5 foot rule and female "soldiers"??? [Archive] - Civil War Reenactors Discussion Forums

MMurphy

06-10-2008, 01:51 PM

Okay something that I have been noticing lately.

Some units allow females to portray males in ranks as long as they can pass "the five foot rule". While this is a good guideline, (especially on the field), I'm seeing some units completely ignore it now to the point where it's blatantly obvious that some of the "soldiers" are women.

There's a CS Cavalry unit that attends some of our local events here that has 1-2 female members and they are very noticeable as ladies in terms of shape, hair, etc. They do nothing to hide their "feminine features", and many times the unit acts more like a Mounted Cowboy Action Shooting Unit than it does cavalry... :roll:

There's also a Union Artillery unit around this area that has a couple of females in it, that are very obvious.

And recently I've started seeing some of the infantry units were you can stand a good 25-30 feet away and see "a female in line", it's that obvious.

I guess it's struck me to write this because of a recent article on a battle in the Camp Chase Gazette where out of the 4 photos there, at least two of them showed VERY onvious females in the ranks of combatants. :confused:

So why do units try to "accurately" portray a unit when they allow this?...What's the justification?...Laziness?...apathy?...Scared to tell the girlies..."Sorry but you gotta follow the five foot rule", so they won't be sued by some "victimized" female screaming sexual discrimination?

Am I the only one that seems to be noticing this trend? :confused:

Opinions please...

Memphis

06-10-2008, 01:58 PM

Mike,

Consider upgrading your choice of events, and this problem may take care of itself.

firstmdes

06-10-2008, 02:06 PM

I have reenacted a number of times with female reenactors that do a very good impression. Height should have nothing to do with it. There are quite a number of women over five feet that couldn't pretend to be a man if their life depended on it. I am sure that there are women under five feet that make good soldiers. The complaint should be directed at the impression: is the hair short or hidden, do they go by Sally and Jenny or do they adopt a male name like Andy for the impression...

If you want to follow a height rule, then you better not have men in your ranks under that minimum height!

OVI

06-10-2008, 02:10 PM

So why do units try to "accurately" portray a unit when they allow this?... :confused:

Opinions please...

Units that allow females (especially the quite obvious) in the ranks do not "accurately" portray a unit. Therein lies your confusion. You are looking for accuracy when it isnt present.

Either "blind" yourself and live with it or as was suggested...try better events with real standards. That problem really only exists at the bottom end of the mainstream.

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Devils Own Mess"

sbl

06-10-2008, 02:11 PM

We have a go-round about this every 6-12 months. If the women are in somebody else's unit there's not a lot you can do but squint or go home.

indguard

06-10-2008, 02:46 PM

Never heard of a "five foot rule" and would never consider employing it. It is an arbitrary and pointless idea that has no bearing on anything. I don't do arbitrary.

WTH

RJSamp

06-10-2008, 02:48 PM

Crabby

06-10-2008, 03:02 PM

firstmdes

06-10-2008, 03:12 PM

It is not the height. It is the distance from you, you shouldn't be able to notice at a distance of 5 foot away. But then again you seem to be going to the wrong events!
:oops: I see...five feet away not five feet tall. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

3rd_PA_Artillery

06-10-2008, 03:24 PM

There's a woman in my battery who serves as pretty much infantry. She does pretty well in hiding her identity. She ties her hair up and puts it up in the crown of her forage cap and wears a coat that's a size too small to hide her "feminine features."

indguard

06-10-2008, 04:50 PM

Five feet away, now THAT isn't arbitrary.

I can go for that one.

WTH

wilber6150

06-10-2008, 05:36 PM

MMurphy

06-10-2008, 06:44 PM

Everyone keeps blasting the original poster about going to the wrong events and that he should be attending the right ones... So I was just thinking what is the ratio of wrong events to right ones ? If one only wants to attend a couple of events a year then it would be easy just to attend the "right" ones, but if one wants to attend more then that that or chooses not to travel 8+ hours to an event does the advise given to the poster have merit? What is an reenactor to do ? How about giving the man some advise about what events in his area that he might like to attend which would be "right" instead of just criticizing the ones he does attend..

Thanks Wilber...;)

Actually, I like to make the local events, since the concept of "right" events vs "wrong events" is up there with each persons idea of what is right and wrong...it's like asking someone "what is classified as pornorgraphy?" you'll get a dozen different answers of varying degrees.

Honestly?...With the price of gas, I am not going to be travelling 8+ hours to go to "right events" (plus the fact that I work on Sundays...); :(

So while not feeling like I'm being blasted, instead of arguing over "right events vs wrong events", I was seeking ideas on the original topic...

Thank for your answers though!

Micah Trent

06-10-2008, 07:01 PM

Everyone keeps blasting the original poster about going to the wrong events and that he should be attending the right ones...
What is an reenactor to do ? How about giving the man some advise about what events in his area that he might like to attend which would be "right" instead of just criticizing the ones he does attend..

No one is "blasting" the original poster here. Just a helpful hint that many on here get so bent out of shape about. On another note: you did want some advise well...You asked and thou shall receive:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5

You will find that there are closer "right" evets to you then you thought.;)

See...we can be nice!:shock:

Spinster

06-10-2008, 07:24 PM

Will,

Every aspect of this hobby requires some research. And what is the 'right' event for a particular person will vary.

For example, if I look at the profile of the original poster, I can't tell where he is from. Some folks give that information, some don't. Thus, no one can offer him a list of events near him. While his unit carries a Virginia title, he could just as easily live in California, Great Britain, or even Russia. Each has folks reenacting the American Civil War.

Now, in this case what constitutes the 'right' event for Mr. Murley may be one where the host unit standards say something like "Inasmuch as Victorian women were precluded from serving as soldiers under arms during the War Between the States, a soldier who is discovered to be female, by requested admission, shall be discharged from service and excluded from military duties on and off the field by the respective battalion commander as was the practice during the War."

Now, there are two major umbrella organizations in my immediate driving range --(under 3 hours). One has that standard, the other does not. Guess which event host will have fewer female soldiers?

If female soldiers are a bug on my reenacting windshield, then I will be looking to who is hosting a particular event to find out what is a 'right' event for me. It could be though that the bug on my windshield is lack of military discipline in camps. Or inadequate separation and protection for the civilian population. I might have to read a little harder and infer a few things to discern what is a 'right' event for me.

I might have to write somebody and ask. I might have to pick up the phone. Nobody else can really do this for me, because they don't know all my criteria and can't weigh the options for me. And while there are certain 'right' event listings maintained, holding certain standards, they are not a secret, and not necessarily for every person every time. Each has to look to their own needs to discern whether the particular event meets their standard of 'right'.

In short, RESEARCH.

Normally, once a person starts asking certain questions, its time for them to kick their reenacting up a notch, and stop going to events that are 'wrong' events for them.

This year, in order to get to events that meet my criteria of right events, I will: catch a $60 plane flight, drive 4 hours to the coast with only a bedroll and my clothes, drive 2 hours hauling every bit of plunder I own and make two trips, drive 30 minutes, drive 6 hours, catch a seat in the Carpool from **** for 13 hours because airplanes don't go there, hitch up the trailer to haul the wagon 3 hours away, and make 2 more trips to the coast. Thats for this time period, not my other one. The most 'expensive' $ trip I'll make is that one 2 hours from home with all the plunder in my big green diesel truck.

One simply has to plan properly and do a bit of research to find and attend the 'right' events.

Spinster

06-10-2008, 07:36 PM

And yes Mr. Murley, there are an increasing number of females attempting to portray soldiers in the 1860's.

Poor portrayals are tolerated in certain organizations, and not in others. I've dressed a couple who would pass the 5 inch rule (my own personal 'right' standard, not 5 feet).

I've worn my hair in an upsweep for the last 30 years--this does not mean I could plop a kepi on it and don an extra large jacket and pass for a man. I still walk like a girl, talk like a girl, and throw like a girl. Most women do. And there is plenty for us to do in this hobby without resorting to wearing jean wool and domet flannel.

Some organizations are willing to tolerate such for the sake of numbers, or friendship or kinship. Others are not.

Set your own vision of 'personal best' and reach for it.

Rob Weaver

06-10-2008, 08:52 PM

I once belonged to a unit that stood on the moral high ground that "since there were no women known to be in our ranks, we do not accept women as members under arms in the ranks." Then I had the unmitigated gall to find solid documentation that we not only had a women in our regiment, but in our very company. A sergeant who gave birth while in Federal service. Darned ol' research. Messes with your preconceptions. :)
There was a woman in the 7th Wisconsin, so I don't feel bad about having a young lady in our ranks who has grown to be a fine and competent reenactor. I used to be a militant member of the "he-man women hater's club" but have since decided not to let that destroy my reenacting experience. Is it a bug on my windshield? Sometimes, but not as much as it used to be.

Poor Private

06-10-2008, 09:01 PM

I agree that the "right events" is subjective, and I am tired of people draging that ole saw out when they don't have an answer for someone. And Yes my unit does now have a female in it's ranks and I bet you can't find her in our latest unit photos. www.firstmichiganinfantry.com
And I for sure am not driving 4+ hours to any "right event" when there are several local events within 2 hours driving. My son and I have determined that a 2 hour drive is gonna be it for us this summer. So the local events are the RIGHT EVENTS for us this year.

flattop32355

06-10-2008, 09:27 PM

So why do units try to "accurately" portray a unit when they allow this?...What's the justification?...Laziness?...apathy?...Scared to tell the girlies..."Sorry but you gotta follow the five foot rule", so they won't be sued by some "victimized" female screaming sexual discrimination?

Without reading any further down the thread, I'll ask an obvious question: What makes you think they are trying to "accurately" portray anything?

That's not particularly a slam, because there are units all over the authenticity scale, at events all over the place, with standards from strict to nonexistant.

Any visual "distance rule" is arbitrary, similar to the one about coolers covered over in a tent are "okay", but not ones that are out in the open, or any other such "rule". I've also heard ten feet, twenty five feet, fifty feet.....

We all reenact at an accuracy level we choose, sometimes upping the level a notch or two at at time as we move up the Authenticity Scale, and sometimes not. Some who can't/won't try to be more accurate (Yeah, that includes us fellows who aren't seeming to lose any of our excess weight) still like to do this crazy hobby, and there's no set of established rules that says you can't.

The female reenactor topic is a fun one in our day and time, as we try to portray a different day and time, with different social norms and expectations. Add in the differing levels of commitment and dedication to "authenticity" within the spectrum of the hobby, and you get, well, what we've got; people and unts all over the board. I've "seen" good and seen bad female impersonations. Same for males.

Best advice is to look at the events you attend that allow things, like this and others, that you don't agree with. Is there enough "bad" to outweigh the "good" of the event for you? If so, seek out other events, if possible.

These subjects will always be a part of at least a part of the hobby. The good news is that you get to pick and choose the parts of the hobby in which you will participate.

RJSamp

06-10-2008, 09:45 PM

Mike,

Consider upgrading your choice of events, and this problem may take care of itself. Roger Johns aka 'Mempiss'

or as was suggested...try better events with real standards. That problem really only exists at the bottom end of the mainstream.

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Devils Own Mess"

OK you two want to name a couple events with 'real' standards that were 'better' events that didn't have women as soldiers at them? I'm talking the upgraded 'right' events.... start with an analysis of Outpost 2000 and Outpost 2007, as I'd hate to analyze an 'upgraded' event that I haven't personally attended. This 'problem' (to some!) may well NOT take care of itself.....and your mileage statistically won't vary even if it is an upgraded event.

Next we can analyze if 80 rifles portaying a 4 company battalion (some of us would consider this a division.....) is 'better'...with or without females in the ranks.

hanktrent

06-10-2008, 09:45 PM

I agree that the "right events" is subjective, and I am tired of people draging that ole saw out when they don't have an answer for someone.

That's the point, though--it is subjective. The "ole saw" is for when a person complains about something that bothers them as if it's a hobby-wide problem, when in fact there are events they could be attending right now where it's not a problem.

So either the person can try to get people to change at the events he's attending, which is usually an uphill struggle, or he can switch to attending events that would be right for him.

Sometimes there just isn't any other answer. I'd love to attend events that meet my goals and are two hours away. But local people have made it clear they don't want to change, so there's no solution but to travel.

And I for sure am not driving 4+ hours to any "right event" when there are several local events within 2 hours driving. My son and I have determined that a 2 hour drive is gonna be it for us this summer. So the local events are the RIGHT EVENTS for us this year.

That's exactly the point. If you have no complaints about the events you attend, then they're the right ones for you.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Micah Trent

06-10-2008, 09:49 PM

I agree that the "right events" is subjective,...My son and I have determined that a 2 hour drive is gonna be it for us this summer. So the local events are the RIGHT EVENTS for us this year.

That's cool. If that is what makes you happy.

(Not directed to you Poor Private) I think the thing that bothers some is the people who continue to go to these "wrong" events, yet come on here and complain about it with what they had, what they did, blah, blah, blah...over and over again and when someone says that they are still attending the wrong events, as a way of saying "look into better ran quality evets" they get all uptight.

Sometimes reading these threads, you can't help to think...Man, there are some emotional guys on here who have a hard time dealing with things said.:roll:

Ross L. Lamoreaux

06-10-2008, 09:56 PM

I try to stay out of the "galtroop" debate as much as possible, because its a lose/lose situation. For everytime you use documentation and official records showing the percentage of actual female soldiers, you have someone else saying "see, there were female soldiers". Sure there were, just not to the scale being portrayed at the average mainstream event. I still attend many mainstream events, but I prefer any event that chooses authenticity over who can put out the biggest numbers. In the last ten years, I've only seen three female soldiers that I couldn't identify readily at 20 yards (not to say there's more out there, just ones that I've fought with). That said, there are more than a few decent female impressionists out there, and if its for a realistic, documented impression, I'm all for it. I just scratch my head though when I go to an event like the one I went to a few weeks ago that had 22 female combatants (just the ones I could see from my perspective in the ranks). They were in every branch, infantry, artillery, cavalry, US and CS (although CS seems to have more at least down here). I was particularly touched by the several females as an auxiliary of the CS Marines. To each his (or her) own I guess, but sometimes I just have a hard time tuning out such blatant disregard for history. There are so many accurate impressions for ladies in this hobby to ignore, so I often wonder just what attracts them to itchy, scratchy kersey and jean. In my neck of the woods, the female combatants are doubling each year - good for numbers at an event but horrific for history.

