Females on the Line

[AZReenactor]

NIck,
One percent is way too high. If my math is right and you figure there were 3.5 million soldiers during the war and a generous 1,400 disguised females you only get 0.04% or 1 for every 2500 male soldiers without even taking into consideration that many women counted served less than a few days before discovery.

In no way can I say that a major influx of females in the ranks should be permitted on a regular basis, due to the percentage of women in the ranks(1% or less). I've been to events where women served as Infantry, and know I, as well 60 others, were unaware that "Private Fred" was a women, until after the event was over.

[boreguard]

Re: Females on the Line

Apply the same math to our representation of command to the number of rifles in the ranks and you get...OVER REPRESENTATION ! So much for objective historians here; let's all depend on our reenactor bias to develop an opinion of what's right or wrong, and we continue to get varied opinions that seem right to some and wrong to others.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Females on the Line

Mod Hat On:

Apply the same math to our representation of command to the number of rifles in the ranks and you get...OVER REPRESENTATION ! So much for objective historians here; let's all depend on our reenactor bias to develop an opinion of what's right or wrong, and we continue to get varied opinions that seem right to some and wrong to others.

I'm going to invoke the Heinrich "Three Wrongs" rule here:

Moderator hat on...
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.

Whether we're talking about wimmin in the ranks, jaguar skin trousers, or defending any other practice:
It is not a valid argument to say that "We don't do Thing 1 correctly, therefore why are folks so against doing Thing 2 which is also wrong for the same/similar reason". "We don't drill very well, so why get all bothered about my Shake-n-Poor pancakes in camp" would be a similar agrument.

So, if you want to defend women serving as men in the ranks (or any other practice for that matter), please don't do so by citing something else we do wrong or poorly... you'll argue us all right out of authenticity altogether.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Females on the Line

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

You dont ever get an answer to that.

Crickets chirping.

Is it easier to tell the female no.......but tougher to look the big ole feller in the eye and tell him he cant be involved ?

Dont get me wrong, the folks here and elsewhere, good people on the research based side have welcomed me with open arms......

but my body type is not by any account accurately representative of a CS soldier or mid-19th century male.

Love history, know your lane.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Females on the Line

Well folks, there you have it!

Curt said it once. I said it again.

Chris: being tubby is not a valid argument for allowing women in the ranks at reenactments. Other arguments maybe, but not that 'un.

Thread closed, pending further review on the field by the referees... uh, moderators.