Dressing like a period female pirate

[kass]

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)

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.

[Capt. Sterling]

I think it is David Brandon's Stand and Deliver! a History of Highway Robbery, that covers a few female highwaymen during or around the time of the GAoP.

[CrazyCholeBlack]

The Tradition of Female Transvestism in Early Modern Europe by Rudolf M. Dekker and Lotte C. van de Pol New York: St. Martin's Press

I guess "book" would be a better choice of words. I've only read portions and reviews of it but the numbers involved and the date over lapping the GAoP is what makes me think of it.

The woman I was thinking of comes from the Civil War (hence other better documented periods) and, if I recall correctly, became a man to serve and just didn't change back. It was something like 40 years later that she died and was reveled. Naturally not a fact I have written down and therefore can't remember fully.

[Fox]

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...

Speaking with an event organisers hat on: at a pirate reenactment/living history where we were trying to given a reasonably historically accurate impression I wouldn't have a problem with a female pirate, for the sake of showing as many different aspects of priacy as possible. It is however a numbers game. We know of two documented female pirates in the GAoP, but it has been argued that there were perhaps some who were never discovered. OK, lets say, arbitrarily, that for every one we know about 100 didn't get caught (and I think that's an excessively high estimate FWIW). That means 200 female pirates active in the GAoP. It has been estimated that during the heyday of the GAoP there were perhaps as many as 5,000 pirates active at any given time. So, even if we assume that all of the potential female pirates were active at once, that still gives us 1 female pirate for every 2,500 male pirates. In reality the proportion was probably much lower as I've erred in favour of the female pirates in this calculation.

Therefore, 1 female pirate at an event I think is a good thing, but if someone else want to play a female pirate then she's got some serious recruiting to do!

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

...

Any suggestions or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

There are a million and one potential roles for women, though as you say, a lot of them depend on the location of the event.

And I've got to agree with Kass about girls' roles not needing to be boring. In most seaport towns where the male population were often away for long stretches the women had to be able to look after themselves - leading to some pretty tough women. A recent study showed that about one third of assault charges brought before the magistrates of Portsmouth (England) in the 18th century were against women; 2,891 between 1696 and 1781.

[Ransom]

Of the more recent pictures posted by Foxx, I suppose the one maked A c. 1690 is closest to what I have in mind, although not completely - definately NOT the hat!

This is just my own thoughts about why women tend to want to wear the men's clothing rather than female. It's the "cool" factor. It's just more fun to wear a frock coat and breeches than it is a corset and skirts. I think it's the panache or romance of it, that you can't get otherwise. It's the same reason most of the men tend to wear frock coats and (gasp) bucket boots. Granted, they are not period, but by their popularity, they are obviously more fun. And yes, I know the difference between wanting to just have fun, and wanting to be strickly period acurate. I'm just throwing out a possible reason for the tendancy of woman wanting to dress like men and be more dashing, rather than be dressed like a woman selling fruit on the dock.

I know that woman can be agressive in skirts, whether low born or high. I have read where noble women directed the defense of their estates, and took up arms against Cromwell while their Royalist husbands were off fighting somewhere else. Which I guess just goes to show, don't back us against a wall, 'cause we'll fight back!

[Red Cat Jenny]

After reading both threads on this subject, I think I'd like to try to clarify some things because it seems perhaps that some are misunderstanding where the others are coming from.

1) Some are looking at posts here from the point of view that:

People want to re-enact wearing their personal interpretation of clothing.

They rightfully have a problem with this and are defending being historically correct. I can agree with that. After all if you are portraying say, George Washington, you wouldn't think of changing his hair or clothing.

--

I think perhaps those people looking to justify some personal (within period ) choices, were not necesarily intending to portray a specific historical character in a re-enactment for public education. In other words, they didn't specify what their activities would be.

--

2) Nor did the above make it clear till a bit later on, that their issue was with accurate portrayal of a specific person or for educational purposes. I had my own moment of clarity over this. It was like "ooohhh , wait a minute, I see where we are passing each other on the road here!"

--

3) That said, I could be completely wrong. But I have a hunch I am at least partly right.

--

Now. Blending the modern day into the historical one.

