kass

Michael, I think you hit the nail squarely on the head! We tend to forget that we don't have to all agree with everything each other says in order to play together. We just can't get personally insulted when an event organiser says, "Sorry. We only allow authentic portrayals at this event" or a group says, "In our group, the women must dress like women. Sorry." That's just their choice. You have to respect that. There are really enough groups and events out there to accommodate everyone!

To make up for my contribution to this thread going WAY off-topic, here are a couple by Willem Aelst from the late 1660s. And a long gun and powder horn on a justacorps... And one by Deportes of himself. This one is 1699. I think there's a hunting bag near his feet...

Oh Jack... We went off topic long ago... There is a Reenactors' Market coming up in early February in Chicago. Here's the link to their website: Reenactor Fest I can't promise you that they'll have the selection that TORM in Coventry did, but it's worth a look if you come North (although WHY you'd want to leave lovely Florida in February, I'll never know... ) There is also an expanding selection of fabrics on certain websites that will remain nameless.

Cheese! Throw cheese! It's much more sticky!

Hey R, good explanation! I get it. I really do. But this is the thing -- women's clothing can be just as fun. I don't wear what women wore in the period because I'm trying to ruin my own good time. I'm wearing it because I think it's wonderful! And frankly you couldn't get me into a frock coat and boots anymore. It's just not as interesting. I guess what I'm trying to point out is that most women aren't wearing proper women's clothing for the period. So perhaps they should try it before deciding it's no fun. ----- Jenny, I totally get what you're saying. Really, I do! It's just that for an authentic portrayal of the period, you can't have all of the women running around in boy's clothes. You can't have half the women running around in boy's clothes. Maybe you can have one woman wearing boy's clothes. That's documentable, but the rest is not. That being said, if you're not after an accurate portrayal of history (and let me tell you -- most events are not), then have as many women in men's clothing as you like. You see, portraying pirates as they weren't (a whole lot of women in pants, men in bucket boots, et cetera) is as wrong as wearing a motorcycle helmet and Nike running shoes with your frock coat. It was not the way it was. So why show the public a misrepresentation of history? If you want to dress up and play pirate at a Faire, do what you like. I'll probably meet you and think your outfit is really cool! But if it's a historical event, we should still to what was worn historically. You see, because teaching history is not about how we want to dress. It's about dressing as THEY did. That being said -- you don't have to teach history! Do what you like! There's room for all of us! Lemme explain. A little while ago, a woman posted to a pirate list I'm on and said, "Group XYZ says they'll only allow women to dress as men if they are specifically portraying Bonny and Read, and they already have a Bonny and Read, so they said I can't wear boy's clothes." She was really upset with this fact. But that was the rule of that group. The solution -- find a group that lets you dress as you like. But don't be surprised if you want to come to an authentic pirate event and are asked to change into women's clothing. Let me try to explain with another story. Now this isn't my period of study so please forgive me if I get some of the historical details wrong. I know a guy who runs a 12th century Crusades group. He's well-read in the period and probably knows more about 12th century Crusaders than anyone else I've personally met. So he runs this group. Now you'd think he'd be the highest ranking member of the group, right? He's the guy with the most knowledge and he undertakes the planning of all their events after all. But no. He actually portrays a captured Moorish slave. Why? you might ask. Because he's African-American. And a Black man wouldn't have been with a group of English knights on Crusade under any other circumstances. You see, to him the accurate portrayal of history is more important than what he wants to do personally. Now I know he goes to non-historical events and portrays a knight. That's fine. It's not a public event and he's doing it for fun, not history. But when he's at a living history event, even though he's the guy who can tell you the most about the period, he does it while serving his "master", a white guy. THAT, my friends, is dedication. I don't know that I could portray someone's slave... But you see what I mean? In living history, WE are not the focus. The history is. We are just props, teaching tools. And the tools have to be right or that don't teach the proper history. Does that clarify it for anyone? Hopefully?

