Dressing like a period female pirate

[Capt. Sterling]

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.

Funny how some folks remember events....

[Patrick Hand]

lets see if I got the right post''''

The simple truth is the re-enacting is a male focused, war oriented hobby

Yah.. that the one I was looking for....

OK.. once apon a time.... men went to sea... some of them became Pyrates... there were a very few women that did so also..... BUT there were still women living......... So why not do (if your a woman) the feminin "Distaf" stuff..... Dang.... without the women where the Heck would us scummy Pyrate be? Dang...Dang...Dang..... Women have always been around... (and some of them got alla our money)....

Yah.. re=enacting is Male oriented...... but why does it have to be.... there were women around....

Now I'm going to get in to sooo much trouble for typing this.......(well it is in Twill......)

So get off your lazy asses (tho they might be really cute...) and do something about it...... play women of the period... they were there.... they did stuff.... just no one knows about them..............

[Red Cat Jenny]

Patrick,

As usual you have a way with simply stating things to smooth any ruffled feathers

I appreciate all the sides of discussion here, healthy debate make us all think. It also widens paths of thought or perception that may have narrowed unintentionally over time (ack that was hippie )

Anyhow. I came, I read , I spoke, I was listened to.. hopefully you found some interest or appreciated a different point of view here..

I would love to be a girly girl in court with the big pouffy dress etc.. I do know (though I could certainly read more) that there were many powerful women in those days. Abigail Adams is one of my faves (non GaOP).

My final opinion as sadly I only have so much time.. is that thinking about it, maybe if we get this out of our system first, we'll be tempted to try the other stuff. I still believe education doesn't ALWAYS have to be about the gender of the educator as the educatee may not see it that way. Especially if you start off with "ya know...there really weren't many women who did this but let me tell you about..."

All, have a great nite. It was a fun topic and I'm sure we haven't hashed it for the last time

[Ransom]

Yeah, Partrick, but our point is, they didn't get to do the fun stuff!

Just a comment, or rather, clarification. When, at least for me, I talk about women wearing men's clothing, I'm NOT talking about the dreaded BBS (Bucket Boot Syndrom). I'm talking about regualr seaman's garb.

I also have to relay a comment my husband made concerning basing all female sailor's clothing on Bonny and Read. His comment was, "Yeah, but they were the only ones who got "caught", so therefore documented. What about all the ones that didn't get caught or discovered?"

Throughout history there have been woman hiding themselves by wearing men's clothing. If they were good at it, they were never discovered, until an injury caused a surgeon to discover their sex. There has been little to no research done on females taking up traditional male roles wearing male clothing, so I still hold to the idea that it is stifling to limit female costume contraints to only two known examples.

And this is still my own opinion (worth ?) that human nature would dictate that, documented or not, pirates were by their very occupation, scavengers. If one poor English sod had a raty shirt, then took a Dutch ship, and found himself in possesion of a fine new (NOT fancy) Dutch shirt, he'd trade up. If your shoes had holes in the soles, and you could pilfer a new pair from a Spanish sailor, same deal, you'd trade up. It's called survival.

[Capt. Sterling]

And this is still my own opinion (worth ?) that human nature would dictate that, documented or not, pirates were by their very occupation, scavengers. If one poor English sod had a raty shirt, then took a Dutch ship, and found himself in possesion of a fine new (NOT fancy) Dutch shirt, he'd trade up. If your shoes had holes in the soles, and you could pilfer a new pair from a Spanish sailor, same deal, you'd trade up. It's called survival.

Well you do have a point here... if folks didn't like to "trade up" as you call it, all the second hand shops in the period wouldn't have done so much business.... check out Waller's 1700 Scenes from London Life regarding the topic...

[Fox]

I think the thing with women getting less attention that bangy and pointy things is, largely, down to what the women are doing. Take Kathryn as an example: she goes to events and does things, and gets plenty of public attention. Kass does the same thing and gets the same result. Women who go to an event to dress up and look pretty get none. Don't crucify me for this, but are the boys getting more attention simply because they're doing more than the girls? I think they are. If the girls found themselves interesting roles and carried them on at events there wouldn't be an issue.