DeoVinde11

06-10-2008, 10:26 PM

I agree that the average woman reenactor i have seen at the events I attend are generally obvious, I have been very pleased to see recently that most of them have been began to wear fake facial hair, while I can still tell that they are women(because I knew them previously) I dont think most people can, I think that it if they are willing to put the time in and actually disguise themselves I see no problem

TheQM

06-10-2008, 10:31 PM

I think the thing that bothers some is the people who continue to go to these "wrong" events, yet come on here and complain about it with what they had, what they did, blah, blah, blah...over and over again and when someone says that they are still attending the wrong events, as a way of saying "look into better ran quality evets" they get all uptight.

Micah,

That is indeed the rub. The events you attend are "quality" for you and your pards for just one reason, you and your pards enjoy them. As soon as you tell someone, "Well, I attend "quality" events and you don't", you've lost your audience. Everything else you say is just noise.

The events you attend may indeed be more "authentic", but even that is subjective. Is an event with 200 participants wearing perfect uniforms, carrying everything on their backs, and eating nothing but period rations, really more "authentic" than another event with 5,000 participants? Especially if spectators are involved and want to get a feeling of what a Civil War battle looked like. I attend both types of events and don't have a good answer to that question.

Micah Trent

06-10-2008, 11:55 PM

Micah,

That is indeed the rub. The events you attend are "quality" for you and your pards for just one reason, you and your pards enjoy them. As soon as you tell someone, "Well, I attend "quality" events and you don't", you've lost your audience. Everything else you say is just noise.

The events you attend may indeed be more "authentic", but even that is subjective. Is an event with 200 participants wearing perfect uniforms, carrying everything on their backs, and eating nothing but period rations, really more "authentic" than another event with 5,000 participants? Especially if spectators are involved and want to get a feeling of what a Civil War battle looked like. I attend both types of events and don't have a good answer to that question.

I attend both types myself. I do my share of "authentic" because I enjoy immersing myself into it. However, I have seen some pretty bad impressions at these also, but my hat is off to them for taking a step up.
On another note, I too do a fair share of mainstream. I will be doing my second MS event next month. I know what I am going to expect. There will be poor representations, farbs, etc., but it won't bother me and you won't see me on here complaining about it.
But to answer your question: Is an event with 200 participants wearing perfect uniforms, carrying everything on their backs, and eating nothing but period rations, really more "authentic" than another event with 5,000 participants? Especially if spectators are involved and want to get a feeling of what a Civil War battle looked like.
Answer: I believe so:
All you have to do is look into the guidelines, scenarios, and who is running the event. But, that is me.
If one chooses to do bad events...fine, but don't continue to get on here and complain it about all the time. I think if they stop doing that, they wouldn't have to hear those irritating words: "still attending the wrong events?"

Poor Private

06-11-2008, 05:57 AM

And once again we are off topic. Did no-one spot our female reenactor? Or did no-one bother to look? If they can't be spotted by the socalled trained reenactor(like it really happened). Then what makes it wrong for the female to be in uniform? Are our commanders supposed to go around pointing them out? "here is Suzy, our female reenactor". If she is making the attempt , and does pass then how do you spot her? Are you looking in the little blue building to see if she/he has the right equipment? Do you watch for them on purpose to bring a feeling of self importance? Or are you spotting them when they change into/out of street clothes before or after an event. If they pass how do you spot them?

sbl

06-11-2008, 06:36 AM

"I bet you can't find her in our latest unit photos.."

She's in the front rank kneeling firing on the unit's left.

Anders

06-11-2008, 07:39 AM

There are events, and then there are other events, and you ahve to read the rules and regulations to properly set your expectations, or decide which to attend.

However you must beware that some events (most bigger events) publish decent regulations, and never enforce them, either due to politics or a lack of guts.

Folks have reputations, they have earned them, the same can be said of events.

Pards,

Pvt Schnapps

06-11-2008, 08:26 AM

I feel like I've written volumes on this, but my latest thoughts run along these lines:

First, and most fundamentally, from colonial times at least through the Civil War, American armies relied on a pool of young men without settled prospects or property who signed up for the bounty of land or money and to establish their reputation in the community. They were middle and younger sons, agrarian laborers and apprentices, 18-24 years old, single, with a wide-open future.

That's what we need for an authentic looking unit. That's also the demographic that is still least economically stable, most focused on establishing themselves, and in many ways hardest to recruit for an expensive, time-consuming hobby. Even at the self-labeled "better" events, they are the minority.

Moving beyond age, there are other characteristics of the Civil War soldier that are difficult to obtain today. You want a unit that's reasonably ethnically pure, mostly Anglo-Saxon but with 20-30% Irish, Scots, or Germans. Italians and eastern Europeans, Latin Americans, and the like should be a very small minority, as should any significant mix of the above. If you look at photos of Civil War companies, that's what you see, and the waves of immigration that have washed over our shores in the century and a half since the war provide another reason we don't look like they did.

Beyond ethnicity, there are morphological differences. I'm amazed these days at the number of short and skinny people in old movies from the 30s and 40s. Go back another 70 or 80 years to photos of Civil War companies and you see the same body types. We're taller by several inches and even fit people tend to be 20-40 pounds heavier than our predecessors.

So we virtually have to make compromises to have any units at all and a hobby of any size. I accept this, and I accept any woman who makes as much of an effort to conform to the ideal as I do. When I'm face to face with spectators at a living history, and I take a little break from a lecture on morning reports and red tape, I talk about this and explain why you see a lot more old guys in the ranks of reenactors than you would in a real Civil War army. Believe it or not, that seems to be the first thing they notice.

Compromise is by definition not ideal, but in our case it's a practical necessity. That doesn't mean I don't gag at some of the sights that pop up now and again. But I'm bothered less by women in the ranks than by those occasions when I'm the oldest guy in the ranks. And both of those situations bother me less than the occasions when I'm the youngest guy in the ranks.

Chris Anders and Kevin Air have come up with what I think is a reasonable approach, given the strong feelings on both sides of the question of women portraying Civil War soldiers. I wish more events across the spectrum would follow their lead.

Shortround

06-11-2008, 08:46 AM

Three or four other posters say this debate resurfaces every six months. That's a fact.

People are going to do what they want to do and nothing will change their minds. Some women blend in, about the same percentage that were actually in the ranks of the civil war. But once you admit there were some women in the ranks then it's justification for the whole group to join.

But, lets be honest, in a way you don't mind the personnel because it fills the ranks. It's a toss up between having a perfect regiment of about 30 perfect progressives or a nearly full regiment with lots of TBGs and women.

Anyway, Gas Prices, not women, are the biggest threat to the hobby I can think of. The next generation of gun laws in 2009 will be nearly as bad as the effects from gas prices. I'm really worried about getting future supplies of black powder in the post 2009 cycle.

Bill Hensler
Michigan Reenactor

Capt Terry

06-11-2008, 09:04 AM

Units that allow females (especially the quite obvious) in the ranks do not "accurately" portray a unit. Therein lies your confusion. You are looking for accuracy when it isnt present.

Either "blind" yourself and live with it or as was suggested...try better events with real standards. That problem really only exists at the bottom end of the mainstream.

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Devils Own Mess"

I think an angle here is that females tried very hard to hide their gender and a few were very successful. Either that or the compnay decided to ignore it, which I think would have been very unlikely. So the question becomes, should a unit have to prove that a female was in that unit's ranks during the war in order to justify having one today in reenacting. Although I think that would be great justification for allowing a female in the ranks, I don't think it is absolutely necessary. If the female is successfully hiding thier gender then that supports the idea that some did and were not discovered.

We have had a female in our ranks who steadily improved and did an outstanding job. Just a thought.

I will never forget the female trooper I saw a few years ago who have heavy eye liner on.

Silas

06-11-2008, 10:53 AM

The so called Five Foot Rule is a standard in name only. It is an unbinding and unenforced standard created by persons unknown at a time and place unknown then propounded by reenactors who make little effort to follow it. "Can't tell at five feet" is a sugar coated excuse not to conform to quantifiable, historic standards.

A similar excuse - and probably the gold standard of excuses - is "This is just a hobby."

OVI

06-11-2008, 11:13 AM

I think an angle here is that females tried very hard to hide their gender and a few were very successful. Either that or the compnay decided to ignore it, which I think would have been very unlikely. So the question becomes, should a unit have to prove that a female was in that unit's ranks during the war in order to justify having one today in reenacting. Although I think that would be great justification for allowing a female in the ranks, I don't think it is absolutely necessary. If the female is successfully hiding thier gender then that supports the idea that some did and were not discovered.
.

Whether or not a unit allows females in its ranks is an issue for that unit and its standards. On that level it is up to that units members to decide if they wish to "accurately" portray a unit that had any disguised females or if they wish to fill out their ranks with females who may or may not have been discovered. It really doesnt matter if the unit wants to twist the historical record to suit their standards or just let women fall in without any effort to hide their gender. Reenacting units are basically social clubs and since the hobby itself has no agreed upon standards, the choice and any justification is up to the members.

That is on the unit/club level. The same thing applies on the battalion/umbrella organization level and the application of their rules.

Where it gets to be a problem is at events. And as I have said before, it is all about standards, enforcement and your expectations.

Event A has no standards. If you attend that event and see something that doesnt meet your standards...you can reevaluate whether the event was right for you and proceed accorrdingly.

Event B has standards. If you attend that event and see something that doesnt meet your standards...you can reevaluate whether the event was right for you and proceed accorrdingly.
If you see something that doesnt meet the events standards, you can question the authorities about the enforcement and based on that outcome, decide if the standards mean anything in relation to your expectations.

Its not about "wrong" events. Its about "better" events that may meet your expectations.

If seeing obvious women in the ranks bothers you, find events with enforced rules that try to prevent the practice. Then decide if that meets your expectation.

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Devils Own Mess"

tompritchett

06-11-2008, 11:44 AM

We have had a female in our ranks who steadily improved and did an outstanding job. Just a thought.

If she was at New Market, she did an excellent job hiding her gender as I do not remember seeing her when I fell in with your unit there.

Lightningslinger

06-11-2008, 12:29 PM

I feel like I've written volumes on this, but my latest thoughts run along these lines:

Moving beyond age, there are other characteristics of the Civil War soldier that are difficult to obtain today. You want a unit that's reasonably ethnically pure, mostly Anglo-Saxon but with 20-30% Irish, Scots, or Germans.

Michael,

I'm not certain if you are speaking of the ethnic make up of the unit you are portraying or speaking of the composite of the total makeup of nationalities who participated in the War of 1861.

Somewhere along the line I was led to believe that ethnic Germans constituted the majority of those who participated in the American Peoples War between 1861-65 followed by the Irish.

I don't, however, have any ready statistics with which to substantiate this suggestion. Might someone else here on the forum be in a position to access and provide them?

Walt

indguard

06-11-2008, 12:46 PM

A similar excuse - and probably the gold standard of excuses - is "This is just a hobby."

I sure wish we could without fear make specific rules and, in every case, enforce them rigorously. But, it isn't always as easy as that.

I'd like to remind everyone of the overly litigious society in which we live. At least one woman has already taken an event to court because she was told she could not play.

Will more women resort to courts? It wouldn't surprise me. Tread lightly, is my advice.

Willie was right, even as he didn't know it... "first kill all the lawyers."

WTH

Capt Terry

06-11-2008, 12:55 PM

Whether or not a unit allows females in its ranks is an issue for that unit and its standards. On that level it is up to that units members to decide if they wish to "accurately" portray a unit that had any disguised females or if they wish to fill out their ranks with females who may or may not have been discovered. It really doesnt matter if the unit wants to twist the historical record to suit their standards or just let women fall in without any effort to hide their gender. Reenacting units are basically social clubs and since the hobby itself has no agreed upon standards, the choice and any justification is up to the members.

That is on the unit/club level. The same thing applies on the battalion/umbrella organization level and the application of their rules.

Where it gets to be a problem is at events. And as I have said before, it is all about standards, enforcement and your expectations.

Event A has no standards. If you attend that event and see something that doesnt meet your standards...you can reevaluate whether the event was right for you and proceed accorrdingly.

Event B has standards. If you attend that event and see something that doesnt meet your standards...you can reevaluate whether the event was right for you and proceed accorrdingly.
If you see something that doesnt meet the events standards, you can question the authorities about the enforcement and based on that outcome, decide if the standards mean anything in relation to your expectations.

Its not about "wrong" events. Its about "better" events that may meet your expectations.

If seeing obvious women in the ranks bothers you, find events with enforced rules that try to prevent the practice. Then decide if that meets your expectation.

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Devils Own Mess"

Kent,

I don't think I said anything contrary to what you did, but was just posing some thoughts. Units have the right to set their standards and what they will or will not allow. And they decide what events they will attend. I always believed that units with good standards can improve events just by being there. Too many times, very bad events are attended by units that can be a little lax on thier standards.

Pvt Schnapps

06-11-2008, 01:31 PM

Michael,

I'm not certain if you are speaking of the ethnic make up of the unit you are portraying or speaking of the composite of the total makeup of nationalities who participated in the War of 1861.

Somewhere along the line I was led to believe that ethnic Germans constituted the majority of those who participated in the American Peoples War between 1861-65 followed by the Irish.

I don't, however, have any ready statistics with which to substantiate this suggestion. Might someone else here on the forum be in a position to access and provide them?

Walt

I was speaking of composite numbers for the U. S. Army. Of the total number of about 2.5 million who served during the war, some 140,000 were Irish, 175,000-200,000 German, 200,000 USCT, and some tens of thousands of various other nationalities, mainly Canadian and English. These are off the top of my head: "Melting Pot Soldiers" has more comprehensive stats. It would probably be reasonable to assert that some three-quarters were native born Caucasians, predominantly Anglo-Saxon, but with a fair number of German ancestry too.