I haven't read this article to which you refer, Chole, but it greatly intrigues me. Do you have a ref for it? In the case of Catherine Lincken (the only known woman to have served in the Royal Navy), she passed as a male sailor until she was injured and the surgeon discovered her true sex. She was not known to her shipmates to be female. I don't know about landsmen cases in the GAoP but there are quite a few similar cases in the American Revolution. Same thing -- women who passed as soldiers until they were injured and their sex revealed on the surgeon's table. Not tons, but some. There's even one woman who's husband received a "Widower's Pension" upon her death and another woman who was attained the rank of Captain in the Army because of her valourous duty. Although, come to think of it, Mary Read supposedly served two tours of duty in the Dutch Wars as a man... Of course later in the AWI, women were excepted as recruits for the Continental Line even if they made no attempt to hide their sex. There was just that much of a paucity of able-bodied men! But unlike the cases to which you refer, none of these cases involve women who weren't found out until death. These are all cases of women posing as men for a purpose -- specifically for serving in the military -- and when their service was done, they put their stays and petticotes back on.

Yeah, it was Mary Read who was dressed as a boy from a child. There's some long and involved story about Anne Bonney being disguised as a boy as a child too, but Anne Bonney was known by Rackham's crew to have been a woman and dressed as one when not in battle. Mary Read was only discovered when Anne hit on her and was surprised by the truth. :) You know, Chole, you bring up a very good point. There are so many women out there wearing boy clothes (but not attempting to portray a female pirate) that I think it's a hot button with us. You see, the justification for this is that "Well Bonny and Read were women dressed as men." The fact that the aforementioned girls in boys' clothes are wearing crushed velvet frock coats and over-the-knee boots notwithstanding. I guess the really lesson we're trying to push is: don't use the incidence of two women dressing as men to justify wearing whatever you want.

Personally, Michael, I'm against women portraying female pirates in contexts other than Rackham's crew just like I'm against pirates carrying crossbows. It's making the rare common, and I'm not for that. What would the other women portray? There are any number of roles women could play. On the illegal side of things, there were quite a number of prostitutes and female pickpockets about. But there were also a great deal of female business owners (legitimate businesses!) -- publicans, shopkeepers, etc. Vegetable sellers and other hawking vendors often hired pretty young girls to cry their wares because buying your cabbage from a lovely maid was always more appealing than from the ugly old farmer. On the waterfront, wives of sailors in particular played various maritime roles on the waterfront -- from making and mending nets to providing a ferry service for people and goods to get to the ships anchored further out in the harbour. Additionally it was not unusual for women to be onboard ships. Oftentimes captains took their wives with them on long voyages. And female passengers were not unknown. There is a great breadth of roles for women to play in any reenactment period. And that's because women were a part of history too! It's a shame to sell our female ancestors short and put on boy's clothes.

Good point, Bo! You bring up a subject near and dear to my heart: the functionality of women's garments. Just because we're wearing petticotes and stays and gowns doesn't mean we can't move in them. I have mowed a lawn (with a scythe!) in mine. I have also carried loads of firewood, taken heavy pots to and from the fire, and wrangled dogs and horses. Of course this is the best advertisement to making your clothing accurately, as they would have. They LIVED in their clothing. We're not talking about women who laid around and did nothing all day while the servants waited on her hand and foot. We're talking about working women, women who did physical labour, women who sweated and got dirty and worked the land beside the men. I just hate when women want to wear men's clothing because "girl clothes are uncomfortable". If you're saying this, then you aren't wearing proper girl clothes! And to bring it back around to maritime history, we actually have a number of documented cases of female passengers on a ship attacked by pirates doing their best to fight. Some of these women hunted and knew well how to shoot a musket or pistols. Some fought with their bare hands or anything they could pick up. So it's not the case that women need sit by and let the boys have all the fun! It's just that we have to "have fun" in a context that is documentable.

