Females on the Line

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Females on the Line

Mod Hat On:
Folks, there is a difference between discussing women who served in the ranks during the war and women reenactors dressing as men.

The former is a well-placed discussion here on the A-C.

The latter is farbism.
If you knowingly accept the registration of a woman dressing as a soldier at an event, you're running a farb event. Sorry to trot out the "F-Bomb", but sometimes you gotta call things by their rightful name.

[Southernlady1862]

Re: Females on the Line

Actually, if you visit the museum at the Kennesaw Mountain Visitor's center, there is quote from a Union soldier about how shocked he was in the aftermath of the battle of peachtree creek, because so many of the wounded Confederates were women. "One was shot in the shoulder and hip, and was still fighting. She was the grittiest reb I ever saw"

[Dale Beasley]

Re: Females on the Line

John,

Help me to understand what you are saying...Women reenactors dressing as men is farby? It is documented that there were women in the ranks. So who else is going to protray them?...But women. Men protraying women in the ranks would be farbism, not these reeanctors who are able to protray a woman who was a soldier who served in the ranks and fooled many of their comrades.

Some may be judging these reenactors through 21st centry eyes. Back then women did not wear short hair and pants...now they do.

If a woman can pull off an impression and not be noticed, then she deserves a chance as were the female soldiers of the 1860's

As a moderator I thank you for helping to police these threads.

[swamp two]

Re: Females on the Line

From the way things are looking on this thread, it sounds to me like Dale has found himself a woman and he is testing the water of what others would think of him bringing her in.

I cannot say because I have yet to attend my first event as a participant, however, I would think it would be authenic to have a woman "passing" in the ranks. The first hand accounts may be lacking, but then they would be wouldn't they?

Women in the ranks would not surprise me as a good many of them have joined in on wars before and after the civil war. It just seems to come down to the degree of stealth they have had to use. So on that basis, with all due respect, NOT having any women "passing" would be more farby that having them.

Anyone ever seen the true story of the woman that was the marshall is some out west town? I forgot the name, and y memory is a bit fuzzy on the details, but I saw it on HBO several years ago. Noone knew about her until she was shot dead in a gun fight. Everybody was so surprised, they dressed her back up and propped her up on a horse for picture taking opportunities. It was alluded to in the movie she had changed genders so to speak after having been raped as a woman alone in the west. Who knows for what reason women did it, but the fact remains. They did.

[Dale Beasley]

Re: Females on the Line

Abel...

You give me too much credit. Really, just started off standing in formation...wondering.

[CYoungJSU]

Re: Females on the Line

I concur with Dale. It has been a while since I have actually participated in a reenactment or other event. Actually, the last time I donned my uniform was in December 2007 while assisting the Chickamauga gun crew at Stones River NB. I am not really understanding why the two sides of this question are not equally accurate and authentic? Does authenticity not mean you are trying to project the way life "was" during the war, both military and social? I appreciate moderators trying to police these forums, you all do a fine job, but I also believe it is just as important to have these discussions. Farbism? I think not based upon the above assumptions. I believe what is happening is a civil discussion has turned into making some afraid that women might want to actually participate in events other than as civilians...perish the thought! I think we have enough background information to support the fact that women actually did find places in the ranks. The one thing I love about history is interpretation of the facts, that's why I decided to pursue it as a career. Fact: many women fought in the ranks without being "outed." Unfortunately, women cannot actively participate as soldiers in the reenacting world today, even though it is documented? Fair enough, it may not be documented for a specific event, but would we say field and staff officers should not be allowed to ride horses because we cannot support that in specific records for a specific engagement? It's a given fact that the majority of the time, field and staff officers were on horseback, but at times they did not. Therefore, could it not be presumptive that women may be at an engagement but it not be documented? My suggestion would be that if a woman wanted to participate, she should have every opportunity but would have to be so convincing that NO ONE could tell, even event organizers if they so choose. If that proved true, she would be asked to leave the event, but that might also make an interesting interpretation as well. Women getting caught fighting!! There's something I believe visitors or spectators at living histories might be interested in.

