Dressing like a period female pirate

[kass]

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!

[Fox]

I'm pretty sure that was just a shamefaced attempt on my part to get you to "get 'em out" at Legoland...

It is certainly true that I've lost more than one sword fight through distraction. I'd like to pretend I'm immune to it now, but who would I be kidding?

Personally I think the bared breasts are to show that they really are women. In an age when clean shaven young men with long hair were not uncommon the pictures could be mistaken for men, but the boobs on display make it clear that they're women. I suspect the pin-up aspect probably helped with sales a little as an added bonus though

In answer to the breeches question. It's dangerous to assume that Dutch fashions are applicable to Anglo-American seamen, though a: there were Dutch pirates so if you're portraying one of them then they're fine, and b: baggy breeches caught at the knee do turn up on English seamen from time to time, but not that baggy. They'd also be better for an early GAoP impression than a later one.

[Edward T. Porter]

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.

I raise objection, Empress!

Taken out of this gender context, there are some people who sail on/ between both ships. At least in Germany it´s like this... independent from/ going through several periods.

[Ransom]

In my case, there wouldn't be much of a distraction.

I also wondered if the pictures of the woman with bare breasts was a way for the artist to make a comment on their supposed morals - or lack there of? Obviously, "nice" ladies did not become pirates.

I wish there was a little more leeway in the breeches department. I prefer the way the Dutch boat hand breeches look, although I woud probably not make them quite so baggy. However, since I'm not Dutch, are those breeches totally unacceptable - even if modified. Or is modifing putting you out of the ball park for authenticity?

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Earlier it was stated that, in so many words,

we cant trust the pictures because they are just an artist interpretation

If that is your philosophy, I think you are missing the point. No, the artist probably never laid eyes on Reade or Bonny, but they probably saw thousands of sailors, so they knew exactly what sailor clothing of the period looked like.

The publisher approached them and said, "hey, I want to run a picture of those two pirate girls in my paper/book/broadsheet, draw me a picture of them."

So, the artist took what he knew about sailors, and added Bonny and Reade to it. He wouldn't have drawn them in a blacksmiths outfit, or a farmers outfit, or a courtier's outfit, because the viewing public also had a good idea what sailors looked like (Great Britain is an island after all), so the cloths that they are wearing are probably very accurate for period seamen (which is what they were trying to do).

So, when Kass, Foxe, GoF, etc say that you would do well to use the pictures of Reade and Bonny as a guide, we are saying, in essence, here is a picture that the viewing public in the early 18th century KNEW were sailors clothing, so if you want to look like an early 18th C sailor, is a great reference.

Yes, there are pictures where the artist took a great license when depicting the subject. Normally, it was done to illustrate a point or to lampoon the subject. The R and B pictures, I believe, are not of that category.

Greg aka GoF

[kass]

I'm pretty sure that was just a shamefaced attempt on my part to get you to "get 'em out" at Legoland...

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...

[kass]

I raise objection, Empress!

Taken out of this gender context, there are some people who sail on/ between both ships. At least in Germany it´s like this... independent from/ going through several periods.

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. :)

I wish there was a little more leeway in the breeches department. I prefer the way the Dutch boat hand breeches look, although I woud probably not make them quite so baggy. However, since I'm not Dutch, are those breeches totally unacceptable - even if modified. Or is modifing putting you out of the ball park for authenticity?

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.

[Fox]

We do see baggy breeches on English seamen, but as I said, earlier rather than later:

1664

C. 1690

By the 1700s, and especially by the 1720s baggy breeches had been driven out of fashion by narrower breeches, trousers, and slops.

1736

[Aurore Devareaux]

Hey, it doesn't matter to me if you don't want to do an authentic portrayal of female pirates. But since you posted in Twill, I thought that's what you were interested in.

Aurore and Jenny, if you substitute the words "bucket boots" or "crossbow" or anything else we know seaman didn't use into your arguments, perhaps you'll see what I'm getting at. You're justifying what you want to do by saying, "Well they could have had it." And that's not documentation.