Pvt Schnapps

06-11-2008, 01:47 PM

Kent,

I don't think I said anything contrary to what you did, but was just posing some thoughts. Units have the right to set their standards and what they will or will not allow. And they decide what events they will attend. I always believed that units with good standards can improve events just by being there. Too many times, very bad events are attended by units that can be a little lax on thier standards.

I agree, but I want to add that the presence of women in the ranks does not in and of itself speak of lax standards. Quality of impression matters, and I've seen enough old fat guys at "the right" events to suspect that the bias against females has less to do with historicity than other factors.

"No females in the ranks" is the cheapest form of "authenticity." At least half the folks who spout that rule haven't the faintest clue about how the army was actually run and administered and wouldn't know a QM form 40 or a casualty return if it jumped up and bit them on their writing hand. They think knapsack or blanket roll is a life-style choice and brass looks best when it's gone a year or two without polishing.

In my experience some of the least history-aware units are the most vociferous in their opposition to females, because they think that's the least they can do, and the least is in fact about all they can do. They're some of the same folks who ply spectators with erroneous factoids because that's what their sergeant told them 15 years ago and they've never bothered to study an original source.

Again, I don't take issue with anything you say, it just kinda reminded me of a pet peeve of mine. ;)

firstmdes

06-11-2008, 01:58 PM

I agree, but I want to add that the presence of women in the ranks does not in and of itself speak of lax standards. Quality of impression matters, and I've seen enough old fat guys at "the right" events to suspect that the bias against females has less to do with historicity than other factors.

"No females in the ranks" is the cheapest form of "authenticity." At least half the folks who spout that rule haven't the faintest clue about how the army was actually run and administered and wouldn't know a QM form 40 or a casualty return if it jumped up and bit them on their writing hand. They think knapsack or blanket roll is a life-style choice and brass looks best when it's gone a year or two without polishing.

In my experience some of the least history-aware units are the most vociferous in their opposition to females, because they think that's the least they can do, and the least is in fact about all they can do. They're some of the same folks who ply spectators with erroneous factoids because that's what their sergeant told them 15 years ago and they've never bothered to study an original source.

Again, I don't take issue with anything you say, it just kinda reminded me of a pet peeve of mine. ;)
Mike, I agree with what you have written and I wonder where we stop with the "authenticity" excuse? Do we keep Asians and African Americans out of the ranks? Do we exclude those ethnic groups who were not in the U.S. at the time of the war? How about we exclude those with inauthentic vaccines...or those with modern dental implants...or those who are circumcised and would not have been in 1861...or those with synthetic body parts or organs or...okay, so I am getting a little out of hand, but you get my point, right?

Where does it end? Some history sites us "heirloom" vegetables and animals, plants and animals which are genetically close to their historic appearance and make-up. Maybe reenactments should only use "heirloom" reenactors.

Danny

06-11-2008, 02:06 PM

If the many old in the ranks would dye their grey hair and the fat in the ranks lose weight that would have a much bigger effect than limiting or policing female soldier impressions.

Too many officers, and too many self-important officers would be the next best target.

Dan Wykes

OVI

06-11-2008, 02:16 PM

OVI

06-11-2008, 02:29 PM

Mike, I agree with what you have written and I wonder where we stop with the "authenticity" excuse? Do we keep Asians and African Americans out of the ranks? Do we exclude those ethnic groups who were not in the U.S. at the time of the war? How about we exclude those with inauthentic vaccines...or those with modern dental implants...or those who are circumcised and would not have been in 1861...or those with synthetic body parts or organs or...okay, so I am getting a little out of hand, but you get my point, right?

Where does it end? Some history sites us "heirloom" vegetables and animals, plants and animals which are genetically close to their historic appearance and make-up. Maybe reenactments should only use "heirloom" reenactors.

See how easy it is to twist the historical record to justify an agenda. Sure we can go too far as your suggestions illustrate. And we can just as easily turn that concept around and say that since we cant be perfect, no need to have any standards at all.
Since we each have to decide for ourselves what the line is and where to draw it, the argument is circular.

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Devils Own Mess"

bob 125th nysvi

06-11-2008, 08:33 PM

fall back on what does my unit do and I let the members of the other unit worry about who is 'serving' in their unit.

To me everybody wearing the wrong color is just a target.

It doesn't ruin my weekend if I see an obvious female soldier (although there was this really cute reb once ....) because I KNOW that we are already bending so much of reality that we ain't close.

Is it "authentic" that there are female soldiers in the ranks, No.

But then fat over weight out of shape over aged men aren't authentic either. So how come the inauthentic one with outdoor plumbing DOESN'T ruin the illusion? Because of the plumbing?

Heck I'm not, I would have been considered unusually tall for the time period. Should I not be allowed to fall in because there are too many tall guys?

Quiet honestly if she knows her stuff and can keep up, I'd rather have a women in the ranks than the fat over-weight can't even shoulder arms guy that I have to grab by the accoutrements to drag up the hill.

However I belong to a unit that doesn't allow women. Because I don't WANT to serve with a woman (I like women I really REALLY do!).

Really the only thing you can control is the unit you belong and the events you are going to. If it ain't worth 16 hours worth of gas to not see a woman than it isn't. If it is, then it is.

And EVERYBODY has their own definition of the "right" event.

Maybe being near sighted in this case is a good thing. I have a hard time distinguishing most of the ladies until I'm fairly close.

However I also think the time is not too far off when we may find ourselves 'Title IXed' by some crusader (read ACLU) working with a female soldier that has been disbarred from an event held by the NPS or some other public organization (or using public facilities). If that happens this discussion will become moot.

Bottom line. If a woman in the ranks really bothers you then go to events that don't allow women (Chris Anders events are a good example). And join a unit that doesn't allow women.

Control what you can and don't sweat the rest, this is a hobby, it is supposed to be fun and relaxing .... D@^N IT!

reb64

06-11-2008, 08:56 PM

Pvt Schnapps

06-11-2008, 09:26 PM

Bottom line. If a woman in the ranks really bothers you then go to events that don't allow women (Chris Anders events are a good example). And join a unit that doesn't allow women.

Control what you can and don't sweat the rest, this is a hobby, it is supposed to be fun and relaxing .... D@^N IT!

Actually, Chris allows women if their impression passes muster. Several women abided by the standards at September Storm and were able to serve in the ranks. They were an asset. None of those who went down from the heat on either day were women. When the shooting started, they blended right in. They all would have been an asset at any event I've ever attended, including the most authentic.

Rob Weaver

06-11-2008, 10:15 PM

I really think about this question a lot, although at this point it's pretty clear where I've settled. There is a significant difference between the motivation we have to reenact and the motivation of the Veterans. They were real soldiers, fighting a real ar for which they were drafted or enlisted for a number of personal reasons. All our fancy motivations boil down to just one: we have a fascination for the time period. This is 21st century America. Men and women now serve in our armed forces and work (more or less) equally in the workforce. There are no educatonal restrictions placed on anyone based solely upon their sex, that I know of. This is our real world and we are hobbyists. I believe this is one modern intrusion that we simply must learn to live with, indeed as we live with the greybeards and the overweight office jockeys.
That being said, we need to enourage those women who bear arms to present a good impression. I find "galtroops" to be a repellent farbism. I briefly had one in my unit; she's gone because she wouldn't adhere to standards. 'nuff said.
I think we need to remember one of the most important features of reenacting: the only impression over which I have complete control is my own. Make your own good. You have less control over your unit's, even less over other units, and very little over the totality of the event, unless, like Creon, "You would rule a desert beautifully - alone." If the fact that the button shanks on the guy's vest two company streets over go th wrong way is ruining the event for you, get some perspective. The same for the women under arms. (On the preview read, I sounded harsher than I meant to - it needs a few smilies, but my wife needs the computer. :D )

Huck Finn

06-11-2008, 10:20 PM

If she was at New Market, she did an excellent job hiding her gender as I do not remember seeing her when I fell in with your unit there.

Tom:

We all know you meant to use "sex".

http://www.indiana.edu/~lggender/sex-vs-gender.html

On another front a questions begs to be answered. Are women protraying combatants allowed to engage in public displays of affection with male combatants? Could make for mass confusion, not that there is anything wrong with any of this.

tompritchett

06-11-2008, 11:46 PM

On another front a questions begs to be answered. Are women protraying combatants allowed to engage in public displays of affection with male combatants?

We do have a female who does a military impression when we are not falling in with 1rst Bn ANV, which has no female in ranks policy. My rule for her was the first time I spotted her engaging in public displays of affection with another soldier during hours the camp was open to the public she would be required to abandon her military impression and put a dress on for the remainder of the event.

pvt_water

06-12-2008, 01:09 AM

I’m not one to share my opinion, but this time I feel I need to. I get very disappointed, frustrated, and discouraged as a reenactor when I read these posts, because I feel as if women are not welcome on the battlefields and at events as soldiers. I’m a female soldier reenactor, and I’m in agreeance that there are those women who are very obvious, and don’t take the time to conceal their gender. For ex., at Remembrance Day, there was a woman with a Reb artillery group who let her long blonde hair hang in a pony tail, had obvious feminine features, and wore make up! Disgusting! To that, I am embarrassed and ashamed, and agree that women who are that careless, shouldn’t be permitted to put on a uniform, but that’s my opinion. Women who are that careless ruin it for the rest of us who really take the time to conceal our gender. There’s a great site that talks about female soldier reenacting guidelines by Wendy King. If you know any women who could use some touchups, share this site with them (http://www.geocities.com/womansoldier/guidelines1.html).

I am also in agreeance with historical accuracy, which is why I, and many other women, portray female soldiers. How do you feel about people who believe the Civil War never happened? Appalling? Yes! Even with pictures and documentation, they continue to believe it never happened. The same here. We have pictures and documentation of female soldiers, and yet, many believe that women truly didn’t fight in the Civil War. 60 women are confirmed and identified as being killed or wounded during the Civil War. 400-500 to have enlisted. There is official documentation on these women!

Whether it is accepted or not, women are part of the reenacting hobby. If you are too set in your ways to accept it, so be it, You’re entitled to your own opinion/beliefs. But, please remember that even though one female has a terrible impression, there are many others who are very successful in concealing their gender. Also, instead of turning your backs to our presence, take the time to help us with our impression. We can only see so much, the rest is second hand observation. Let’s face it, some male reenactors could use an impression makeover themselves, but that’s not the point.

We’re here to learn from each other, and any advice, good or bad, is accepted. Not one person knows the entire Civil War, or can accurately portray the persons/ units they want to no matter how much they know. We all have our strengths in knowledge, but we continue to strengthen that knowledge as we learn through other people and/or find new research. Isn’t that why we’re here? To learn and share history, and to keep it alive? That’s why I do it. To accurately portray female soldiers such as Albert J. Cashier (95th Illinois), Lyons Wakeman (153rd NY), and Marian Mackenzie (23rd Kentucky).

Well, I could go on and on, but I won’t. I don’t think it will make much of a difference. But, I will conclude with some excellent reading materials I think everyone should check out.

Respectfully,
Pvt_Water

1. “They Fought Like Demons: Women Soldiers in the American Civil War.” DeAnne Blanton and Lauren M. Cook
2. “Women in the Civil War: Extraordinary Stories of Soldiers, Spies, Nurses, Doctors, Crusaders, and Others.” Larry G. Eggleston.
3. “An Uncommon Soldier: Civil War letters of Sarah Rosetta Wakeman…” Lauren Cook Burgess
4. http://www.geocities.com/womansoldier/index.html

Ross L. Lamoreaux

06-12-2008, 01:46 AM

I applaud you Pvt Water for a well-thought response and can appreciate you adding notations for your back-up. I have read most of those, and can even concur with you on some of what you say. I too applaud those who wish to accurately portray history as a soldier, but the key word is "accurate". All too frequently the majority of women soldiers that I have seen in the last ten years in several states, several types of events, as a soldier of both sides (with no agenda), do very little to conceal their gender, and as they have stated many times - just want to come out and have some fun. I'm all for fun as well, put what is the cost on everyone else for that fun? For those in the ranks wishing to be historically fulfilled, they have to "grin and bare it" or go to other events. For the public it is confusing, since they think that female soldier must have been wider spread than they thought. I mentioned earlier about a recent event I attended where there was over 22 female combatants from all branches and all sides - the event only had about 200 participants total. That means 10% of the combatant participants were female. If even 1000 women attempted to be soldiers in the Civil War, they would have made up less than .1% of the totals of both armies. Again, for those women making an attempt to get it right, my hats off to you, because alot of men sure don't try to get it right either. But there has to be a balance with the numbers, event hosts have to put some controls out there, and more importantly, the units must police themselves. There is no reason that good folks who just want to portray a civil war era person to the best of their ability should have to tolerate blatant disregard for the historical record or worse yet, not attend events and go elsewhere due to some folks "just wanting to play bang bang".

Ronnn

06-12-2008, 05:30 AM

Hmmmm . . . . dang divisionists. Mainstream versus "authenticists' or whatever. It really comes down to how immature a reenactor is. A real man should be able to have fun and gain something at ANY civil war event.

I had a lot more on this topic, but I just deleted it. I'm for the most part ignored here anyway. Too many guys who think they're reenacting Gods or whatever, oh well.

My two cents? The few women I've seen in reeacting, with one NOTABLE exception, do just fine at maintaining their ruse from the spectators standpoint, which is the only standpoint of any real relevance. Five foot rule? I don't give a rats butt about it unless the impression they are in has spectators within five feet of them. If the spectators are 50 feet away, a 49 foot rule will work.

Heck with the "It's all about ME and MY personal experience!" crowd. Selfish, immature twits, if ya ask me . . . and of course nobody is. But that's never stopped me from voicing my opinion. I'm not hiding behind the keyboard . . . it's just in my way, really.