CY

[swamp two]

Re: Females on the Line

Abel...

You give me too much credit. Really, just started off standing in formation...wondering.

OK Dale, you can stick to that story, but the fact seems to remain that having women in the ranks "passing" would be being authenic to the campaign.

For registration purposes I suppose they would need to go in under their manly name. So I am not sure how the real name would be handled. I mean to "pass" I would think they would need to "pass" to almost everybody. Including the organizers of the event. Esp at this kink in the junction. Still seem to have some men that do not like the idea of having women preforming mans jobs and I am not sure, but I would think the representation of reenactors on this forum is a good cross section of everybody. So there are probably a lot in that camp.

You don't want to ruin an event for anyone, but it just seems if you are wanting to have things be as authenic as possible, some outfits would need a woman in the roll of "passing" for that to hold true.

And who knows, maybe some outfits do have them now. We would not know just as it was then and just as it should be now.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Females on the Line

Hallo!

Moderator hat off...

"Fact: many women fought in the ranks without being "outed." Unfortunately, women cannot actively participate as soldiers in the reenacting world today, even though it is documented?"

IMHO, quantifying "many" as "many" is a problem. Some sources attempt to quantify the unknown as perhaps 400 out of millions of US and CS men...
(based upon what data I know not, as this is a Catch 22 thing).

IMHO, the "issue" here is not to make the exception the rule with rare exceptions, "daughters-of-the-regiment," mascots, colonels' daughters, or the "wink-and-a-nod" looking the other way for some officer's wife or sweetheart.

Moderator hat on...

IMHO, the Gold Standard for the Authentic Civil War Living Historian is simple but not simplistic.
That being, that the impression or persona of a woman posing/impersonating a man in the ranks, during the Civil War AND today at the C/P/H/A level, rests upon their ability to achieve the quality and concept of "passing."
That woman who meets that historical criteria.. well, my compliments and my hat is off to her.

The reason I said "Moderator hat on" is that all too often these discussions
can spiral downwards into a form of Militant Farbism where a defense of "effectively undisguised" OBVIOUS women is given that that is okay because men are held to a lesser standard of excellence than women. Followed quickly by obvious and overt women can enjoy the hobby just as well as a majority middle aged TGBG (Tubby Gray Bearded Guys).
And that can come down to "Two Wrongs do not make a Right, but Three Do) flame wars.

In the end, thousands of women (out of several million soldiers) MAY have served as men.. but the Gold Standard is we do not know because they pulled "it" off- and had to meet a harder "standard" than an obvious male.

Moderator hat off...

IMHO, any woman who can "pull it off," has my respect, admiration and compliments for their impression and persona- and can "fall in" with me any time.

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt

[CYoungJSU]

Re: Females on the Line

Quantification is something that cannot be done. Thus, I agree that "many" is a catch 22. We just don't know how "many"the "many" is. The number 400 has been thrown around in this discussion, but we don't really know because those who "pulled it off" did so well. Curt, I agree with your statements completely and do understand where this discussion could go down hill! I say if she can sneak in and not get caught, she should be more than welcome!

CY

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Females on the Line

Followed quickly by obvious and overt women can enjoy the hobby just as well as a majority middle aged TGBG (Tubby Gray Bearded Guys).

But why is it that the TGBG are accepted at the top level events ?

You dont ever get an answer to that.

Ever look at some AAR photos of EBUFU events or websites of the highly regarded units ? Accurate is Accurate. Top Tier is Top Tier.

Love history, but know your lane.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Females on the Line

During the background research for the Glendale-Malvern Hill 2008 event, the organizers noticed there were at least two well documented federal galtroops at the original 1862 affair. Not a single federal galtroop reenactor applied to attend.

Then, about a week after the event, Greg "Ruffles" Renault informs me via email that one of the confederate attendees was a galtroop.

[boreguard]

Re: Females on the Line

In 14 years I've seen 2 "galtroops" carry a rifle that IMHO made the grade. The problem they both have/had however is the arrival and departure to and from an event, when they are in modern attaire they're gender is obvious. Then at that point those most critical of the question who might happen to see a "galtroop" can't be objective to the impression once it's assumed.