I really don't think it comes down to gender either. I'm not particularly into the fighting (though I do join in to make up numbers), I much prefer to do more prosaic demonstrations. So I'm at an event and I throw open my seachest (filled with period stuff) and I can entertain a dozen people for an hour or more. The other guys who rely on their shiny swords can entertain more people sure, but only for about 10 minutes. Once the skirmish is over the men doing nothing are just as bored as the women doing nothing.

Chole is absolutely right, most scenarios tend to be male orientated, especially in pirate or military events, but that really doesn't mean that there's nothing for the girls to do. Here's a good example. Last year we took part in the International Festival of the Sea at Portsmouth. The event was naturally centred on Nelson and Trafalgar (being the 200th anniversary and all). So we had all sorts of manly things going: pressganging, weapons, cannons, etc. The show was completely stolen when three of our girls took to the water in our longboat and started ferrying supplies round to the ships in the harbour, as "bumboat women" did in the period. They found a good role, carried it out well, and completey hogged the limelight while they were doing it.

I also have to relay a comment my husband made concerning basing all female sailor's clothing on Bonny and Read. His comment was, "Yeah, but they were the only ones who got "caught", so therefore documented. What about all the ones that didn't get caught or discovered?"

I think the relative numbers of women getting away with it is probably another thread, but so far as it pertains to this conversation. When Kass said about using Bonny and Read as examples because they're the only two we have any information I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong Kass) that she was talking in a more general sense - not saying "copy these pictures", but "we know B&R dressed as typical male sailors so that's what female pirates should do too". With that in mind then female pirates would have the same range of clothing available to them as the blokes, ie. common sailors' clothing. If we agree that some women managed not to get found out (see my calculations in an earlier post), what can we surmise about them? Well, if they didn't get caught then they must have blended in so they were wearing... common sailors' clothing - same as B&R.

And this is still my own opinion (worth ?) that human nature would dictate that, documented or not, pirates were by their very occupation, scavengers. If one poor English sod had a raty shirt, then took a Dutch ship, and found himself in possesion of a fine new (NOT fancy) Dutch shirt, he'd trade up. If your shoes had holes in the soles, and you could pilfer a new pair from a Spanish sailor, same deal, you'd trade up. It's called survival.

That's a good logical argument, but logic is only as good as the facts upon which it is based. In this case I think there are two important points. The first is that many pirates had an ample stock of clothing before they turned pirate, and didn't have careers long enough to wear them out. There are exceptions of course, and we have plenty of records of pirates taking clothes from captured ships, but I think the idea of them needing to take clothes is probably overrated. The second issue is the kinds of clothes that were available for them to steal. Certainly there were ships of many different nations floating around the Caribbean and American seaboard during the GAoP, but the majority of them were Anglo-American so the chances are that when the pirates came to steal clothes they'd have been English in fashion.

This doesn't mean that one shouldn't wear Dutch breeches, but one should give serious thought as to whether they're really the best thing. The difference, IMHO, between a good and bad reenactor is that a bad reenactor says "hey, I like that garment/gun/etc, how can I justify it?" while a good reenactor says "I need a garment/gun/etc, what were they generally like?"

[Silkie McDonough]

I'm getting a headache!

First let me state that I have NO problem with portraying a woman of the era other than she would need more props and clothing that uses more fabric. I flew to Florida this year. I couldn't carry the supplies I had! Additionally, if I had to wear that bloody skirt with all that fabric for four or more days it wouldn't have been over-indulgence in rum hat would have caused me to pass out.

I feel a need to defend SOME justification. I think the 'justification' can be justified IF it supports a character. Please hear me out.

EX: The pirate character I am creating is based on my character in/on "The Watch Dog". I know the scenario is unlikely but it is as plausible as a woman who is built like me (even at a lighter weight) getting away with passing herself off as a man. Murin was found on a desert island after a ship wreck. She has/had nothing. She is wearing the clothing of a dead man. The first port she is going to be in is Martinique. This Irish lass will most likely end up dressed in clothing of french and native influence. It is possible that she ends up with shirt and breeches rather than slops because she has little time in port and the pre-made breeches (assuming there are such things) are available in a smaller size than the pre-made slops. We have also come into a small fortune. She has money to spend. Could the lass not purchase some needed/wanted items from locals rather than from the shops that were set up by the French merchants? Would ALL the merchants be French? As a seamstress would she not be able to find some exotic fabrics?