I think some are dead convinced there were almost no female pirates and since theres not much evidence then there's no place for them. Anywhere. Perhaps not being well read enough to agree with this yet, I have my doubts. Yes.. partly from personal desire, but you know, if you read a lot about current research, they are always saying in the news "now we've reeealy found the oldest skeleton, really...we mean it this time..." yeh... and the stuff they thought was extinct, and the other things that have been proven as mistaken in more recent history.I wonder.... just how much research has been put into this one fact in question? Perhaps it wasn't deemed important enough to dig into. Or I could be wrong. As I said, haven't read that much yet.

--

Back in real shakespearean theater didn't women portray men because they weren't allow to act? Didn't men portray women even in Roman theater times?

I ask this because there seem to be many of us women who aren't necesarily shunning womanly clothes or roles completely, but that's not what we are after at the moment. Why order grilled cheese when ya want a burger? (sorry trying not to be too serious here)

This is current times and being more educated and desiring perhaps a more powerful role (again - personal opinion) would like to portray extra crew or sailors. If they are dressed authentically, (not like the girl in one of the PIP pics with the stiletto boots and pink bustier - take that to the strip in LA lady..)

and can educate the public about camping, crew roles, weapons etc, what would be the difference if under their clothes - say with a plain braid and no makeup if they were actually female.

Why not expend some effort on finding out what these women want to do in their gear? Why not perhaps see if there might be some sort of place for them as a compromise? Or maybe they just want to stop by reenactments or festivals or what have you and raise a few with all of you good people here. That would be ok wouldn't it? I think this is just a misunderstanding on all our parts about who was aiming at doing what.

----

Of course everyone has a right to his or her own opinion. Someone running a re-enactment has the right to make their rules.

--

My opinion is that education is about reaching out to people. I think it's commendable to be interested in history and preserving, educating and enjoying it at all, especially these days. I would rather encourage it. I think the clothing questions come from a desire and enthusiasm to learn and participate and not necesarily specifically portray.

Maybe some just want to drop in the historical dressing room and try on the past and walk around in it a while. So they may take a few small (within period) liberties mixing and matching..If there's a chance for them to share what they learn than so much the better.

I think perhaps this is input - or an idea those of you most familiar with all types of events could really help out with.

But....I ramble, it's late and I'm at work and I'll probably read this tomorrow and do one of those "slap your head V-8 things:

[kass]

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?

[michaelsbagley]

Kass has a very good point,

I've seen paralells to this discussion in other period discussion boards as well, particularily Norse/Viking...

It can be proved that the eye glasses were not invented or worn until much after the Viking period, but there are those wgo want to be apart of Norse living history events who can not function without their glasses, and for one reason or another can not wear contacts... Rather than this particular debate being about the fact that the Norse Vikign did not wear glasses, someone shose to twist the discussion into about exclusionism.Why did someone make something that completely about facts that were known, and twist it to be about something it was not? Who can say.

I know this thread is not exactly like the example I have just made, as the hairs in this thread are being split a little closer, but the attitude about the debate seems to be going the same way.

Some are coming from the standpoint, of advocating doing only what we know WAS DONE in period at liviing history events. Others are coming from the standpoint of what they beleive to be reasonable extrapolation being acceptable at living history events.

The problem lies in the fact that you will rarely find two people or groups that agree on what and where the lines of resonable extrapolation are.... So ultimately, this conversation is moot, as each event coordinator will set the guidelines for their event, and people will particpate or not based on their beleifs and preferences.. Each group or individual will design their gear and garb based on their desire to use all facts and documentable items and outfits, or they will base their garb and gear on, it existed in the time frame, and it is not unreasonable or that unbelievable for someone in that timeframe to have such an item or piece of clothing.... It's two different approaches, compatable in some circumstances, not in others circumstances... We are all supposed to be hear to share info and have a good time, let's not let the difference in approach between different individuals or groups make things unpleasant.

I hope this has helped clear matters up and hasn;t fanned the flames....

[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!

[Hawkyns]

All right, Kass- here's the other side. Your comments are based on the premise that a female wears male clothing, but that is all. What about the female who turms out in male clothing, but goes the whole route? Breast binding, male haircut, no jewelry or nails- in other words does as was actually done in order to not be noticed. I've had them in my unit- even going so far as to use the men's room when in kit.

I think that's the difference. Most of the women who wear male kit do nothing else for the impression. They continue to wear makeup, don't even tuck their hair up, nevermind get a correct cut, and do nothing to disguise their curves. That is is what is wrong with the female doing male impression. Do it right, make it so that you can actually pass as a male, and I really don't care about the numbers.