Rob Weaver

06-12-2008, 07:43 AM

Nice post, Pvt Water. I think it's worth adding to our understanding an observation that I've made that many of the less-effective impressions of women psoing as men have come from teenagers, or relatively young women, and often fairly inexperienced reenactors. There are a lot of self-image issues going on for those persons. I can understand completely someone who is very interested in the Civil War, marching and recreating it, but feels constrained by "I am NOT going out in public looking like THAT." All of us oldsters can pile up evidence to the moon, and try to encourage with "but the goal is to not look like a girl" and it simply will get lost in the noise.

OVI

06-12-2008, 11:20 AM

Hmmmm . . . . dang divisionists. Mainstream versus "authenticists' or whatever. It really comes down to how immature a reenactor is. A real man should be able to have fun and gain something at ANY civil war event.

Heck with the "It's all about ME and MY personal experience!" crowd. Selfish, immature twits, if ya ask me . ..

Ok Ronn...I'm asking. Please explain why Im immature and selfish as a reenactor to wish to participate in a hobby with standards?

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Devils Own Mess"

Charles Weathers

06-12-2008, 11:38 AM

I am encouraged to see male reenactors siding with the female reenactors- that do a good impression. And like pvt Water said we don't know what is wrong with our impression unless someone points it out. We can all give advice on how to start but nothing matters until you put it together for a test run. I tried to start out on top by searching for a sutler that would alter a uniform to HIDE my features (Milk Creek) and they did a great job. I am proud to say that most people I encounter for the first time do believe I am a guy. Granted we know what women look like in trousers (1860's men did not), etc, and so they are easier to spot. While there is no evidence of a woman soldier in my battery (1st TN, Co. B) I have found documentation of at least four females serving on batteries ( http://www.saltmag.net/givetous/Andrea_21405.pdf ; http://www.angelfire.com/ny/anghockey/womensoldiers.html ). I feel that it is important to have some background on actual female soldiers. Does that mean it is required? No! Just that it's nice to be able to state facts instead of just whining how the boys won't let you play. Do a good impression, always work on improving, if an event doesn't want female soldiers don't go (I don't). Why would I want to spend the weekend with a bunch of guys that hate my guts just for being a woman?! Find events where you are accepted, it makes it a lot more fun anyway (especially when they beg you to join the dance on the woman's side and you are in uniform!). That may not be your cup of tea but I doubt I would find you at that event anyway. To each his OR her own! ;)

Lightningslinger

06-12-2008, 11:59 AM

I am encouraged... And like pvt Water said we don't know what is wrong with our impression unless someone points it out...

That may not be your cup of tea but ... To each his OR her own! ;)

Well Miss. McCallister - 'as I see it' (pun) you may wish to place your fife at a more horizontal position/plane and bring your chin up a tad-bit-more on your profile image. Even though it won't show in the profile image, be sure to also place your right foot behind your left and cant the right toe out a bit beyond your right flank as in taking to the position of parade rest. Doing such may tend to bring your shoulders more erect - as in squared off, your fife parallel with the ground, and in general, into an acceptable military fashion. Appearance.... Now you know. ;)

Hope that helps.
Walt

Charles Weathers

06-12-2008, 01:04 PM

Well Miss. McCallister - 'as I see it' (pun) you may wish to place your fife at a more horizontal position/plane and bring your chin up a tad-bit-more on your profile image. Even though it won't show in the profile image, be sure to also place your right foot behind your left and cant the right toe out a bit beyond your right flank as in taking to the position of parade rest. Doing such may tend to bring your shoulders more erect - as in squared off, your fife parallel with the ground, and in general, into an acceptable military fashion. Appearance.... Now you know. ;)

Hope that helps.
Walt

Thanks, I'll remember that! 8)
Since I am just now learning I am actually looking down at music in that shot. Tend to do that a lot! :roll:

Oh, and it's Mrs....

Lightningslinger

06-12-2008, 01:13 PM

Thanks, I'll remember that! 8)
Since I am just now learning I am actually looking down at music in that shot. Tend to do that a lot! :roll:

Oh, and it's Mrs....

Please excuse the mis-direct Madame. If I were a wagering man I would have taken the pot - as I would also have thought you were reading as you play'd in that image. I could compile a scrap book full of images others have captured of me during down times at parades and such.

Happy to have been of assistance. Once you think you are coming close to playing a tune by ear, raise that carriage into proper form. It's the drum major coming out in me -- and the grip of the signal baton. Hard to keep such repressed you know. :grin:

Walt

Silas

06-12-2008, 01:44 PM

The issue isn't gender. It's impression. Women were able to remain in the ranks then because they had good impressions; i.e., they looked like men. The standard today is no different than then. An obvious woman in the ranks does not belong because she fails to meet the proper impression standard.

Who sets the standards? Most streamer events don't have standards, so anything goes. Events at the higher end of the spectrum - with standards that are enforced - have the power to bar participants because said individuals fail to meet standard.

I have no personal problem with women in the ranks. I do have a problem with individuals who make no effort to conform to the established, historic standards.

tompritchett

06-12-2008, 01:59 PM

If you know any women who could use some touchups, share this site with them (http://www.geocities.com/womansoldier/guidelines1.html).

Please double check your site listing as it was not found when I tried to link to it. Thank you.

pvt_water

06-12-2008, 02:10 PM

This isn't the original link, but this page takes you directly to the same material. At the botoom of this page is another link that will take you to the original website this material came from.

http://www.keystoneregiment.com/GuidelinesForWomen.html

Thanks,
Pvt_Water

Lightningslinger

06-12-2008, 02:26 PM

The issue isn't gender. It's impression. ...

Who sets the standards? Most streamer events don't have standards, so anything goes. Events at the higher end of the spectrum - with standards that are enforced - have the power to bar participants because said individuals fail to meet standard....

We are most in agreement kind Sir ...I also tend to have a challenge with individuals who make no effort to conform to the established, historic standards.

You aren't going to get an argument from me. But we don't know if the individual in question only attends "streamer events [which] don't have standards, so anything goes."

In fact, many of those who consider themselves to be amongst the super hard-core haven't a clew of what a functional musician is suppose to sound like - let alone look like. This year alone, tons of fife and drum tunes perhaps will have been played and taught at the "NATIONAL" field musicians school, being lifted directly from a little late-war work of the times.

At continued events, I'd venture, we will be hearing beatings like "Crazy Army" and others gallantly performed on non-skin-headed snare drums by the best dressed re-enactors you'll ever see and, in some, nay most cases, the majority of us will be having no idea how inappropriate it was to the period and how inappropriate it ought to be now. Play on oh fair thumper! May we hear "Golden Slippers" next? How about "Marching Through Georgia"? I could go on and on, but to what end? We're all specialists you know. Even many over-all event commanders are constantly bothered and well afflicted with that not-so-rare strain of what may be called "adding machine eyes".

The mainstream 135th of Gettysburg brings back one such memory as yours, to wit:

Interestingly enough, there was, at this 135th event, some extremely tall but not exactly handsome gent decked out with a five-o'clock shadow albeit in some of the finest garb I've ever seen worn by a woman at any event I've ever attended.

A group of TBG's came rushing up to the general staff area asking- no... DEMANDING! - what was to be done about such an indecent showing. When the knot of TBG's gained no satisfaction from the army's AAG, they turned to me. Thereupon I instructed them to seek out the local constable and see if any charges could be gotten up for creating a public display which was upsetting the peace of the place. Needless to say, the TBG's wheel'd about and were seen no more.

Had we been using them at the time, I should think that radios would have been pressed into service to further the settling of the immediate disturbance then before us. Now THAT would have made an 'impression' wouldn't you say - not to mention noise pollution in keeping with to-day's re-enactable situations - 10-4?

Oh well. Live and learn. :rolleyes: I know that tune..... :)

Walt
PS "...I do have a problem with individuals who make no effort to conform to the established, historic standards."

Charles Weathers

06-12-2008, 03:14 PM

Please excuse the mis-direct Madame. If I were a wagering man I would have taken the pot - as I would also have thought you were reading as you play'd in that image. I could compile a scrap book full of images others have captured of me during down times at parades and such.

Happy to have been of assistance. Once you think you are coming close to playing a tune by ear, raise that carriage into proper form. It's the drum major coming out in me -- and the grip of the signal baton. Hard to keep such repressed you know. :grin:

Walt

Don't worry about it!
My mom is a band director and I have played French Horn since I was 11. ;)
My "youthful" appearance also helps in the diguise, being a "young man" and all! :rolleyes:

bob 125th nysvi

06-12-2008, 07:38 PM

Actually, Chris allows women if their impression passes muster. Several women abided by the standards at September Storm and were able to serve in the ranks. They were an asset. None of those who went down from the heat on either day were women. When the shooting started, they blended right in. They all would have been an asset at any event I've ever attended, including the most authentic.

that Chris's evetns allows women. I know they do.

However the women reenactors are required to be able to hide their gender to participate.

That is also realistic.

The original poster should have no problem with an Ander's event because he won't know there is a woman in the ranks.

bob 125th nysvi

06-12-2008, 07:52 PM

Ok Ronn...I'm asking. Please explain why Im immature and selfish as a reenactor to wish to participate in a hobby with standards?

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Devils Own Mess"

agree that you are immature.

I might agree that selfish would apply because it isn't standards you want but your standards and only your standards otherwise it isn't fun.

If that applies.

The reality with hobbies is that there are various different groups that want different standards.

Example in model railroading it breaks itself into many different groups, example being the 'hardcores' who everything to be 'proto'. They don't interact too much with non-proto modelers.

Yet they agree to exist under the same umbrella orgainzation (the NMRA) just to play in different rooms. They coexist peacefully and neither trys to force its views on the other.

We seem to be a hobby where members of various different segments want to force everybody else to coincide with their world view. To those members peacefull coexistance not only does not seem possible but it isn't even desireable.

For what it is worth Kent I don't think of you as falling into the above criteria so even 'selfish' may not be appropriate. But it might be somehting to think about.

bob 125th nysvi

06-12-2008, 08:02 PM

I do have a problem with individuals who make no effort to conform to the established, historic standards.

have a problem with large over aged over weight men?

Pvt Schnapps

06-12-2008, 09:35 PM

have a problem with large over aged over weight men?

I suspect he does. :-)

I'm glad to hear he's OK with women who can meet standards.

We would all like to be perfect on this, and we all know that we can't. In drawing the line between what is and isn't acceptable, reasonable people may differ, but most of us will cut a woman as much slack as we will a guy.

Now that that's settled, let's talk about who knows their drill and who knows the difference between clothing, camp and garrison equipage, and ordnance.

It's a great hobby.

Ronnn

06-12-2008, 09:39 PM

Ok Ronn...I'm asking. Please explain why Im immature and selfish as a reenactor to wish to participate in a hobby with standards?

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Devils Own Mess"

Well that's not what I said. I have no problem with folks wanting to maintain sensible standards in this hobby. It's the ones who act like their dung is odorless and get snooty with anyone who they view as less "authentic' than themselves that I take issue with. And there are FAR too many snooty twits in this hobby.

The only good thing is that as sure as the sun, there is someone with a 'different' view of what's 'important' with regard to authenticity that looks down upon them too.

And if one can't have fun at an event where things aren't quite up to snuff with what their impression is . . . then they're immature, and don't play well with others. If they refuse to attend these events, then they're selfish . . . and sorta pathetic.

I think I've mentioned this before, but the reality is that for historys sake, if someone or some group put on a good impression, they owe it to humanity to show up at these events in particular.

It really is nice to have someone or some group who goes the extra mile. I've pointed out some of these fellas to spectators myself. Particularly spectators showing a keen interst in the topic.

On the other hand, if it's a guy who whines and blubbers about how bad everyone else'es impression/uniform/equipment is . . . I keep my mouth shut. Whiney dipweeds are of little real help, no matter how knowledgable or accurate they are. Running down an event or impression with a negative attitude can and does turn some folks off, and they may choose not to attend another event. I know a lot of the negative whiners at horse shows have lessened my enjoyment of them enough that I lost my excitement for it, and the same can be said of our events too.

In my experience, many of these whiners, in a real crisis would be the ones cowering behind a tree waiting for the smoke to clear anyway, and pretending to be a real soldier gives them a false sense that they aren't such pantiwastes anyway.

So . . . if one gives a good impression . . . they should be happy to do it at any event. If things aren't up to their standards, fine. Lighten up a bit, have fun anyway, and maybe give the spectators a little taste of what it was REALLY like . . . something they might have missed if an authentic reenactor stays home sucking their thumb, or shows up to run down other reenactors.

There are ways to tell interested people what differences exsist between the real deal and the given event, and do it without running down others and making folks feel like they just wasted their time.

Huck Finn

06-12-2008, 10:21 PM

We do have a female who does a military impression when we are not falling in with 1rst Bn ANV, which has no female in ranks policy. My rule for her was the first time I spotted her engaging in public displays of affection with another soldier during hours the camp was open to the public she would be required to abandon her military impression and put a dress on for the remainder of the event.

Tom:

The above makes all the sense in the world, at least to me.

Remise

06-13-2008, 08:30 AM

...On the other hand, if it's a guy who whines and blubbers about how bad everyone else'es impression/uniform/equipment is . . . I keep my mouth shut. Whiney dipweeds are of little real help, no matter how knowledgable or accurate they are. Running down an event or impression with a negative attitude can and does turn some folks off, and they may choose not to attend another event. I know a lot of the negative whiners at horse shows have lessened my enjoyment of them enough that I lost my excitement for it, and the same can be said of our events too.

A pard of mine, who has been to Iraq twice and who thinks he knows how soldiers should behave, used to complain about people whose drill and demeanor in the ranks was terrible, but who had all the right gear, because they could afford to buy it.

He called this "credit card authenticity." I don't know if he coined the term, but I like it.

B.C. Milligan
Company K, First Penna. Reserves

Ronnn

06-13-2008, 09:38 PM

He called this "credit card authenticity." I don't know if he coined the term, but I like it.