Oh darling, you misunderstand what I'm saying! I have no problem with the proportions of men to women in reenactments of any period. I have a problem with there being 20 female pirates at a GAoP reenactment (versus 25 male pirates) when there were only 2 female pirates in the period per 5000 or so male pirates. That's a BIG discrepancy. I'm not advocating women caring about the proportions of male to female in any other context. Everyone wants to be a pirate. So a lot of women are running around in frock coats and pants and boots and being "female pirates like Bonny and Read". That's fine at a Faire or a role-playing game or a fancy dress party. But at a reenactment, it's important not to distort history. It's important not to leave the public with the impression that female pirates were common. They weren't. They were incredibly rare. For example, say there's a living history event that your group is attending and you want to portray a female pirate. First question, are you portraying the Crew of Calico Jack Rackham specifically? If you are, then you could have two female pirates. But for any other portray (especially anonymous ones), more than one woman dressed as a man is too many. I'm actually going to be doing just such a reenactment and I have been asked to portray a female pirate. But the other women in the group have to portray women so the proportions won't be off. There are also, I might add, far too many men dressed as officers and not nearly enough men dressed as the lower classes. So men are not immune from getting the proportions horribly wrong. Come to my lecture at RF2, Chole. It's all about women in reenactment. But to get back to your question: how many women are portraying men accurately in the GAoP right now? Frankly, I don't know any. Every woman I know who wears a frock coat and pants and that stuff isn't trying to portray a man at all. Most of them wear bodices under their frock coats and petticotes hitched up and boots and stuff -- kinda like I did at Legoland this October!

Funny. Last time I checked Janet Arnold, she didn't cover the fashions of mariners at all. Has she written something new from beyond the grave? Read my post again, please. No evidence against does not constitute proof for. I reiterate: just because you think it's possible that French mariners wore English jackets doesn't mean they actually did. Just because nothing says they didn't do it, doesn't mean they did. Only evidence that they did is evidence that they did. Is this really so difficult to understand? No evidence means no evidence.

Equally there is nothing to suggest that English mariners who were on crews with, for example, French mariners adopted items of their typical dress or vice versa. No evidence against it does not constitute evidence for it. A French mariner wearing an English jacket needs to be documented. Assuming that it would happen just because you can imagine it happening is not documentation. It is equally possible that the English thought the French jackets were ugly and would have worn burlap sacks rather than resort to a French garment. And now you have. Suggesting that people can mix the garments of different places without specific substatiation is just as bad as mixing items of different eras or things that didn't exist at all. I believe if you re-read my post, you will find that I address you AND Jenny in it and I had also mistaken False Ransom, whom I was also addressing, for you. So I was trying to cover the responses of three people in my post. Not just you. Don't take it as an attack. I'm just trying to answer multiple people in one post.

Good point, Bela. I should have said, "If you're purely a role player." Obviously there are those of us who play a role in our reenactments. I was trying to demonstrate the difference between inventing a character for your own amusement and inventing a character to use to teach history. To teach history, you have to be stricter with your source material and make more careful choices. :) Well, R, if you went very early (like 1680 or even 1670), Englishmen were wearing such breeches. Bonny and Read are from the 1720s when English seamen were wearing mostly trousers.

Well...colour me naïve! I was about to say, R, that the baggy pants are awfully Dutch. I mean, if I didn't know the source of these engravings, I would have guessed Dutch just based on those pants. As Foxe mentioned, we see those on Englishmen, but very early in the period. By the 1680s, they're going to breeches and open-knee slops. And this brings up another danger: nationality. There were great differences in clothing styles from country to country. If you're portraying an English sailor, you would dress differently than a Dutch one and vastly different from a Spanish or Italian one of the same period. We don't think about these differences, but they were remarked upon in the literature of the period. Lemme see if I can find that picture... This is from slightly post-GAoP (1740) celebrating an English victory over the Spanish in Panama. The scene is a Spanish sailor begging for mercy from an English captain (you can see some English sailors in the background in their short jackets and long trousers). See how different the Spaniard looks? He's wearing a ruff and slashed sleeves! Like in the 16th century! Very different...