Hawkyns

[kass]

You know what my answer is going to be, Rod, because when I met the two ladies in your unit I didn't know they weren't men at first!

If a woman can truly pull off dressing and behaving as a man, then I support that. If they can fool the public, then numbers don't come into it. They are men.

As you say, most just put on the frock coats and pants and make no attempt at being male. That's the problem.

[Hawkyns]

I know you've met them Kass, but most here have not. I think, though, that the issue is more than dressing as men and this thread is the place to expand on it, since we are already into the discussion.

As we agree, most women who put on men's kit, do so to 'look cool'. They don't want to actually do the jobs of the sailor, or actually be a sailor, just wear the clothes and the weapons. That's fine if all you are doing is wandering about a ren faire or a festival. When it comes to re-enactment, though, a different attitude is needed. First, we have to get past the idea that men all wore 'captain's coats'. Women dressing as men need to be wearing the simple, basic sailor's kit. We've already covered this to some extent, but I have to say that when I've seen women dressing as men, they go for the flashy, not the common, even moreso than the men do. Next, if you are dressed as a sailor at a re-enactment, you need to be able to do the job. That means hauling guns, cleaning weapons, hauling firewood, doing all the jobs that the guys do. When it comes to battle scenarios, you need to be able to take your place on the gun crew, or pick up a musket or sword and go into the line. In short, if you want to dress like one of the crew, you have to be one of the crew.

I've dealt with a lot of women under ams over the last 20 years. Some good, some bad, some great, some bloody awful. The good, and especially the great, are the ones that don't need to feel female. They are the ones who get dirty and bruised and sweaty, and don't care. They are the ones who are willing to live under re-enactment conditions in the summer for 3 or 4 days or more and not mind that there are no showers on site. They don't care if their nails get chewed up.

The clothing can be done, it's easy. It's the attitude underneath it that determines, for me, how accurate we are to history and how many women under arms we can deal with.

Hawkyns

[kass]

It's no shock, I'm sure, that I agree with you completely, Rod. Not that I always do... But we're definitely singing the same song here.

I would like to expand this to include men as well, though. There are men who know nothing about period navigation and call themselves "Captain". There are men who hold the position of Bosun who can't tie a knot. There are too many men in frock coats and yet common sailors' kit is exceedingly rare.

In reenactment, it is important that we protray the roles we tell the public we hold. And it's just as important not to have too many officers and no "enlisted men" as it is too many women in boy's clothes.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Another fly in the ointment.

I don't mean to be contrary or just a pot stirrer.

But i feel a problem with this debate, in part, because it focuses the gaze so squarely on one part of our circus, while in the mean time, the elephant sneaks by into the tent while we are distracted.

The thing is, regarless whether we are the most historical living historians on the planet, or the biggest ren-faire farbe going, we all are living out our own little fantasy.

The caveat being that the person in question is making a reasonable effort to be a sailor/pirate (see Hawkins post), i don't think i have a right to say to a woman that she can't portray a male pirate, regardless of what the historical numbers are for female to male ratios.

If there are 5 women, pulling off a decent male impression out of a group of 12..... then great, we now have 12 more decent pirate re-enactors.

One can say she is pretending to be a woman who is historically "pretending" to be a man at sea, and the other 4 can just be 21st century women. "pretending" to be 18th Century sailors.

Again, as long as they are making a reasonable effort, I feel that is acceptable.

Because, what is the difference between a girl pretending to be an 18th century sailor, and an overweight, 58 year old, with pasty white skin pretending to be an sailor from 1705?

IF women are exaggerating their proportions at sea (as sailors) than a lot of us men are grossly exaggerating the number of out of shape, too old white men at sea too.

Cordingly has the average age of a sailor for GAoP being 27. At 39, i need to find a 15 year kid to hang around with so that we can get back to the "average" and correctly support the historical numbers for age (I am not even going to address my weight.... but I am on a diet!

The kicker again is, we are not even on a ship 95% of the time. So much of what we do is land based that there are infinitely more roles for women than can imagine.

Smugglers, black marketeers, traders, townspeople, etc. There is cool stuff out there if you only look.

Greg aka GoF

[Hawkyns]

Agreed, Greg. The female issue is, as I said, minor to me if they look and act the part. Your comments concerning men go right along with Kass', that the male side of this hobby, even among re-enactors, is not doing such a bang up job of getting it right. Between too many captains who can't navigate, gunner's who have never fired or have no clue of how to fire or maintain a piece (one of my particular hot buttons), sailors too heavy to climb the rigging or too out of shape to haul a line, enough "bloody lord generals" to populate the Admiralty, and pirates who can't handle a cutlass, we have little scope to worry about the percentage of women pirates.