B.C. Milligan
Company K, First Penna. Reserves

I like the term too, and I suppose you could classify that as one of the 'elitist' forms. As a Naval reenactor, I've seen folks smuggly imply we aren't pulling our weight because most can't afford to actually have a period ship to play on. Never mind that even putting together a decent steam launch makes supporting an artillery piece look like pocket change.

This being said, I have no problem with guys who have deep pockets who choose to be as authentic as possible . . .as long as they don't rag on others who have holes in theirs and are doing the best they can.

bob 125th nysvi

06-13-2008, 09:41 PM

A pard of mine, who has been to Iraq twice and who thinks he knows how soldiers should behave, used to complain about people whose drill and demeanor in the ranks was terrible, but who had all the right gear, because they could afford to buy it.

He called this "credit card authenticity." I don't know if he coined the term, but I like it.

B.C. Milligan
Company K, First Penna. Reserves

circuit they call them 'gold card' bikres.

Ross L. Lamoreaux

06-13-2008, 09:59 PM

I like the term too, and I suppose you could classify that as one of the 'elitist' forms. As a Naval reenactor, I've seen folks smuggly imply we aren't pulling our weight because most can't afford to actually have a period ship to play on. Never mind that even putting together a decent steam launch makes supporting an artillery piece look like pocket change.

This being said, I have no problem with guys who have deep pockets who choose to be as authentic as possible . . .as long as they don't rag on others who have holes in theirs and are doing the best they can.
As someone else who dabbles in naval affairs here in Florida and other parts, and as someone who prides myself in as muh authenticity as I can muster, I say you're absolutely right. I'd love to have a boat howitzer for shore parties, carried out by a steam launch from a full sized replica of the USS Tahoma or USS Fort Henry, but that won't happen in my lifetime, even if I hit the lotto (well the boat howitzer and steam launch sure would). I'm no fan of those who just come out with the best kit in the world and do nothing else. I've seen some of the best reenactors in the game with poor clothing, and I've seen some of the best equipped people make the worst soldiers and sailors; it takes more than one thing to make a complete living historian and attitude and desire account for just as much as any material thing.

Ronnn

06-13-2008, 11:42 PM

I'm pretty much in agreement with that Ross, and look forward to meeting ya sometime! I'm sure we will, or for that matter we may have already, I'm just terrible with names, heheh.

Not everyone has as much to give this hobby as others, and it really bothers me when those, who for whatever reason/life situation have a lot to give belittle and denegrate those who don't for whatever reason. I'll never be as accurate or authentic as some of my buds at the museum, for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that I'm not lucky enough to have a job that centers around the Civil War Navies. Luckily, they tolerate my ignorance, help me out, and are generally just nice guys. Unfortunately, not all the guys I've come across at events are so understanding and level-headed. They think that just because they are singularly devoted to this pursuit, everyone else who isn't is just scum or something.

I do have other interests. Horses take my time. Woodworking takes some. Hunting, fishing, etc. But that doesn't make me less of a man, or one iota less worthy of the respect men owe each other. I've never looked down on a man for knowing less about something than I do, and I expect no less from other men when it comes to me. And frankly, it can be sorta risky to attempt to denegrate me, heheh. That's one thing I'm pretty accurate on, a sailors low tolerance for subordinating behaviour from sanctimonious and elitist landlubbers.

Luckily, or unluckily, depending on how you look at it, this board does have more than it's fair share of elitist, "Civil-Warier-than-thou" types. I've perused a lot of these threads, and it's kinda sad, really. Not that there aren't a few real sages here who are not full of themselves. There are, even a majority. but the not-so-few pompous ones tend to stick out a bit.

I think the majority of the knowledgable guys sincerely want to help, but the few pompous blowhards who act as if they're giving The Sermon on the Mount when they bless us with their wisdom are hurting this hobby, and this board. Most newcomers don't look forward to the possibility of being spotlighted for scolding or used as a springboard by some knowledgable twit just looking to impress himself and/or others more than any desire to be genuinely helpful to the person they are pretending to "help".

It does keep some of the potential "new blood" from even bothering. Nobody like to be spotlighted as a 'newbie', and they shouldn't have to unless they're kids or whatever, and probably not even then.

tompritchett

06-16-2008, 11:41 AM

I think the majority of the knowledgable guys sincerely want to help, but the few pompous blowhards who act as if they're giving The Sermon on the Mount when they bless us with their wisdom are hurting this hobby, and this board.

If you feel that someone is being particularly pompous and insulting in a response, please feel free to use the Alert button at the top right-hand corner of the post. We do try to keep it civil here on the forum but many times we do have to make judgment calls on whether or not a particular post has crossed the line. The Alerts let us know exactly where the members of this forum feel that line should be. And trust me, there are no favorites on this board who are immune from having their posts deleted or edited. Sometimes, we just do not see the post and edit the post until after you have read so that you would not be aware that the post had been later edited or deleted (it is my understanding that only moderators actually see the listing for a deleted post). Also, some posts or portions of post just slip under the radar as we skim all the posts in the conferences that we are responsible for. More than once, I have had to go back and either delete or edit just such a post as the result of an Alert.

Jim of the SRR

06-17-2008, 07:24 PM

Everyone keeps blasting the original poster about going to the wrong events and that he should be attending the right ones... So I was just thinking what is the ratio of wrong events to right ones ? If one only wants to attend a couple of events a year then it would be easy just to attend the "right" ones, but if one wants to attend more then that that or chooses not to travel 8+ hours to an event does the advise given to the poster have merit? What is an reenactor to do ? How about giving the man some advise about what events in his area that he might like to attend which would be "right" instead of just criticizing the ones he does attend..

No need to spoon feed folks. There are several forums, newsletters, magazines etc that have event listings (Authentic Campaigner forum has quote an extensive tiered listing of events). The reality is that the poster may need to drive further to an event to get what he seeks. Don't ask us to define what are the "right" events on this forum as that is subjective to each reenactor. Clearly he is not getting what he seeks out the events he goes to, so his alternative is to accept the problems, go to better events or start his own event. One must do a bit of leg work themselves.

I also believe that females in the ranks is a bit selfish. Yes, I know there are male reenactors who are overweight or don't look the part either. But gender is something different. What if a man dressed up in a ball gown and went to the dance (full beard and all). Yes, this would be funny, but not for very long. After all the laughs were done, I bet folks would start getting very angry over it as that "cross-dresser" ruined the dance for everyone else. Why is the same acceptable in the military ranks?

Regards,
Jim Butler

wilber6150

06-18-2008, 12:05 AM

No need to spoon feed folks. There are several forums, newsletters, magazines etc that have event listings (Authentic Campaigner forum has quote an extensive tiered listing of events). The reality is that the poster may need to drive further to an event to get what he seeks. Don't ask us to define what are the "right" events on this forum as that is subjective to each reenactor. Clearly he is not getting what he seeks out the events he goes to, so his alternative is to accept the problems, go to better events or start his own event. One must do a bit of leg work themselves.

Regards,
Jim Butler

That is good information but the problem is that none of the posters I had referred to offered any of that..Maybe Mike or others aren't aware of those resources, so it might have been nice to offer a little constructive advise along with their bashing of the event he was attending...

Pvt Schnapps

06-18-2008, 07:42 AM

I also believe that females in the ranks is a bit selfish. Yes, I know there are male reenactors who are overweight or don't look the part either. But gender is something different. What if a man dressed up in a ball gown and went to the dance (full beard and all). Yes, this would be funny, but not for very long. After all the laughs were done, I bet folks would start getting very angry over it as that "cross-dresser" ruined the dance for everyone else. Why is the same acceptable in the military ranks?

Regards,
Jim Butler

Earlier in this thread I discussed the many demographic compromises necessary for us to have a hobby at all. The unfortunate aspect of your analogy is that most of the original "boys of '61" could, if they but bothered to shave, have cross-dressed without much trouble. It's only when you think of the average overweight, over-aged male reenactor trying to pass that the picture becomes ridiculous. It's equally ridiculous to ban women who can do the job and actually come closer to the demographic we're trying to portray.

Put another way, if the event organizers let you and me play, they should let women with decent impressions play, too. When they don't, it strikes me as having less to do with "authenticity" than with some extra personal baggage that has nothing to do with studying and honoring the past.

hanktrent

06-18-2008, 08:17 AM

Maybe Mike or others aren't aware of those resources, so it might have been nice to offer a little constructive advise along with their bashing of the event he was attending...

But they weren't the ones bashing the events, he was. That's how people knew the events were the wrong ones for him.

Sure, they could have included links to other events, but on the other hand, if he wondered what events they were talking about that didn't allow obvious female soldiers, it would have been easy enough to ask.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

tompritchett

06-18-2008, 12:31 PM

Jim of the SRR

06-18-2008, 04:06 PM

Earlier in this thread I discussed the many demographic compromises necessary for us to have a hobby at all. The unfortunate aspect of your analogy is that most of the original "boys of '61" could, if they but bothered to shave, have cross-dressed without much trouble. It's only when you think of the average overweight, over-aged male reenactor trying to pass that the picture becomes ridiculous. It's equally ridiculous to ban women who can do the job and actually come closer to the demographic we're trying to portray.

Put another way, if the event organizers let you and me play, they should let women with decent impressions play, too. When they don't, it strikes me as having less to do with "authenticity" than with some extra personal baggage that has nothing to do with studying and honoring the past.

A women who feels the need to dress up like a man seems to be the one bringing "extra personal baggage".
Whether it is a man or woman cross-dressing I still believe it is selfish and inconsiderate to those around you. It tells me that you will do as you wish even if it pisses off most everyone else around you. But, this is America today, people really don't care about being inconsiderate to others. Everyone just feels they have a legal right to do as they wish. They may have that right, but it still may make them selfish and inconsiderate. There is a reason why women don't get invited to the guys poker night. There is a reason why men don't get invited to the womens tea, luncheon or bunco game.
You can talk about overweight and overaged men as a seperate topic, but it does not address this topic and is just a distraction to the topic. Events that require men to "do the job" of a soldier for even a day will weed out the overaged and overweight reenactors.
It is only ridiculous to ban women who are dtected as women. If they can go all weekend without being detected, then it is not ridiculous.

Regards,
Jim Butler

Pvt Schnapps

06-18-2008, 04:24 PM

A women who feels the need to dress up like a man seems to be the one bringing "extra personal baggage".
Whether it is a man or woman cross-dressing I still believe it is selfish and inconsiderate to those around you. It tells me that you will do as you wish even if it pisses off most everyone else around you. But, this is America today, people really don't care about being inconsiderate to others. Everyone just feels they have a legal right to do as they wish. They may have that right, but it still may make them selfish and inconsiderate. There is a reason why women don't get invited to the guys poker night. There is a reason why men don't get invited to the womens tea, luncheon or bunco game.
You can talk about overweight and overaged men as a seperate topic, but it does not address this topic and is just a distraction to the topic. Events that require men to "do the job" of a soldier for even a day will weed out the overaged and overweight reenactors.
It is only ridiculous to ban women who are dtected as women. If they can go all weekend without being detected, then it is not ridiculous.

Regards,
Jim Butler

I think you're reading too much into the motivations of the women who want to do this, certainly too much that's negative. Have you ever just asked one why? You might find their motivation to be much the same as yours. And in an age in which women are winning real medals in a real war, it seems a bit much to tell them they can't participate in a reenactment.

The problem with women trying to go "without being detected" is that some of those who fail the test will do so not because they don't look like civil war soldiers but because they don't look like you or me. Their participation doesn't strike me as rude or inconsiderate, it doesn't p!ss me off, and I don't understand why anyone else would react that way, which I guess kind of brings us back to the baggage issue. If that just further offends you, I apologize, but will all respect I just don't see the logic of banning women.

Jim of the SRR

06-18-2008, 04:57 PM

I think you're reading too much into the motivations of the women who want to do this, certainly too much that's negative. Have you ever just asked one why? You might find their motivation to be much the same as yours. And in an age in which women are winning real medals in a real war, it seems a bit much to tell them they can't participate in a reenactment.

The problem with women trying to go "without being detected" is that some of those who fail the test will do so not because they don't look like civil war soldiers but because they don't look like you or me. Their participation doesn't strike me as rude or inconsiderate, it doesn't p!ss me off, and I don't understand why anyone else would react that way, which I guess kind of brings us back to the baggage issue. If that just further offends you, I apologize, but will all respect I just don't see the logic of banning women.

Mr. Schaffner,

I can clearly see that anyone that does not agree with your open-door, diversity trumps all, anything goes policies is considered "negative" thinking or has "baggage". I guess the original poster is also "negative" as well. I do not measure a reeanactors impression vs the way I look. I guess I wish to know where you draw the line on being inclusive at reenactments? Can someone in a wheelchair participate? Can indians in lioncloths fall into the ranks? Can people missing an arm participate? Where do you draw the line? What are your limits in allowing female participation (i.e can they show up with hair down, no attempts to disguise their gender)? I have to wonder what "baggage" you have in being so adamante about forcing women into the male end of the hobby?
You should be a political spin writer!

Regards,
Jim Butler

Regular3

06-18-2008, 05:00 PM

in an age in which women are winning real medals in a real war, it seems a bit much to tell them they can't participate in a reenactment.Aha - I wondered when someone would inject 21st Century social norms into a discussion of the period we're attempting to portray.

If we're going to let in women because "women are winning real medals in a real war" today, then we also should have racially integrated units, and I don't mean white officers leading African-American soldiers, I mean integration in the ranks. After all, soldiers of all races now serve together in war and peace.

But with that, all pretense of "reenacting" the period 1860-1865 ends, and we may as well put away the uniforms & equipment because we just became a Civil War roundtable.

Bustin' up the soapbox for kindling now ...

flattop32355

06-18-2008, 08:40 PM

If we're going to let in women because "women are winning real medals in a real war" today, then we also should have racially integrated units, and I don't mean white officers leading African-American soldiers, I mean integration in the ranks. After all, soldiers of all races now serve together in war and peace.

To some extent, we do. I've seen men at reenactments who appeared, at least to me, to be of definitive Asian Indian, Oriental, and Latino origin. At times, men of African ancestry have fallen into the same consolidated company as I. The numbers are not great, and the occurances not often, but they do happen. I've also discovered I've served with women in the ranks.