Of course! Foxe has a theory about this (that I'm sure he won't mind if I share with you). You see, I was saying that I thought the bare breasts were just a kind of "pin-up" twist on these pictures of Bonny and Read. After all, they were quite a sensation! But Foxe said that he thought the bare breasts were entirely authentic. I thought he was joking (a sly attempt to get women to show their breasts in the interests of historical accuracy! What a skive!) Then he told me how he lost a number of swordfights because his female opponents shimmied their "assets" at him. The distraction gave them the split-second of distraction they needed to take the advantage and run their swords home. Poor boy... He thinks (if I'm remembering correctly) that Bonny and Read could have used their barebreastedness as a distraction. They come over the gun'le, the men prepare to fight men, they bare their breasts, the men are stunned, they kill the men before they recover their senses. Makes sense.... But obviously, even if this was their fighting technique, a woman portraying a female pirate wouldn't walk around barebreasted when she wasn't fighting. :) And if Foxe disagrees, slap him!

Well how about this. Here are the girls: I don't see a significant difference between Bonny and Read's jackets in these pictures and the jacket on the Dutch boathand. :) How'zat?

Did you see my post at the end of the previous page? Or are you asking for other opinions and I'm just being arrogant...

Here's the pictures:

Oh geez, FR. I've got to be your least favourite person today! I didn't even consider how that would look! This is the first time I've ever used my Super Moderator Powers[tm] to split a topic. I didn't even know it was going to work! Let me see if I can insert a post above yours and take the blame myself...

Your wish, Chole. My command! Topic split. You might want to reiterate the second part of your question in the old thread now. So what does that make you if you can command The Empress?! Sorry about the misattribution, FR. I don't know why but I keep getting you and Aurore confused! And you were both saying kinda the same thing. You ask if a woman would wear the outfit of the Dutch sailors on board ship. I can't answer that. I can only say that we have two pictures of two female pirates and that's all the info we have. If I were portraying a female pirate, I'd dress as Bonny or Read. I can't answer if a female pirate would have dressed any differently because I don't know any more than you do. We just don't have any more information than two pictures of Bonny and Read. As to the question of what women should do if they want to portray pirates, you have to ask yourself a big question first: Am I a role-player or am I a reenactor? If you're a role-player, dress however you like. Your persona is your overriding guide. If you're a female pirate, you can make up what you wear just like you invent other parts of your persona. And there's nothing wrong with making things up in this context. That's what role-players do -- they make stuff up in order to play a role. And that's cool. But if you're a reenactor, you're not one person -- you're a group of people. If that group consists of ten guys in frock coats and no one in common man's dress, then nine of the ten guys in frock coats have to take them off and change into lower class gear because no ship had all officers and no common seamen. If a group consists of equal numbers of women and men and all the women show up as Bonny and Read types, all but one or two of them must change into women's clothing in order to preserve the proper proportions. In reenactment, we never get the numbers right. There just aren't enough reenactors to represent the number of people involved in any historical battle or event. But a crew that is composed of as many female pirates as male pirates is just misrepresenting the known numbers and therefore taking great liberties with history. And it matters.

That was his "long, curly, dark hair and miniskirts" stage if I remember correctly...

Don't worry about it, William. As the boys said, it happens quite frequently! :) You're okay... as long as you don't start calling one of them Kass!

Don't you mean the voice of sanity keeping you two from buying every shiny pointy thing in sight? I think you were bowed under the weight of having to put up with me for two weeks. And as I remember, I carried my own books in my HUGE Kass-green bag! :)

I LOVE that picture. I look so tiny and petite and feminine... :) Greg has got to be 6'4" or something. Foxe is 6'1". I'm 5'8" but I think I have better posture than Foxe. Jack, that's my living room! Doesn't everyone have rolls and rolls of silk as "decor"?

Now you're onto something, Jenny! Good show! I think you're definitely moving in a good direction, Aurore. Which is why I'm going to push you a little farther. The simple fact remains that women didn't copy men's dress. Three women disguised themselves as men aboard ship. That's three (well two -- Lincken wasn't a pirate) women out of thousands of male pirates in this period. And as Foxe states, even they didn't wear men's clothes all the time -- or even most of the time. Portraying a person from history is by definition stifling to the creative personality. You have fewer choices because you are choosing to do something they did, not something you would have done in their place. The biggest problem with this mode of thinking is that we are trying to put ourselves into the mindset of people from 300 years ago. And the only way to make the kinds of choices that they would have made is to make choices that we know they did make. If you see what I mean... Which is really funny to hear myself say because in real life, I'm far from conservative in my dress!