As I said, when it comes to faire or festival- I don't care. When it comes to living history, I do.

Hawkyns

[kass]

As I said, when it comes to faire or festival- I don't care. When it comes to living history, I do.

Me too! Everything I've said in this thread only applies to living history and reenactment.

[Ransom]

Another fly in the ointment.

I don't mean to be contrary or just a pot stirrer.

But i feel a problem with this debate, in part, because it focuses the gaze so squarely on one part of our circus, while in the mean time, the elephant sneaks by into the tent while we are distracted.

The thing is, regarless whether we are the most historical living historians on the planet, or the biggest ren-faire farbe going, we all are living out our own little fantasy.

The caveat being that the person in question is making a reasonable effort to be a sailor/pirate (see Hawkins post), i don't think i have a right to say to a woman that she can't portray a male pirate, regardless of what the historical numbers are for female to male ratios.

If there are 5 women, pulling off a decent male impression out of a group of 12..... than great, we now have 12 more decent pirate re-enactors.

One can say she is pretending to be a woman who is historically "pretending" to be a man at sea, and the other 4 can just be 21st century women. "pretending" to be 18th Century sailors.

Again, as long as they are making a reasonable effort, I feel that is acceptable.

Becasue, what is the difference between a girl pretending to be an 18th century sailor, and an overweight, 58 year old, with pasty white skin pretending to be an sailor from 1705?

IF women are exagerating their proportions at sea (as sailors) than a lot of us men are grossly exagerating the number of out of shape, too old white men at sea too.

Cordinly has the average age of a sailor for GAoP being 27. At 39, i need to find a 15 year kid to hang around with so that we can get back to the "average" and correctly support the historical numbers for age (I am not even going to address my weight.... but I am on a diet!

The kicker again is, we are not even on a ship 95% of the time. So much of what we do is land based that there are infinately more roles for women than can imagine.

Smugglers, black marketeers, traders, townspeople, etc. There is cool stuff out there if you only look.

Greg aka GoF

BINGO!

Thank-you for stating EXACTLY what I've been muddling around with!

I've had this dicussion with others (not on the Pub) to the tune of, you CAN'T totally recreate the past. The past is the past, and what every reenactor is doing is to some extent a fantasy - albiet one based on known facts. You can't put a 21st. century mindset into 17th century clothes, and get a 17th century person. You get an interpretation of a 17th century person. If a woman can pull that interpretation off just as well as a man, no matter how she is dressed, then good for her.

[kass]

A woman CAN pull off that interpretation as well as a man. That's what I've been trying to say. But she doesn't have to put on pants and call upon the names of Bonny and Read to do it.

Reenacting and living history is about interpreting the past. Like translating a language, that interpretation is never perfect. But it is imperative that we who present that interpretation do it to the best of our ability. If you are a 35 year old man trying to interpret a 25 year old man from the GAoP, you do it to the best of your ability. The best of your ability does not include putting on Nikes. Or wearing a frock coat if you're not an officer. Or calling yourself the bosun and you can't tie an overhand knot.

We can only work with what we have. If you're a woman and you want to portray a man, then become a man. Cut your hair, lower your voice, bind your breasts, and fool people. Yes, a woman has to go a lot farther to portray a 25-year old pirate than a 35-year-old man does. But hey, you're the one who wanted to portray a man...

{And I mean "you" in a non-specific, conversational way. Not you, False Ransom or you, Jenny or you anyone else who is reading this thread. Or all of you. Whichever you like. }

You see, what I fear is that the ladies are saying they want to portray an historically accurate female pirate, but what they really want to do is wear a frock coat and pants and run around swinging a sword and yelling "Arrrrr". :)

I guess I just don't understand why so many women want to protray men. I think men's clothing is ugly and unwieldy while women's GAoP clothing makes me look better than I ever do in modern kit AND I'm more comfortable too!

But y'all just go on and run around in your frock coats and pants. I'll be at the coffeehouse if you want some. Penny a dish!

[Hawkyns]

. You can't put a 21st. century mindset into 17th century clothes, and get a 17th century person. You get an interpretation of a 17th century person.