There are those who stand upon the concept of the Absolute of History; These people were uncommon/not present for the period, and should remain absent or rare, with few legitimate exceptions.

There are those who stand upon the concept of History As Done By We Moderns: Work towards the period constructs, but allow for broader/modern participation within our more inclusive society views. We are reenacting, not repeating, the past.

Then there are those of us standing between the two ends of the wavy line, who can accept less than ideal impressions (including our own), but don't thrill on seeing overt flaunting of period conditions/mores.

Should the hobby be all-inclusive? Heavens to Betsy, no!
Should it be exclusive? Not if it wants me and many others to be able to particpate.
Should we be tolerant within the realm of reasonable? You betcha.
Should we make room for specific, exclusive events? Yup...my apologies if you aren't eligible, and I'll mutter a simple "Well, darn it. Wish I coulda gone." if I would have liked to attend, but don't qualify.

I'm willing to agree to disagree with a lot of people on any number of things, in either direction from my own positions, in the hobby. I'm willing to bend a respectable bit, but not to break. I won't hunt for controversy, nor will I condone blatant outrageousness or cynicism.

Not all will agree, from either end of the wavy line. Just like in real life.

Jim of the SRR

06-18-2008, 10:44 PM

Bernie,

As always, you are more diplomatic than I. The fact is that everyone in this hobby makes some compromises on authenticity. We also set our expectations in check before we attend each different kind of event (there is a learning curve in there as well). The original poster may be somewhere in his learning curve as to what he finds acceptable and what he does not. Note, I did not engage in the debate of what are "right" events. Only each reenactor can determine this for themselves. Plus, many reenactors attend a variety of events where authenticity and guidelines vary (thus, "right" changes for each event). Thus rather than beat a dead horse, the poster wants a solution to the "5 foot rule". I have made my personal feelings on this issue from a philosphical standpoint, but the reality is that the origianl poster is going to have reset his expectations and seek out a greater variety of events to fullfill his needs.
Also, it was nice to finally meet you at New Hope.

Regards,
Jim Butler

hanktrent

06-19-2008, 04:43 AM

Should the hobby be all-inclusive? Heavens to Betsy, no!
Should it be exclusive? Not if it wants me and many others to be able to particpate.

There are two ways, though, to work toward being all-inclusive.

One is to say: We're reenacting what healthy white males did. But even if you're not one, if you're kinda close, we'll let you take part.

The other is to say: We're all reenacting what people like us were doing in the 1860s. What would you have been doing? How can we make it an equally important part of what we do?

I kinda like the second way better, but it seems most folks don't, whether they're fit white males or not.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

flattop32355

06-19-2008, 07:21 AM

There are two ways, though, to work toward being all-inclusive.

One is to say: We're reenacting what healthy white males did. But even if you're not one, if you're kinda close, we'll let you take part.

The other is to say: We're all reenacting what people like us were doing in the 1860s. What would you have been doing? How can we make it an equally important part of what we do?

My tack on the "all-inclusive" was actually more towards the idea that showing up in miles of chicken guts on a flashy "uniform", pistols sticking out everywhere to back up the Henry rifle, curly locks flowing in the breeze, a battle cry that begins with "YeeeeeeeHaaaaaaawww.....", and several other cliched stereotypes (male or female) is not a good way to make friends and influence people at a decent event.

There's a place for those people. More power to 'em. Just don't try to reenact that way when we're trying to portray some reasonable level of history. Should I somehow find myself in the middle of such an event, I'll be more than willing to quietly take my leave, as that's not what I came for and not the view of history that I wish to convey.

This does not even begin to touch the great value of civilian and other impressions within the hobby. At this point in my hobby "career", it is the military that holds the charm for me, despite my physical and chronological mal-attributes. Fortunately, this is not true for all of us.

Pvt Schnapps

06-19-2008, 07:55 AM

Mr. Schaffner,

I can clearly see that anyone that does not agree with your open-door, diversity trumps all, anything goes policies is considered "negative" thinking or has "baggage". I guess the original poster is also "negative" as well. I do not measure a reeanactors impression vs the way I look. I guess I wish to know where you draw the line on being inclusive at reenactments? Can someone in a wheelchair participate? Can indians in lioncloths fall into the ranks? Can people missing an arm participate? Where do you draw the line? What are your limits in allowing female participation (i.e can they show up with hair down, no attempts to disguise their gender)? I have to wonder what "baggage" you have in being so adamante about forcing women into the male end of the hobby?
You should be a political spin writer!

Regards,
Jim Butler

Jim, I'm not saying "open door" or "diversity trumps all" -- I'm saying that there are women who can portray a real mid-19th century soldier as well as or better than you or me. I marched 15 miles with one in May. She should be allowed to play. Simple as that. Blanket prohibitions make no sense at all.

In fact most if not all concerns about "authenticity" at an event could be taken care of with one simple criterion. Throw out the thirty pages of self-parodying rules that only ensure that folks show up with the right gear and substitute this: parking will be ten miles away from the battlefield and no drop-offs are allowed.

See who shows up then. If there are women among them, more power to 'em.

Darrell, if you read my earlier post you'll know that we're already far more ethnically diverse than the army was in the 19th century. Luckily for you and me, Cochran and Schaffner fit right in with the dominant minorities.

Hank, the second course is fine and noble but, with the current state of hobby membership, taking it would require the rest of us to confine our reenacting to home guard and other old-men-left-at-home scenarios. Personally I'm hoping there's another "Gates of Washington" event next year so I can raise a company of QM Department clerks, but in the meantime I want to play soldier a few more times.

Bernie, thanks for standing guard this weekend. Communist.

Regular3

06-19-2008, 08:16 AM

Jim, I'm not saying "open door" or "diversity trumps all" -- I'm saying that there are women who can portray a real mid-19th century soldier as well as or better than you or me. I marched 15 miles with one in May. She should be allowed to play. Simple as that. Blanket prohibitions make no sense at all. I'll go along with that - Anyone who can march 15 miles even in light marching order regardless of race, gender, or age goes ahead of me in the line :)

In fact most if not all concerns about "authenticity" at an event could be taken care of with one simple criterion. Throw out the thirty pages of self-parodying rules that only ensure that folks show up with the right gear and substitute this: parking will be ten miles away from the battlefield and no drop-offs are allowed. See who shows up then. If there are women among them, more power to 'em. That would leave me out for at least one season while I got in shape to do it.

You're really not going to AHT?

Pvt Schnapps

06-19-2008, 08:38 AM

You're really not going to AHT?

I'm planning to attend the Sixth Corps March, which starts next Wednesday and ends the Wednesday after that. Not sure that I'll make it (honestly, I'm not even taking the first day for granted), but I will try.

If it weren't for that I would definitely be at AHT. For one thing, there's probably going to be a lot more shade to camp in than at GAC, and I'm all about comfort. :)

hanktrent

06-19-2008, 09:42 AM

Hank, the second course is fine and noble but, with the current state of hobby membership, taking it would require the rest of us to confine our reenacting to home guard and other old-men-left-at-home scenarios.

Exactly. That's what I mean. I'd much rather attend an event like last weekend where the organizers say, "Here's a role where we really need a typical 40-something guy. Want to do it?"

But most people put on events that celebrate what young white males did, because that seems to be what most reenactors want to do.

Other events are rare enough that like everybody else, I'm off to portray a role better suited to a 20-30-something again next week. But this fall I'll portray a role better suited to a 40-something black male (go figure), and another just right for what I look like, so focusing events on other demographics is do-able, just not often done.

On a separate note, I do like the 10-mile idea for those portraying healthy young soldiers. Imagine if every renactor had to pass a test on one difficult but important attribute of his or her role, before being allowed onto the event site!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

flattop32355

06-19-2008, 10:12 AM

Imagine if every renactor had to pass a test on one difficult but important attribute of his or her role, before being allowed onto the event site!

I do now hereby volunteer for the role of G.O.D. (General Overall Director) of the Civil War Hobby.

I shall be (mostly) benevolent. I shall be (occasionally) kind and merciful. There may be periodic (when I feel like it) displays of wrath. Actual worship is not necessary, but offerings of food (period correct, particularly pie) and high quality gear will be accepted, though not acknowledged.

Of course, once we aim towards such standard as the above, would we not cease to be part of a hobby and become something else entirely, though I'm not sure just what?

hendrickms24

06-19-2008, 10:22 AM

I shall be (mostly) benevolent.

Please take note that your Benevolence may not be the same as what I think is being benevolent. :grin:

On a separate note, I do like the 10-mile idea for those portraying healthy young soldiers. Imagine if every reenactor had to pass a test on one difficult but important attribute of his or her role, before being allowed onto the event site!

I went on a 3 mile hike with my son's Cub Scout Pack and the boys complained just as much as the typical reenactor about how far they had to walk. It was like a reenactment of a reenactment. So is this a good plan to go with? ;)

firstmdes

06-19-2008, 10:28 AM

I went on a 3 mile hike with my son's Cub Scout Pack and the boys complained just as much as the typical reenactor about how far they had to walk. It was like a reenactment of a reenactment. So is this a good plan to go with? ;)
Mark, we might as well get the next batch of reenactors ready for the authentic complaining...I mean campaigning!! ;)

OVI

06-19-2008, 10:48 AM

]

I do now hereby volunteer for the role of G.O.D. (General Overall Director) of the Civil War Hobby.

Of course, once we aim towards such standard as the above, would we not cease to be part of a hobby and become something else entirely, though I'm not sure just what?

Sorry Bernie...I aint drinking that Kool-aid.

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Unforgiven Mess"

hanktrent

06-19-2008, 11:42 AM

Imagine if every renactor had to pass a test on one difficult but important attribute of his or her role, before being allowed onto the event site!

Of course, once we aim towards such standard as the above, would we not cease to be part of a hobby and become something else entirely, though I'm not sure just what?

I know! We'd be like orchestras or theatre troupes that require an audition for prospective members, and who don't have to pay to perform and might even get paid themselves. Like in this thread. (http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?p=75947#post75947) :D

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Lightningslinger

06-19-2008, 12:01 PM

I know! We'd be like orchestras or theatre troupes that require an audition for prospective members, and who don't have to pay to perform and might even get paid themselves. Like in this thread. (http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?p=75947#post75947) :D

Indeed, are we not portraying something other than what we are? Many of us can still recite that old standard song and dance... Some of us are merely doing it the same old registration-way we've traditionally been doing. Is this not so EWE - G-U-Y-S? Why Change Now???? ARM yourselves and learn from the past!

Ween'g is a hard thing to face - even for those who insist to themselves that they've already advanced beyond the traditional way of conducting business. Been there? Done that? Still getting the T-shirts? ;)

Do we hope that our designated event standard enforcers STILL require an audition? Yes, where ever and whenever the opportunities may present themselves.

Isn't this the 5 foot rule and female "soldiers"??? thread? Following a top-to-bottom scan of the all-knowing discerning eye... Thanks! We'll call you if you get the part. Don't forget your registration fees. How many more to audition? This is getting to be a job. :(

I'd like to also state [for the registrar] that this post is not meant to be a slam against hard working event staff or organizers who provide these same services in the more traditional means, by ATV, truck or horseback, using walkie talkies and cell phones.

Charles Weathers

06-19-2008, 03:33 PM

All I really have to say is that I recently worked on a gun crew with a gentleman that used to be adamantly against women in unifrom. Then one day he was forced to be on a crew with one. He said she was the best battery member he has ever worked with and would trust his life on the gun to her before any man. She paid attention to every detail, knew every job, caught a potentially dangerous half-fire of a round, and was able to hide her female appearance quite well.

Any guesses?

I'm not saying this to start or perpetuate an arguement, just that everyone's experiences are different and all have the right to change their minds.

I try to use my reenacting time wisely by educating the very willing public on the role of soldier women during the Civil War. Isn't education what we are here for, afterall? ;)

flattop32355

06-19-2008, 03:42 PM

Please take note that your Benevolence may not be the same as what I think is being benevolent. :grin:

That's why I'm volunteering. :evil:

Lightningslinger

06-19-2008, 04:10 PM

...I'm not saying this to start or perpetuate an argument, just that everyone's experiences are different and all have the right to change their minds.

Isn't education what we are here for, after all? ;)

Terribly Sorry Mrs. McCallister:

But I really can't help much with anyone's sensitivity issues.

My remarks to Messr. Trent, viz:

Indeed, are we not portraying something other than what we are? Many of us can still recite that old standard song and dance... Some of us are merely doing it the same old registration-way we've traditionally been doing. Is this not so EWE - G-U-Y-S? Why Change Now???? ARM yourselves and learn from the past! :(

Now I meant that we, as re-enactors, are emulating - we are not the real McCoy and hopefully never will be able to experience the miserable conditions that caused more deaths than bullets.

Sorry if I didn't explain myself better. Your turn? ;)

F&D'gly Yours,

Charles Weathers

06-19-2008, 06:10 PM

Terribly Sorry Mrs. McCallister:

But I really can't help much with anyone's sensitivity issues.

Huh??? :confused:

Lightningslinger

06-19-2008, 09:47 PM

Huh??? :confused:

Please forgive. I was responding to Messr. Trent's:

I know! We'd be like orchestras or theatre troupes that require an audition for prospective members, and who don't have to pay to perform and might even get paid themselves.

Like in this thread. (http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?p=75947#post75947) :D

I replied to his with:

“Indeed, are we not portraying something other than what we are? Many of us can still recite that old standard song and dance... Some of us are merely doing it the same old registration-way we've traditionally been doing. Is this not so EWE - G-U-Y-S? Why Change Now???? ARM yourselves and learn from the past!”

I was wrong to even respond to Hank on this thread as it is about Women re-enactors portraying soldiers. I just read Hanks and replied. When you responded I thought you had somehow been offended by my line... "are we not portraying something other than what we are?" I was comparing to-day's re-enactors with the personages of the 1860's.

After re-reading the recent posts in this thread, your Huh??? was a justified response.