For example, we know the Chinese were drinking tea from time immemorial. And Marco Polo visited China in the 13th century. But somehow there wasn't any tea brought back with him. Matter of fact, the West didn't start drinking tea until the mid-17th century. That's 400 years -- as long as it's been since the settlement of Jamestown!

That's why the "I'm a pirate and I stole it" or "I've travelled the world and brought these things back" argument doesn't hold water.

But as I said, if you're not interested in an authentic portrayal, then this is moot.

Please be so kind as to re-read what I made mention of. You will find, upon doing so, that I specifically made point of being circa correct. On further note, if Bonny and Read where known to cross dress, which is accounted for in the trial records, they were dressing according to what was the norm of their peers, i.e. Mariners. There is nothing saying that one has to specifically dress English, etc. Therefore, within the proper dictates of chosen circa, one would not be limited to only English dress, (or French or Spanish or whoever), but could very well own something that is more common from another country's origins. Being that crews, were known to be mixed, one could wear a jacket or other article of clothing and be correct in doing so, IF found within the era involved.

I made NO mention that things of incorrect bearing, should be used. In no way did I say that substituting an improbability should be used and backed by idle excuse. I take no offense, just caution that you may wish to truly read what I wrote afore trying to make assumptions as to what I was relaying.

Faires are one thing, Living History another arena, altogether. Being that this subject is in "Twill", the subject matter at hand is accuracy, not what liberties might be taken in a faniciful environment.

[kass]

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.

I made NO mention that things of incorrect bearing, should be used. In no way did I say that substituting an improbability should be used and backed by idle excuse.

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.

[Aurore Devareaux]

And therfore, you are saying, you have in your possession evidence of concrete mannerism that what you state is infalliable. Perhaps you may wish to consult Janet Arnold in regard to the melding of fashions.

[kass]

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.

[Aurore Devareaux]

In regard to Ms. Arnold, her writtings make note of fashion crossovers in a general sense. Perhaps you may wish to consult "Patterns of Fashion", Pg 2.

As to mine comprhension of what you are stating, it is quite crystal. No evidence IS no evidence... in either direction. If you can offer validity to your aurgument, I might consider taking it under advisement.

[CrazyCholeBlack]

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?!

I'm commanding the Empress! Now how can I make that work for my sewing? "Kass, sew all these darn boning channels for me". Nope, nuthin!

OK, I have a specific question/thought if you will. I'd love to hear perspective from those that have been doing this a lot longer. I seem to hear a lot about how woman re-enactors should be careful about the male/female ratio, be willing to play woman when that ratio is "too high" etc, but how many women are currently trying to historically accurately portray men during the GAoP? I know in other periods women in men's rolls is a big "issue", but is it for us or are people just being overly cautious?

I have other thoughts but keep getting distracted in midsentence.

[Captain Tightpants]

In regard to Ms. Arnold, her writtings make note of fashion crossovers in a general sense. Perhaps you may wish to consult "Patterns of Fashion", Pg 2.

As to mine comprhension of what you are stating, it is quite crystal. No evidence IS no evidence... in either direction. If you can offer validity to your aurgument, I might consider taking it under advisement.

This is me throwing the Dialectic Flag. One cannot prove a negative; one can only point out a lack of substantiation.

In other words, one cannot cite Arnold, J. Thingie Never Written About Clothes. p. -3 to -7.

Oh, and in re: Arnold. Which one, dear? There are three books called Patterns of Fashion. The discerning reader of Arnold will note she deals with extant upper-class garments, and her research involves those garments only. So if the Duke of, I dunno, Sporborg adapts the pantaloons of the Count of Hainault in 1580, what the hell does that have to do with simple common sailors in GAoP? Furthermore, in the PoF that does cover GAoP, there isn't a stitch of men's clothing - it's just the women's.