Now that I think of it it will be harder for my Irish pirate to justify her Scottish Murdock than some exotic scarf that she may choose to wear. When she was in Ireland she was not permitted to own a firearm. I was not until she had been brought onto the 'Dog that she had ever fired pistol.

[kass]

Hearing you out, Murin! You may do whatever you like with your character from the 'Dog. You don't need my permission. If you are happy with your justifications, that's all that matters. And I will sit at your feet and listen to the lovely stories you spin about your character's adventurers. I'm actually quite looking forward to that.

All through this thread, I think the basic misunderstanding has been that we are doing different things. Some are living history done for the education of the public. Some are roleplaying done purely for self-entertainment. And MOST of what we're doing in our various pirate groups is somewhere in between those two extremes.

In other words, there are play pirates who educate the public. There are living historians who do roleplaying. The two extremes are just that -- the opposite ends of the continuum. There are many different aspects in between them.

Here in TWILL, we are supposedly having a scholarly discussion of the time period. That scholarship does not include speculation. If asked, "What would a pirate own?" we can dig up some inventories and say, "Here are what some seamen owned." But if the question is asked, "Can I justify having a whojits?" the reply must be "Is a whojits in any of the seamen's inventories? If so, yes. If not, no."

Now this does NOT mean that if you go to a pirate event with a whojits, they're going to throw you out. This means only that we can't find evidence of a whojits in the extant seaman's inventories. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't carry one.

I have to tell you a story now. There was a living history site near me that took one book of extant clothing as their Bible. The book included men's and women's clothing in a local museum and pretty accurately represented the clothing of the local era in the late 18th century. However because the museum had no extant stays, the group refused to wear stays. There were no stays in the collection so they chose not to wear them.

What this group didn't realise is that there were also no petticotes ("skirts") in the collection either. The author of the book used an extrapolation of petticotes in other collections, nothing local to the site. In other words, there were no petticotes in the collection. So if the group wasn't wearing stays because there were none in the collection, they shouldn't be wearing petticotes either!

Wouldn't it be funny if the women at this historic site refused to wear petticotes because they weren't in the collection? They'd be running around completely bottomless!

In living history, we have to take the extant evidence and fill in the blanks in order to have complete kit. We have to look at pictures and make guesses based on other time periods all the time.

In the parts of our pirate hobby less strict that living history, you take what you like from the extant evidence and use it as you will. Or you can make up things out of thin air. That decision is YOURS. It doesn't make any of it wrong. It just means that you're doing something different than living history. Different does not equal wrong.

So what I'm trying to say is that TWILL is where we discuss the extreme -- the documentable evidence. Take it and use it as you will for whatever flavour of the pirate hobby you choose to practice.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I think one of the interesting things that Pirates and groups that associate with "The Pirate Brethren" are doing is starting to create an "18th Century Impression".

That is, while they do have their pirate clothes and such, they are also branching out into towns people, magistrates, merchants, smugglers, and Kass is bringing along a Coffee house.

As i stated earlier, so much of what we do is not on a ship, that we need to do a convincing job of portraying "pirates" doing on shore what pirates might do while on shore.

And that means interacting with people that are not pirates, on shore.

For the record, I would rather watch a few women dressed as period whores, and play acting it up as best they could for the public, than "another stupid sword fight".

But that is just me!

Greg aka GOF

[Silkie McDonough]

Thank you lass.

I shall take my character and play else where but ...as always, I will remain here and continue to read what those of you have researched ...so that I don't have to research!

[kass]

And I will come to see you where you play and listen to your lovely talent and envy you.

[Quartermaster James]

I think one of the interesting things that Pirates and groups that associate with "The Pirate Brethren" are doing is starting to create an "18th Century Impression".

That is, while they do have their pirate clothes and such, they are also branching out into towns people, magistrates, merchants, smugglers, and Kass is bringing along a Coffee house.

Not so very long ago, I went out to visit a 4th Virginia Infantry impression.

While shooting the bangsticks, the guys got a lot of attention. When involving the audience in drills and when educating them on period firearms, yeah...more attention.

But after that, when they were lounging around or performing drills on the field that didn't involve exploding things...well, the attention span of the audience lasted long enough for a photo-op, at best.

From then on, the show belonged to the woman with the spinning wheel and her discourse on 19th century fashion. She even managed to hold the younger folks attention by involving some of them in a 19th century fashion show!