It's sort of similar to seeing a "guy" arrive at an event who looks queer as a 3 dollar bill and then when in uniform his impression conceals his preference, but I had to treat him as a soldier none the less :angry_smi

I've no problem with the challenge of a woman trying to pull off portraying a soldier of the period, I want to be convinced by what I see when they are in the period. Past that there's a heap of work I got to do on my own impression so excuse me while I deposit my 2 cents :tounge_sm

[swamp two]

Re: Females on the Line

For a newcomer, I think I have spent more time than I should have on this question and maybe it is because I would fall under that heading of softer looking rather than masculine but I am a man, so I should be accepted with no questions.

I actually think a woman in the ranks these days would be harder to pull off than in civil war days. Back in those times basically all a woman would have to do was cut her hair and put on a pair of pants. Gender was almost totally defined by clothes during that time if I am not mistaken. In fact, I think it was illegal in most states to dress in the other genders accepted clothing styles. So to those civil war soldiers, if you showed up in pants with no obvious showing of breast and a haircut, you were accepted as a man unless someone saw you naked for say if you were wounded or killed. Not so these days. At least for women. They wear pretty much what they want now, and men are used to distinguishing a woman no matter what she is wearing, but back then it was very rare.

Today if a man puts on a dress, it is a shock. It would have been considered the same for a woman in pants back then. Something that was just wrong. And not something the troops would ever have even considered thinking about happening unless that saw that person naked. Because it was so out of the ordaniary as not to even be something that would be considered. Some guys were just softer than others and it was accepted as straight forward as that.

If it dressed like a duck, walked like a duck and acted like a duck, it was a duck. No questions asked.

Maybe we should adopted the us army's stand. Don't ask, don't tell. Because if you do, you are out.

The woman's own unit would know of course, but they should all fall under the same agreement and if they tell, they are out. Everyone would have to agree 100% for her to join.

I have never done it myself up to this point and will probably wait until fall now, but if a woman can make the march and carry her own gun and weight, she should be accepted as a troop, provided she doesn't tell. And who knows, maybe it is happening now and no one is telling.

[Dale Beasley]

Re: Females on the Line

I want to thank everyone for keeping this thread on the "high-ground". It has proven that we as a "Group" can discuss a "hot-topic" like this and remain civil.

As I continue in this hobby, I find new ideas, new avenues, old history that I like to explore. This topic is one that is here, and we, as a group who "sets the standard" must remain open, and fair. AND, this group and discussion has proven it.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Females on the Line

John,

Help me to understand what you are saying...Women reenactors dressing as men is farby? It is documented that there were women in the ranks. .

Dale,
No, not at all. I guess I fear the slippery slope. I've met a woman in the ranks and she did a great job! She'd be a benefit to anyone who'd have her in an ambrotype in an attempt to make the cover page of the A-C. ...but I knew it was a woman the whole time. Why? Well, as a 21st Century man, I am more attune to things other than clothing and haircuts and the lack of obvious breasts. At some point, the known presence of a woman in the ranks will cause the bahaviour of the men to change. As Curt mentions, it happened, but we can never prove how common it may have been. But if an entire company of men changes its behaviour to accommodate a woman in the ranks, just think what might happen if she decides to bring a friend or two.

Which brings me to the problem of accepting the registration forms and (more importantly) fees of women attempting to portray men:
If a woman meets the criteria for uniform and kit, but can't or won't conceal her femininity, event organizers might find themselves in a pickle.

My hat is off to the woman I met in the line. She did a great job. To the other woman I met but didn't know it, my hat is off to you, as well.

I hope I didn't come off as a dick earlier. I have no problem with the idea of women serving in the ranks, but it MUST be done appropriately. I fear the impact if is done poorly... the ultimate first-person killer!

If a woman can pull off an impression and not be noticed, then she deserves a chance as were the female soldiers of the 1860's.

Actually, I concur.

As a moderator I thank you for helping to police these threads.

No problem, dude! You served our country in a war... You deserve my thanks a lot more than I deserve yours! Thank YOU!