No, you can't. But with enough reading and thought, you can get closer to a 17th C mindset. It depends how far you are willing to go to find the mindset. Are you willing to ditch 21st century comfort and hygene standards (that's a biggie)? Are you willing to ditch 21st C manners and deal with people on a 17th c standard? Are you willing to do the research into the life and times of the period in general, not just as it applies to your specific character?

We will never get a complete change of mindset, 300 years is just too big a gap. But we can get a lot closer than you might think. It just takes work and a willingness to ditch most of your current social knowledge.

Hawkyns

[Red Cat Jenny]

Kass, everyone has their own personal feelings about stuff. Maybe we just look extra um..difficult as your convictions about not dressing in boys clothes are so strong. That is NOT meant as an insult. We're pretty stuck on OUR opinions.

I will go out on a limb and quote myself here

{My opinion is that education is about reaching out to people. I think it's commendable to be interested in history and preserving, educating and enjoying it at all, especially these days. I would rather encourage it. I think the clothing questions come from a desire and enthusiasm to learn and participate and not necesarily specifically portray.

Maybe some just want to drop in the historical dressing room and try on the past and walk around in it a while. So they may take a few small (within period) liberties mixing and matching..If there's a chance for them to share what they learn than so much the better.}

My folks took us to a colonial village restoration when I was about 12. There were some women dressed as male farmers and some little girls dressed as little boys. They were having a great time and from what I remember were very enthusiastic about teaching... not to mention knowledgeable about what games wete played, how a horse was shod, spinning cotton, etc. As a member of the "general and less educated on absolute authenticity public" I never really noticed or considered the gender difference. Instead the facts fascinated me. The clothes fascinted me, and seing both girls my age and women living history made me feel that I too could learn, and someday try it out. I suppose I am beating a dead horse here but once again I will repeat..

{This is current times and being more educated and desiring perhaps a more powerful role (again - personal opinion) would like to portray extra crew or sailors. If they are dressed authentically, (not like the girl in one of the PIP pics with the stiletto boots and pink bustier - take that to the strip in LA lady..)

and can educate the public about camping, crew roles, weapons etc, what would be the difference if under their clothes - say with a plain braid and no makeup if they were actually female

This will be as others mentioned an endless debate. Oh well...also to say again (and with due respect-not trying to insult here either) that just because a few of us may want to wear boys clothes doesn't mean we want to run about with captain hook boots yelling Arrr.

I have little experience with reenactment compared to you all. So I could be speaking from ignorance. However, it seems kind of sad to exclude people who genuinely want the rare experience of learning and passing that on to others.... .seems gender isn't what the lesson would necessarily be about. but again that is my opinion. I can't make the rules. I grew up with two brothers maybe that's the answer .. lol!

[kass]

Strangely enough, I first fell in love with reenacting at a little colonial living history village too. But in mine I saw women portraying women and still being strong and vital and essential to the life of the village.

You see, what bothers me is that those of you who like to wear boys clothes and do what men do are in essence saying that what women did in the period in question isn't interesting, isn't fun, isn't cool. And I ask, "Do you know anything about women in the period in question?" The men are a complete snore compared to the amazing women in this period! Why discount that? Why ignore it? Why not teach THAT?

You suggested that perhaps the women who want to dress in boys' clothes want a "more powerful" role. Why not take a more powerful role as a woman. To do otherwise rather forcefully implies that women were not powerful. And I assure you that they were. If you don't think women were powerful in this period of history, then you haven't read much about women in this period. And I encourage you to do so. You love books, Jenny. You've gotta educate yourself about the powerful and inspirational women of the GAoP. And none of them had to disguise themselves as men!

I'm not taking any of this as an insult or a personal attack. There are no attacks intended or implied here and I know none of this is personal. So don't worry.

I do get what you're saying, Jenny. I really do! I understand that people who "do pirate" come from a whole range of related hobbies. Some people are really into the history and doing something not documentable is like lying to the public to us. And some people, as you said, just want to "try it on". I really do think that's cool. But here in TWILL, I err on the side of authenticity because that's what this part of the forums is about.

When I go to the Ren Faire or fantasy conventions, I just love to see the outfits people wear. I love to see what they come up with -- what pieces from history inspired them and how they adapted them for their outfit. It's very creative and fun and inspiring and awesomely cool.

But in living history, it's not about being creative. It's about portraying history.

And women are cool too...

{Cue music!}

"I just love being a girl..."

