutes, so what? That not all of them were makes it clear that the ripper was an opportunistic killer of women, and the reasons these women were so vulnerable is what unites them – regardless of whether or not one or more of them engaged in transactional sex. Adding a sex twist to murder has always sold papers, and she had a golden opportunity to talk about how easily and cheaply that was done here.

I just wanted more. And I wanted her to feel to be a little less aggressive with her “they NEVER!” She hasn’t got proof for that. What she does have is the fascinating stories of five women who have been misused by history, and who offer an important counterweight to the too-often glamorized Victorian age.

Ive read it over the summer and it's absolutely astounding! So much i never knew about how the victorians thought and acted is well-described in this book.

Another +1 for this book. I particularly admired how she refused to center their murderer, nor to give any attention to the gruesome details of their deaths, which has all been hashed over again and again. This is a book about the victims and their lives.

It’s a hugely enjoyable and well-researched book. I really hope it won’t stay her only published work. I also loved her podcast, Bad Women (can be found on Spotify), which is well-produced and really gives you even more insights into her work and the lives of these women. She is doing a second season right now, on female murder victims during the London Blitz.

I listened to her podcast last year. Totally changed the way I see the Ripper stories.

I think this will end up being downvoted to shit because apparently Rubenhold makes a lot of men angry but I 100% agree - this book is a must read. I couldn't believe how much information she was able to glean about the women's lives and how varied they were, and how inevitably dragged down by victorian society which just left you so few options if you were a woman. I loved that she restored their lives, their individuality, their dignity, their stories.

I looked up the book. Sounds fascinating and tragic.

I really loved how she sourced her information too. One of my favorite things is looking through food notes and end notes of books to understand how an author built their research. I loved seeing how she built her case from there and kept digging showed she did more research than most. Certainly far more than the exploitative ripper tours and such. I used to work as a victim advocate and had really hoped this book would be a turning point in victim focused crime histories. The general public hasn’t fully shifted but I’ve definitely noticed an increased pushback and some more focus on victims. These women were all people with lives before their deaths and they didn’t exist just for one man to kill and everyone else since to exploit. I really loved how Rubenhold did her best to give them life again and how it reinforced her thesis.

Her podcast is fantastic too!

Bad Women

I can’t even explain how much I love this book. There’s also a podcast series that goes over the lives of all the women!

Loved it too! Like you said : they got the prostitute label but when you read about their lives it's such a sad story.

>. These 5 women didn't scream, so it's now known that they were killed while sleeping on the street.

They all slept in lodging houses, though? One of the victims was literally found in her bed. And they did prostitute themselves.

Excellent book!

I loved it, both Rubenhold's writing style and the information regarding the victims themselves. It was fascinating to learn more of who the women were in truth, versus the perception of them at the time.

They didn't scream so we now know they were sleeping rough? (Cf lamentably recent & damnably lamentable court judgements and the Bible on the screaming though tbf a connection to homelessness isn't made even in those.) Having read that claim I strongly doubt the author has suggested a proof that the women weren't prostitutes rather than 'labelled' as ones. Surely the murder of a prostitute is as odious as that of someone labelled as one or indeed of anyone else. Assuming you mean the city of London & not the City of London, the poor weren't huddled in piles throughout it nor would they have been allowed by authorities to have been; they were most obviously concentrated & starving & driven to desperate measures & dying in the East End. There's nothing in the least celebratory about scones and tea.

I'm only going by what you say of the book. If I've got a good idea of it I think you might want to look further into its author's research before you celebrate it with stodgy bread rolls and milky tea.

But prostitution was often a part time activety for extra money.