Come on. There's a clue hovering just over your event horizon. Grab it.

[kass]

OK, I have a specific question/thought if you will. I'd love to hear perspective from those that have been doing this a lot longer. I seem to hear a lot about how woman re-enactors should be careful about the male/female ratio, be willing to play woman when that ratio is "too high" etc, but how many women are currently trying to historically accurately portray men during the GAoP? I know in other periods women in men's rolls is a big "issue", but is it for us or are people just being overly cautious?

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!

[CrazyCholeBlack]

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!

ahh, yes, quite a good picture they got of you too.

I'm as much a stickler for percentage and giving the proper impression of men/woman ratio as the next guy. But see most of my point is that in my admittedly limited time "here", I can't think of a woman currently *doing* a historically correct portrayal of a woman dressed as a man during the GAoP. But I can point out tons doing the other side of the coin. So I get a little bothered by the cautions against doing it since no one *is* doing it yet. Eh, call it my hot button issue.

I guess what made me think of it was this blurb I read recently about accounts of woman to men cross dressers in the Netherlands from 1550-1838. The number wasn't huge (only 119 documented cases) but it was enough to get me to thinking. Does anyone know the numbers for woman dressing as men outside of sailors in England? After all wasn't it either Reed or Bonney (sorry can't keep them straight) that was a man on land before she was a man at sea?

And yes of course I'll be at your lecture Kass, like I'll have any place better to be?

[Aurore Devareaux]

Most interesting. I was under the impression that subjects of debate would be handled in an adult fashion. I am finding that this is obviously not the case. A good debate I can appreciate, but when it turns into an argument with bad form, lacking respect for others involved, I must bow out.

In regard to the "Arnold, J. Thingie Never Written About Clothes. p. -3 to -7."....I was refering to how fashions of one area of Europe would influence another area of Europe. In other words, the melding of fashion, not specificly stating such in regard to "mariners".

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

In regards to the quetion posed about women dressing as men outside sailors in England.

This subject has come up many times in the colonial area. My own sweet wife has questioned this , and much to her dismay, found it just wasn't documented. Specifically Blondiewnench (the Missus) wondered how in the *#ll women did all the work with all those skirts flying about!

The answer was NOT that they dressed in male clothing, but learned to adapt by necessity. If the common women-folk who settled the Canadas and Americas dressed in male clothing, they kept it a very close secret, because there has yet to be any evidence provided to the contrary. I realize this doesn't help in the PYRACY end of it, but I believe it discounts most of the other areas.

Bo

[michaelsbagley]

Reading this thread has raised a number of questions in my mind, assuming a fair sized re-enactment is happenning with reasonably equal proportion of men and women present, I undertsand the stance of having only one or at the most two female pirates for the sake of authenticity (specially if portraying Rakham's crew), but if a generic crew was being used, would it still be reasonable to have a female pirate or two (to display the full range of thing in the GAoP)? I know this essentilly goes to the preference of the event organizer, but lets for the sake of discussion assume a relative standard in GAoP Living History events...

Secondly, what would the other women portray that would hold to authenticity?

I've read a bit on the Pirates in Paradise thread that suggests that other women would be portraying "women of the evening" or other female vendor types that would or could reasonably exist in a pirate camp. But what other options are there? I know this will somewhat depend on the "scene" of the re-enactment, but a quick list of options and likely common scenarios would really help me get a better grip on what to expect from a GAoP living history event.

Any suggestions or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[Capt. Sterling]

Reading this thread has raised a number of questions in my mind, assuming a fair sized re-enactment is happenning with reasonably equal proportion of men and women present, I undertsand the stance of having only one or at the most two female pirates for the sake of authenticity (specially if portraying Rakham's crew), but if a generic crew was being used, would it still be reasonable to have a female pirate or two (to display the full range of thing in the GAoP)? I know this essentilly goes to the preference of the event organizer, but lets for the sake of discussion assume a relative standard in GAoP Living History events...