[CrazyCholeBlack]

How many times have you seen a crowd gather around someone making a stew over a fire vs. how many times does a crowd gather to watch a sword fight? When a scenario is written, who does it focus on, the ladies doing their daily chores or the men coming in to port to "pillage and plunder"?

The simple truth is the re-enacting is a male focused, war oriented hobby and the reason so many woman want to put on men's clothes is because they want to be part of it rather than an after thought.

Now, I'm going to use an example and I hope no one takes serious offense as this is just my personal observation. Can we look at the wonderful Lockehouse event as an example? How many pictures of the women and their activities from the event did we, the public who didn't get to attend, see vs. how many pictures were there of the men and their action? Honestly, as a new comer, I couldn't really tell you what the ladies were doing all that time but I can tell you all about the fight and the hangings that the men did. It's really enough to make me say, "Hey, give me some slops so I can *do* something at an event too".

Anyway, hope I didn't burn any bridges but I think it's worthy of pointing out. I'm retreating back to stabbing myself, err, sewing now, just like a proper lady, :)

[michaelsbagley]

CrazyChole,

You've got a perfectly valid point... But there is another way of looking at things...

At a re-enactment or living history event, you can be the rock star, or the educator.

The combatants do get the most attention and draw the biggest crowds, but they get asked the same handful of questions (for the most part) over and over again.

The crafts-people and artisans draw much smaller crowds, but they tend to draw better more focussed crowds that ask more interesting questions...

I've been on the battlefield many many times, as well as done more esoteric skill or craft displays, and to be honest, I prefer the smaller crowds and more engrossed conversations of the small crowds than answering the same handful of questions about weapons and comat dozens of times over and over again.

Hope this helps shed a new light on possible offers you a new perspective on things for you.

[kass]

Chole, really good point! I hadn't thought about things from that perspective. Thanks for the insight!

Usually when I'm doing a living history display, I'm only too happy when they start the skirmish because the crowds will leave me alone for a while and I'll get a break! Sometimes I even get to eat something... :)

At one of my first RevWar events, a bunch of the women demonstrating colonial crafts were heard to whine about our group getting all the attention: "The public is only interested if it floats or goes boom!" Short attention span theatre... That's the public for you!

But I agree with what Michael says. I've been the "cute chick"on the WWII battlefield who stole the crowd's attention at the tactical. But I much prefer when I gather a crowd with my spinning, weaving and dyeing demo and they ask me thoughtful questions and I get to teach them something about historical clothing production. Or social history and economic development with the coffeehouse.

In those pictures at the Lockhouse, did you see where the people were gathered when they weren't shooting each other? The coffeehouse. There were three battle scenarios that day. Each lasted about ten minutes. All the rest of the hours in the day, everyone was gathered around the coffeehouse. So who's the center of attention?

Another point about the Lockhouse -- I think there were only five women total at the event. And I was the only one doing a living history presentation. So it's not entirely a fair comparison. But you didn't know that.

It is far easier to get the crowd's (and the cameraman's) attention by firing muskets or cannon. But that attention only lasts for a few minutes. I'll have a crowd around me from the moment they let the crowd enter the site until they make them leave.

[Kathyrn Ramsey]

How many times have you seen a crowd gather around someone making a stew over a fire vs. how many times does a crowd gather to watch a sword fight? When a scenario is written, who does it focus on, the ladies doing their daily chores or the men coming in to port to "pillage and plunder"?

Chole, I hate to disagree with you on this. I Have done many events where I am working around the camp and have a constant group there with me. I have women in danes asking about how I am doing something, I have children wanting to help and more than happy to use a morter and pestal.

Recently I was volunteering at Jamestown for the thanksgiving weekend and for the stretch of about 3 hours there were about 40-50 people watching me cook a pottage and talk about the daily duties of the people at the fort all the while there was a gun demo going on.

I have a problem with the ones that go to a historical reenactment and can not or will not, more of the later unfortunatly, that will not pull his or her own weight. Even dressed in women's kit I am not affraid to pick up an axe and chop firewood when the men are on tactical if I have to keep a fire going for dinner.

I also have men's kit and have to wear it on occasion, but as Kass I am more comfortable in my stays and petticoats. But there are times that dressing as a man is required and no I DO NOT own a pair of bucket top boots i wear proper latchet shoes and hose.

No there is not a lot of research on women that dressed as men, but there must have been more than the 2 that we always hear about or there would not be this grand of a discussion on it. They were just really good at hiding it.