I regret any inconvenience my post may have caused. Cyber friends?

Ronnn

06-19-2008, 09:50 PM

If you feel that someone is being particularly pompous and insulting in a response, please feel free to use the Alert button at the top right-hand corner of the post. We do try to keep it civil here on the forum but many times we do have to make judgment calls on whether or not a particular post has crossed the line. The Alerts let us know exactly where the members of this forum feel that line should be. And trust me, there are no favorites on this board who are immune from having their posts deleted or edited. Sometimes, we just do not see the post and edit the post until after you have read so that you would not be aware that the post had been later edited or deleted (it is my understanding that only moderators actually see the listing for a deleted post). Also, some posts or portions of post just slip under the radar as we skim all the posts in the conferences that we are responsible for. More than once, I have had to go back and either delete or edit just such a post as the result of an Alert.

It's a little more of a grey area than that, unfortunately. I've yet to see a passive-agressive type get zapped off a board. In todays society, it seems that if folks are 'politely rude' it's more acceptable than someone who gets right to the point.

To be honest, I find it difficult to believe that what I'm talking about isn't obvious Tom. You seem to be one of the guys who genuinely offers input without a self-inflating agenda.

Right in this thread actually. It's not easy to simply complain about or send an alert or whatever. Again, the problem with passive aggressive pontificating it that it's just that: Passive agressive. The passive part always leaves the perpetrator some wiggle room, particularly when whoever calls them on it in an honest and forthright manner seems to get labeled as the bad guy. I'll take blunt honesty over oblique, subordinating, passive aggressive pontificating any day.

In this very thread, I've seen fellas act as if someone said something they clearly did not, and I'm not referring to when it happened to me. As another example, one one of my posts I stated a clear opinion about an issue (Giant Flag) where I incorrectly referred to the confederate battle flag as "stars and Bars". This error didn't have any relevant or nullifying on my stated opinion, yet someone felt the need to correct me on this relatively inconsequential-to-the-opinion error. Which is cool . . . . except that was the only thing they felt the need to address. My topical position in that post was completely ignored, and no attempt was made to even appear to respectfully correct that minor error. That's rude, and it was clearly meant to be subordinating.

Of course there is PLENTY of wiggle-room in this example . . . for folks who give more weight to semantics and legalisms, than actual intent. There ARE times when to NOT make a comment is far more rude than to disagree with them. (To whoever it was who corrected me: Sorry, but your response was unnessarily terse . . . though factually correct)

I could go on with specific examples . . . but to be honest, it's been a bit chilly in here from the start already. Sorta 'cliquish' which I find pretty childish, but luckily not everyone here fits that description.

hanktrent

06-19-2008, 10:37 PM

It's a little more of a grey area than that, unfortunately. I've yet to see a passive-agressive type get zapped off a board. In todays society, it seems that if folks are 'politely rude' it's more acceptable than someone who gets right to the point....

Right in this thread actually.... I'll take blunt honesty over oblique, subordinating, passive aggressive pontificating any day.

In this very thread, I've seen fellas act as if someone said something they clearly did not, and I'm not referring to when it happened to me....

Honestly, I can't figure it out from the clues, and I haven't noticed it myself. Could be me, could be Pvt Schnapps, could be Jim, could be Walt, maybe even Bernie, I have no idea.

The thread seems like a typical enjoyable debate, almost overheated but not quite, everybody gets to express strong opinions and a chance to clarify when they're misunderstood, lot of food for thought, different viewpoints, a few jokes thrown in for fun.

Like they say in poker, if you can't tell who the sucker at the table is, it's you. So if I can't tell who this passive aggressive pontificator is, maybe it's me. How about some blunt honesty and tell us what's bothering you?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

tompritchett

06-19-2008, 11:02 PM

Right in this thread actually. It's not easy to simply complain about or send an alert or whatever. Again, the problem with passive aggressive pontificating it that it's just that: Passive agressive. The passive part always leaves the perpetrator some wiggle room, particularly when whoever calls them on it in an honest and forthright manner seems to get labeled as the bad guy. I'll take blunt honesty over oblique, subordinating, passive aggressive pontificating any day.

There are several routine posters who I can see occasionally fitting into that category. In fact, two of the ones that I am thinking about have indeed posted in this thread and one of these I have received comments about when I have met other posters at an event. Sometimes they will cross a line and get their posts edited or deleted as a result but often times they pretty much know where the line is and they tend to step just up to the line without crossing it. But as you said, it is a gray area and that is what makes my job more difficult.

Charles Weathers

06-20-2008, 11:39 AM

Please forgive. I was responding to Messr. Trent's:

I replied to his with:

“Indeed, are we not portraying something other than what we are? Many of us can still recite that old standard song and dance... Some of us are merely doing it the same old registration-way we've traditionally been doing. Is this not so EWE - G-U-Y-S? Why Change Now???? ARM yourselves and learn from the past!”

I was wrong to even respond to Hank on this thread as it is about Women re-enactors portraying soldiers. I just read Hanks and replied. When you responded I thought you had somehow been offended by my line... "are we not portraying something other than what we are?" I was comparing to-day's re-enactors with the personages of the 1860's.

After re-reading the recent posts in this thread, your Huh??? was a justified response.

I regret any inconvenience my post may have caused. Cyber friends?

Just a general response to the thread. Maybe a bit defensive, but can you blame me?! :rolleyes:
Definetly no offense at your observation, I agree. No prob! 8)

Ronnn

06-20-2008, 09:48 PM

Honestly, I can't figure it out from the clues, and I haven't noticed it myself. Could be me, could be Pvt Schnapps, could be Jim, could be Walt, maybe even Bernie, I have no idea.

The thread seems like a typical enjoyable debate, almost overheated but not quite, everybody gets to express strong opinions and a chance to clarify when they're misunderstood, lot of food for thought, different viewpoints, a few jokes thrown in for fun.

Like they say in poker, if you can't tell who the sucker at the table is, it's you. So if I can't tell who this passive aggressive pontificator is, maybe it's me. How about some blunt honesty and tell us what's bothering you?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Well, to be bluntly honest, I just did tell ya what's bothering me. You can't spot the pontificator(s) in this thread? Admittedly, Maybe it's more recognizable to me because I've seen enough of their other posts, I don't know, whatever.

Did I mean you Hank? I don't know, to be honest. With the exception of a few that stand out for whatever reason, I tend to lump them all together, not realy worth too much thought on an individual level, what thought I do give it is in more of a general abstract sense.

Pvt Schnapps

06-20-2008, 10:06 PM

Well, to be bluntly honest, I just did tell ya what's bothering me. You can't spot the pontificator(s) in this thread? Admittedly, Maybe it's more recognizable to me because I've seen enough of their other posts, I don't know, whatever.

Did I mean you Hank? I don't know, to be honest. With the exception of a few that stand out for whatever reason, I tend to lump them all together, not realy worth too much thought on an individual level, what thought I do give it is in more of a general abstract sense.

Well, a lot of us pontificate. I sincerely apologize if I offended you with any of my comments. Generally I only mean to offend one or two people who should know precisely who they are. But occasionally a round goes stray.

Ronnn

06-20-2008, 10:17 PM

There are several routine posters who I can see occasionally fitting into that category. In fact, two of the ones that I am thinking about have indeed posted in this thread and one of these I have received comments about when I have met other posters at an event. Sometimes they will cross a line and get their posts edited or deleted as a result but often times they pretty much know where the line is and they tend to step just up to the line without crossing it. But as you said, it is a gray area and that is what makes my job more difficult.

That's fair enough, and as someone who moderated a pretty busy forum myself at one time, I can feel for ya, really. I suppose I'm talking about those who step up to the line as close as they can. Sadly, they make a consious effort to step right up tothe edge of it, which is the wrong motivation even if the line isn't crossed.

Look at my post on field tables for a perfect example of "friendly" passive aggression. I build as good an authentic field table as anyone out there, and anyone who thinks differently is full of 'it'. Yet one could get the impression that I'm some naive woodhacker from the "friendly" manner in which I was chided.

I'd have had more respect if he'd just taken a direct shot at what I'd posted, or asked a valid question or whatever. But nope. He went on 'instructing' me on things he has far less knowledge about than I do, for no other reason, near as I can tell, but to make himself look superior and 'all-knowing' or whatever. But it was done with that "cheshire cat" passive agressive style.

How does one complain about that? The guy offered advice (That was neither asked for nor even remotely warranted) He made statements under the guise of some self-awarded superiority that were inaccurate, misleading, and subordinating. Sort of like Cinderellas stepmom "complimenting" her.

I find that dressing subordinating insults in cute little friendly outfits really does little to cover the fact that they were meant to be subordinating and insulting. But I am at a loss as to how to complain about it. I'd rather deal with it myself, like most guys who are genuine and forthright would. These guys hide behind tolerance and thrive there. They know that anyone who directly challenges them will likely be labeled a bully. "Who, moui'? I meant no disrespect! I was merely trying to help!" . . . . . bull.

tompritchett

06-21-2008, 01:19 PM

Look at my post on field tables for a perfect example of "friendly" passive aggression. I build as good an authentic field table as anyone out there, and anyone who thinks differently is full of 'it'. Yet one could get the impression that I'm some naive woodhacker from the "friendly" manner in which I was chided.

I'd have had more respect if he'd just taken a direct shot at what I'd posted, or asked a valid question or whatever. But nope. He went on 'instructing' me on things he has far less knowledge about than I do, for no other reason, near as I can tell, but to make himself look superior and 'all-knowing' or whatever. But it was done with that "cheshire cat" passive agressive style.

Don't you love it when someone, who has never actually done something but has only read about it in a book, proceeds to lecture those who have actual experience doing the thing they are lecturing about? Outside the hobby I am involved in a group where we have a retired high school mathematics teacher who is always talking about the latest project management techniques he is reading about not truly understanding that several of the members of the group have years of actual project management experience. In cases like that, I just quietly sit back and chuckle while combining two old sayings (A first step to wisdom is knowing what you don't know & It is better to remain silent and let people wonder about your stupidity than open you mouth and prove it) into "It is better to remain silent and let others wonder about your lack of knowledge in a subject than speak out and prove your ignorance". In other words, when faced with situations you just described, I find that it better to just sit back and chuckle at their ignorance than get riled about their gall. In the end run it is better for your blood pressure and it sure as Hades is better for your stomach. :)

Memphis

06-21-2008, 11:43 PM

Ronn,

Thank you so much for pointing us to the thread in question; however, we mere mortals may have missed a great opportunity to stand in shock and awe of such a writer who can elevate the art of being condescending and patronizing at the same time (sometimes in the same sentence) to such a high level. :roll:

I sure am impresssed with the way he is impressed with himself.

RJSamp

06-22-2008, 12:34 AM

Lightningslinger

06-22-2008, 12:52 AM

Folding Field Tables Thread

Dear Mr. McClellan:

Like Rog below I have visited your thread and came away with the following quotes:

May 29, 2008. I make pilot holes for the coated Phillips head screws too, heheh. Slotted brass screws are so danged expensive in the sizes I use, and most folks are more concerned with keeping costs down than authenticity, for better or for worse...

June 20, 2008. I build as good an authentic field table as anyone out there, and anyone who thinks differently is full of 'it'. Yet one could get the impression that I'm some naive wood hacker from the "friendly" manner in which I was chided…

The guy offered advice (That was neither asked for nor even remotely warranted) He made statements … that were inaccurate, misleading, and subordinating. Sort of like Cinderella’s step mom "complimenting" her…

I’ve taken the liberty of including a link to your Phillips table.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Large-Folding-Wo...d=p3286.c0.m14
All that glitters is not gold . . . just the valuable glittery gold stuff.

Ronn, Thank you so much for pointing us to the thread in question...

In closing, please allow me to say that I have done woodworking too American Folk Artist Ron McClellan - I also have an art background.

But Cyberly speaking, I truly can’t understand why a post reply button has been provided as a tempting tool to this forum… and, worse yet is occasionally used by its members to respond with advice that, “was neither asked for nor even remotely warranted”.

I’m not a speedy typist. I also don’t mind volunteering that it also took me more than a few seconds to dig up the stuff I replied to you on the Folding Field Tables Thread. It was initially given on the 29th of May and was thought by the giver as being acceptable until you began to re-view/view it differently on the 20th of June.

May every Prince find someone to fit his new-found glass slipper. Until then, I hope we can table this conversation.

Ronnn

07-30-2008, 07:21 PM

I read earlier in the thread that a woman sued an event for discrimation. What was the outcome?

I'm of two minds, sorta. On the one hand, I sort of wish guys could just be guys and 'hang with the fellas' for a reenacting weekend. It IS a reality that a woman in camp does 'hinder' boys being boys a little. (or should anyway, if their Mommas raised'em right) but we blew it in the sixties when we didn't tell them to stop burning the dang bras. Too late to go back now!

Of course so do most of the dyed-in-the-wool 'woman in the ranks haters.' They're the same folks who would cry about guys seeing who could put out the biggest flame by peeing on it and such interesting activities. (Despite the reality that things like this would be quite authentic behaviour)

Anyway, one thing is for sure: Crying about women in the ranks is just silly today, it really is. If ya want to hang with "just the fellas" once in a while . . . go fishing or hunting, like I do. Most women don't enjoy these activities . . . if we do our part. When "my baby" thinks about coming along I make sure to emphasise thing like taking a snake bite kit, complaining that the bugs are resistant to insect repellent, asking her to bring along the motion-sickness tablets . . . things like that. Feminine interest tends to wain, if one packs the right gear . . . or doesn't.:cool:

hanktrent

07-30-2008, 08:11 PM

I read earlier in the thread that a woman sued an event for discrimation. What was the outcome?

The case was Cook v. Babbitt. A google search ought to turn up information on it. As I understand it, the outcome left open the possibility that a site could restrict portrayals by gender, since the decision hinged only on whether authenticity standards were enforced equally for male and female soldiers at this particular event, and the ruling was that they weren't. If they had been, however...