Secondly, what would the other women portray that would hold to authenticity?

I've read a bit on the Pirates in Paradise thread that suggests that other women would be portraying "women of the evening" or other female vendor types that would or could reasonably exist in a pirate camp. But what other options are there? I know this will somewhat depend on the "scene" of the re-enactment, but a quick list of options and likely common scenarios would really help me get a better grip on what to expect from a GAoP living history event.

Any suggestions or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

There are a multitude of roles that women can play from the GAoP and not just female pirate or whore... it would truly depend on what sort of scenerio you are trying to show at your event though... if you were say in port trying to trade off some of your goods, there could be any number of women from dress makers, to whores, to merchants' wives, the occasionaly lady of wealth but I would limit her number, coffee house owners, vendors such at those depicted in the Criers of London (need to to find the correct title for that) such as broom sellers, oninon sellers, ect...

here go Marcellus Laroon's Cryers of London, 1687 or as they are presented in Sean Shesgreen's The Criers and Hawkers of London..

[kass]

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.

[kass]

Reading this thread has raised a number of questions in my mind, assuming a fair sized re-enactment is happenning with reasonably equal proportion of men and women present, I undertsand the stance of having only one or at the most two female pirates for the sake of authenticity (specially if portraying Rakham's crew), but if a generic crew was being used, would it still be reasonable to have a female pirate or two (to display the full range of thing in the GAoP)? I know this essentilly goes to the preference of the event organizer, but lets for the sake of discussion assume a relative standard in GAoP Living History events...

Secondly, what would the other women portray that would hold to authenticity?

I've read a bit on the Pirates in Paradise thread that suggests that other women would be portraying "women of the evening" or other female vendor types that would or could reasonably exist in a pirate camp. But what other options are there? I know this will somewhat depend on the "scene" of the re-enactment, but a quick list of options and likely common scenarios would really help me get a better grip on what to expect from a GAoP living history event.

Any suggestions or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

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.

[CrazyCholeBlack]

In regards to the quetion posed about women dressing as men outside sailors in England.

This subject has come up many times in the colonial area. My own sweet wife has questioned this , and much to her dismay, found it just wasn't documented. Specifically Blondiewnench (the Missus) wondered how in the *#ll women did all the work with all those skirts flying about!

The answer was NOT that they dressed in male clothing, but learned to adapt by necessity. If the common women-folk who settled the Canadas and Americas dressed in male clothing, they kept it a very close secret, because there has yet to be any evidence provided to the contrary. I realize this doesn't help in the PYRACY end of it, but I believe it discounts most of the other areas.

Bo

I appreciate the input Bo and fully agree with Kass that the right clothes are highly functional.

However, I'm specifically interested in any documented cases of not just woman wearing men's clothes but actually becoming men. In the article review I was reading they talked about some of the woman marrying other woman, serving in the army, running businesses etc. and I know in other periods that are better documented there are cases of woman who became men and were only found out to be woman upon their deaths. That's something even Bonney & Reed didn't achieve.

(yes I know it's not sailor related but I have such a hard time not seeing all of the period at once)

[kass]

I'm as much a stickler for percentage and giving the proper impression of men/woman ratio as the next guy. But see most of my point is that in my admittedly limited time "here", I can't think of a woman currently *doing* a historically correct portrayal of a woman dressed as a man during the GAoP. But I can point out tons doing the other side of the coin. So I get a little bothered by the cautions against doing it since no one *is* doing it yet. Eh, call it my hot button issue.

I guess what made me think of it was this blurb I read recently about accounts of woman to men cross dressers in the Netherlands from 1550-1838. The number wasn't huge (only 119 documented cases) but it was enough to get me to thinking. Does anyone know the numbers for woman dressing as men outside of sailors in England? After all wasn't it either Reed or Bonney (sorry can't keep them straight) that was a man on land before she was a man at sea?

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.