[blackjohn]

I think one of the interesting things that Pirates and groups that associate with "The Pirate Brethren" are doing is starting to create an "18th Century Impression".

That is, while they do have their pirate clothes and such, they are also branching out into towns people, magistrates, merchants, smugglers, and Kass is bringing along a Coffee house.

What is this thread about anyway... women's clothing or something? When it first popped up I remember looking at it thinking, "eh, none of my business" or "I think I've already stated my position on this before" or "ugh! trap! like quicksand!" or something like that.

Anyway... thanks Greg. I've always wanted more civilians, more street folk, more women and kids and goats and laborers and so on in the group. Pirates in a firefight is fun. But pirates interacting with townsfolk gives more people the opportunity to flex their creativity with respect to living history.

[Ransom]

What is this thread about anyway... women's clothing or something? When it first popped up I remember looking at it thinking, "eh, none of my business" or "I think I've already stated my position on this before" or "ugh! trap! like quicksand!" or something like that.

Alright, I confess. I started it by making the innocent comment "How do I adapt the clothes the Dutch sailors are wearing to something for a woman." Or something to that effect. And then, BOOM, we got into this great discussion about women dressing as men, and how historically acurate that was or wasn't.

It's snowballed since then, but it's still a great discussion. I see William Red Wake is now asking all the gents if they LIKE women dressed as men, or would rather they dressed as women, so this thread is creating spin-offs! Kewl!

[CrazyCholeBlack]

I'll admit too that I was rather selfish in requesting the split from the other thread. I've been biting my tongue just dieing to have a conversation about what women *can* do at events and be historically correct for months now. So when I saw the chance, I asked for the split to start that conversation & everything else that goes along with it. There's been some insight and at least I've gotten a better idea of what I want to be doing. Hopefully it did the same for some of the other ladies (& gentlemen).

[Silkie McDonough]

Aye Chole, it has. However it has also created an additional problem for me especially at pip. I now need day "business woman" garb, battle slops and "evening ware"! LOL ...as it I didn't have enough baggage this year! LOL

[Red Maria]

Of course!

But Foxe said that he thought the bare breasts were entirely authentic. I thought he was joking (a sly

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!

There is a legend that says a pirate challenged Mary Read's lover to a duel. In order to protect her lover Mary Read challenged this man to a duel before her lover's was to take place. When the duel occured Mary flashed her breast. This distracted the pirate and she ran him through.

Whether or not this true I don't know. But it does illustrate Foxe's theory. As to what Bonney & Read wore I have stated it else where that the trial transcipts have sworn testomny as to what and when Bonney and Read wore. They wore men's clothing when in battle and women's clothing the rest of the time.

Male attire was descirbed as: Men's trouser, shirts and jackets and headscarfs. At the time of their capture they were wearing men's attire. There are statements that it took 6 men apeice to subdue them and that it was not known they were women till after they were captured and aboard a naval vessel. This is all on record in the record office in Spanish Town Jamaica.

[Fox]

Maria, are you sure about them not being known for women? I ask because both of them are mentioned by name as being part of Rackham's crew in at least one proclamation before their capture, so their presence aboard was public knowledge.

(And FWIW - which is very little - they weren't taken aboard a naval vessel unless I'm much mistaken, they were taken by Captain Barnet back to Jamaica)

[Red Maria]

This is from Barnet's testimony from the trial. As far he and his crew knew there were just two pirates (gender unspecified) on deck at the time of capture of Rackham's ship. The rest were cowering down the hold in a state of drunkeness. One of the pirates on deck shouted down the hold for the rest to come up and fight. When Rackham and the rest refused to come up one of the pirates (probably Mary Read but it's not for sure) fired down the hold injurying one of the pirates.

When Barnet and his crew board Rackham's ship the two pirates on deck were the only ones to offer resistance. These two pirates were dressed in male clothing. They didn't fight like women. There was the heat of battle. I doubt there was time to cop a feel to determine that the men were fighting women at the time

As to a naval vessel, it was my understanding that Capt. Barnet was a naval officer not a merchaman and was operating under the authority of the governor of Jamaica.

[Fox]

Right-o. I guess Barnet must have been aware that there were two women aboard, but perhaps didn't realise that it was those two pirates (although this seems a little strange since Dorothy Thomas had no difficulty in spotting their gender).

Barnet was not a naval officer, he was a privateer/pirate hunter.