Of course so do most of the dyed-in-the-wool 'woman in the ranks haters.' They're the same folks who would cry about guys seeing who could put out the biggest flame by peeing on it and such interesting activities. (Despite the reality that things like this would be quite authentic behaviour)

Hmm... Had to read that twice to make sure you said "would" instead of "wouldn't." Oddly enough, if I'm understanding correctly, that hasn't been my experience. Those who hate women in the ranks don't seem to be any more prudish than others, though some would complain about blatantly modern behavior--coolers with beer cans, modern drunken parties, and such.

Personally, I'm kinda neutral on the issue. I think an event should be allowed to ban female soldiers if they want, but I'd be annoyed more by a bad male soldier impression than a good female one.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

RJSamp

07-30-2008, 08:51 PM

though some would complain about blatantly modern behavior--coolers with beer cans, modern drunken parties, and such.

hanktrent@voyager.net

What we don't like is those that would complain about a Regiment breaking out a barrel of bourbon and singing around campfires late at night.....like the 21st Wisconsin did on the march to Perryville in early October 1862.....

What was it the twin 51st's charged across the Lower Bridge over Antietam Creek for on Sept. 17, 1862?

What was the number one selling item for contracted Regimental Sutler's?

When Colonel Phillips was hit/knocked to the ground by a spent ball at Byram's Ford (over the Big Blue River) near Westport/Kansas City MO on October 23rd, 1864 what was immediately proffered to him on the battlefield?

Scooby_308

07-30-2008, 08:59 PM

http://www.hallrichard.com/civilwomen.htm
If they could hide it then, why not now?

welshman15

07-31-2008, 02:33 PM

RJSamp

07-31-2008, 02:39 PM

At Gettysburg I watched a unit march by that had two females. One I had to take a hard second look at to make sure because she was obviously trying hard to make a good impression. The second, not so much. Make-up, pigtail sticking out under the hat, etc.

At both AHT and GAC, there were a number of MALE soldiers with pony tails sticking out from under their hats.....

Long hair....it's not just for women any more....

And makeup? What do you personally use for creating that fresh casualty impression, or that 30 days on the road look? Nothing?

If you notice a women's makeup from 50 feet away or so, that's one thing....most 'non Tammy Faye' types aren't noticeable until you get within a few feet.

Mint Julep

07-31-2008, 02:53 PM

What has been said already ...

Better events, with enforced guidelines and rules, do a better job of screening units that act like yahoos and making sure those that portray men are actually men.

I once required a copy of the driver's license in every registration because it would show the legal gender of the individual. No one quite got what I was trying to do and the hue and cry over identity theft went far and wide. But, we stuck by the rule and those that wanted to attend complied. All those in attendance have rated it one of the best event they've ever attended. The copies of the licenses were shredded after it was confirmed that the person was 1) old enough to meet our requirements and 2) the gender they claimed to be.

I've only seen one woman that could pass as a male on the field. The only reason I knew she was a female was because I had seen her prior to the event in street clothes. She had no discernable female curves, walked like a man, cussed like a sailor and carried her own weight and that of a couple of other guys.

Find better events.

MJ

Pvt Schnapps

07-31-2008, 03:30 PM

I've only seen one woman that could pass as a male on the field. The only reason I knew she was a female was because I had seen her prior to the event in street clothes. She had no discernable female curves, walked like a man, cussed like a sailor and carried her own weight and that of a couple of other guys.

Find better events.

MJ

So, would you have let her register?

Bill_Cross

07-31-2008, 06:49 PM

bulletsponge

07-31-2008, 09:35 PM

The case was Cook v. Babbitt. A google search ought to turn up information on it. As I understand it, the outcome left open the possibility that a site could restrict portrayals by gender, since the decision hinged only on whether authenticity standards were enforced equally for male and female soldiers at this particular event, and the ruling was that they weren't. If they had been, however...

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Right - whatever standard is levied on women must apply to everyone. If from 5 feet you don't look like a mid-19th century man of between 16 and 42 years old, you don't belong in the ranks. Period.

RJSamp

07-31-2008, 11:19 PM

flattop32355

08-01-2008, 12:38 AM

Right - whatever standard is levied on women must apply to everyone. If from 5 feet you don't look like a mid-19th century man of between 16 and 42 years old, you don't belong in the ranks. Period.

So, for the sake of discussion, a gray-haired, 5' 10" tall, fifty-three year old, 235 lb (most excess demonstrated around the middle, but somewhat fleshy of face as well) white male should seriously consider not taking part in the hobby as a military reenactor (with the possible exception as a general officer)?

Nope, not flame bait; a legitimate question to the definitive statement made above.

Second question: Do physical traits, such as age, weight, and gender, trump all other traits, such as good knowledge of the period, willingness and ability to interact with the public/other reenactors, adherence to accurate material/cultural/methodology norms, etc?

We can go pissy or deep with this line of discussion; I'm looking for the latter rather than the former.

Mint Julep

08-01-2008, 06:58 AM

So, would you have let her register?

Nope. I've got standards.

But, she could have gotten into events put on by others with lower standards and there would have been few complaints.

Mint Julep

08-01-2008, 07:07 AM

My position has never changed: if the lady can "pass" IN UNIFORM (not because you saw her in the parking lot), then she can attend. Arbitrary rules about "no women in the ranks" are as illogical as "no vests in the ranks."

I have seen both extremes of "gal troops." But like with authenticity, if you close your mind and don't allow for improvement, then you will never get any of either.

Bill,

All rules are arbitrary to some degree. Rules based on historical research at least have some basis in reality, however. Since women were not allowed in the ranks officially or legally by either army during the 1860's, it is sufficient to state that the rule is based on something real, historical and factual. The rule is good and, at better events, will stand.

I know you allow them at events where you have input or control. That is your decision. I might attend an event you put on where you allowed women in uniform. I know I have. I've seen them. They stood out. They don't pass.

MJ

Pvt Schnapps

08-01-2008, 07:57 AM

Nope. I've got standards.

But, she could have gotten into events put on by others with lower standards and there would have been few complaints.

Let me see if I've got this straight: your standards would let in the average authentic male reenactor -- say 40 years old, 190 pounds, 5'10" -- but would exclude a woman who could pass as a man and do her job and that of a few other fellows. Is that correct?

CWAUTH1

08-01-2008, 08:08 AM

Darn it guys. GIVE IT A REST!!!!!! How many times will this topic come up?? Girls will dress up as boys. You can't stop it. Some will look like girls, some won't. If you don't like it, then attend better events. Still see them? TOO BAD!! No amount of bitching will make them go away. If anything, you are fueling some of the hardcore female farbs, to do it more! If you know a girls who has to be in uniform, direct her efforts to WWII reenacting. There are many roles she can fill there.

Rob Weaver

08-01-2008, 08:25 AM

Do physical traits, such as age, weight, and gender, trump all other traits, such as good knowledge of the period, willingness and ability to interact with the public/other reenactors, adherence to accurate material/cultural/methodology norms, etc?

No - I will take the latter person over the former. We're not Jedi, born to play the role,selected by the force. I have been in the "no girls allowed camp." I liked it and we thought we had historical justification for our position; then we discovered our very company had a sergeant who gave birth. :D
I don't like the gal-troops any more than the men with pony-tails, ear rings, etc. but the hobby is a process. Find out if the individual is a beginner before assuming they want to be a f@rb.
Also, I wouldn't call those "better category of events." "Different" would be a more accurate word because selective authenticity is still in effect.

Pvt Schnapps

08-01-2008, 09:50 AM

...
Also, I wouldn't call those "better category of events." "Different" would be a more accurate word because selective authenticity is still in effect.

Excellent point. So far in this discussion the word "better" has referred only to the exclusion of women. The only quibble I have with "different" is that it similarly implies more of a distinction than has been described. Maybe they should just say "no girls."

Sluggo couldn't say it any better and, apparently, neither can they.

Bill_Cross

08-01-2008, 12:17 PM

All rules are arbitrary to some degree. Rules based on historical research at least have some basis in reality, however.... The rule is good and, at better events, will stand.
Mint, the prohibition is as arbitrary as "no vests," which was "grandfathered in" to most "good" events over the past 10 years. I'm glad to see both "After the Battle" and "Bristoe Station" (the two events the RPs are supporting finishing out this season) have dropped that absurdity. I always ignored it - it was always clear to me that the rank & file wore vests in large numbers. Now that "authentic" sutlers are making a ton of good vests, it's no longer an issue as in the past when I made two vests myself.

I know you allow them at events where you have input or control. That is your decision. I might attend an event you put on where you allowed women in uniform. I know I have. I've seen them. They stood out. They don't pass.
That's your opinion, and like that proverbial waste chute, we all have one. The only woman in the ranks I've ever seen at an event I had any say in was Alex Garbeck, and frankly, if "Bug" keeps her mouth shut, she looks like a young boy bugler. Which is what she portrays. I know she's a woman, so I can't "unring" that bell, yet I also know that I'm too old and fat for a rank & file soldier, but that doesn't stop me from going into the field. I was told there was another woman at one of the events I worked on, but no one knew it until it was over. I never saw her, never had a chance to say whether she passed or not, but apparently no one else knew it either.

The problem with this issue is that if you act in a logical manner, you will have to exclude more than half of the participants at most "good" events. We're too old, too fat, too out-of-shape, and don't know our drill enough to pass for fresh fish. While I can "pass" for less than my historical age of 58, I can't look 20s or 30s again. So by all rights, I should be banned from the "good" events, too.

The problem with this discussion is that we are jousting at straw "men," since the average gal troop has a TERRIBLE impression that prevents those with potentially accurate ones from even being considered. And it's a poisonous debate IMO. About 5 years or so ago, the Kearny Guards (a group I was then chairman of) were ambushed at a Potomac Legion meeting to consider membership after we were challenged for having Garbeck as a member (ambushed because the leadership at the time knew in advance about her, encouraged us to apply for membership in the PL, and could've saved me an overnight trip to Elmira, NY to find out our application was never going to be approved). Ironically, Garbeck's impression was better at the time than some of the PL membership; I don't want to "name names," so you'll either take my word or not. The boys felt vindicated for keeping a **** woman out of the PL, and the KGs went in another direction. I'm not sure in hindsight the bad blood spilled helped either group, which is why I bring that bit of ancient history up: we're re-fighting the last war to no good end.

Be assured I'm not politicking for women in the ranks. I'm just saying your justification for excluding them fails one of the two standards you use: historical accuracy. Tell me you just don't want women around the campfire and I'm fine with that. We had one at a recent LH and her impression was neither up to par, nor did I feel comfortable farting, pissing against a tree or otherwise acting like a period soldier around her. But I think you're trying to hide that same discomfort behind a figleaf of history and it doesn't wash.

thpritchett

08-01-2008, 12:29 PM

Maybe they should just say "no girls."

Ah, but if I understood the case cited above, that is exactly what was ruled to be illegal.

thpritchett

08-01-2008, 12:34 PM

If you don't like it, then attend better events.

Just because an event bans all females, not just the ones that can't pass for a male when in uniform, does that automatically make it a better event?

Bill_Cross

08-01-2008, 12:48 PM

Just because an event bans all females, not just the ones that can't pass for a male when in uniform, does that automatically make it a better event?
Tom, there's an arrogance among some in the CPH wing of the hobby that our events are "better," when it simply is a matter of "different." Bill Watson calls them "history heavy," because the emphasis is on doing period things and acting in a period manner. But in terms of kit, for example, many mainstream reenactors have as good as (and sometimes better) kits than CPHers, who in some cases feel that dirt and wear relieve them of the obligation to have good accoutrements and polished brass....

Saying "you should attend better events" is like saying "when did you stop beating your wife." ;)

hanktrent

08-01-2008, 01:28 PM

Ah, but if I understood the case cited above, that is exactly what was ruled to be illegal.

Nope. The ruling specifically left open the possibility of banning women portraying men, as I understand it. I read the original ruling when it was posted on the OTB a while ago, but it seems to have been lost in a crash, though I'm sure it's available on paid legal sites. If some lawyer-types have access and want to comment, I'd be curious.

As I read it, the only reason the park lost was because they banned the woman based on authenticity standards higher than they applied to the men. But Cook v. Babbitt wouldn't set a precedent against banning women from portraying men just because they were women. It's the same legal idea that allows movie studios to "discriminate against women" by consistently casting men to portray male romantic leads.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

bulletsponge

08-01-2008, 02:21 PM

Who said that was the standard?
That's evidently the standard placed on women in the ranks. Why shouldn't it apply to those who set the rules? Or is it a case as with the U.S. Congress where they levy the law then immediately absolve themselves?

bulletsponge

08-01-2008, 02:25 PM

So, for the sake of discussion, a gray-haired, 5' 10" tall, fifty-three year old, 235 lb (most excess demonstrated around the middle, but somewhat fleshy of face as well) white male should seriously consider not taking part in the hobby as a military reenactor (with the possible exception as a general officer)?

Nope, not flame bait; a legitimate question to the definitive statement made above.

Second question: Do physical traits, such as age, weight, and gender, trump all other traits, such as good knowledge of the period, willingness and ability to interact with the public/other reenactors, adherence to accurate material/cultural/methodology norms, etc?

We can go pissy or deep with this line of discussion; I'm looking for the latter rather than the former.

All I'm saying is that anybody is free to set any rules they care to, as long as they are universal and applied equally. Otherwise that person or group is being hypocritical and deserves to be ignored at best.

Scooby_308

08-01-2008, 02:29 PM

Nope. The ruling specifically left open the possibility of banning women portraying men, as I understand it. I read the original ruling when it was posted on the OTB a while ago, but it seems to have been lost in a crash, though I'm sure it's available on paid legal sites. If some lawyer-types have access and want to comment, I'd be curious.
Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Found a reference in this paper.
http://www.stjohns.edu/media/3/edb2d66d292641de8f65ecaf05a3a940.pdf

The only apparent published decision on sex discrimination in casting addressed an
equal protection claim. In Cook v. Babbitt, 819 F.Supp. 1 (D. D.C. 1993), a female Civil
War enthusiast claimed that National Park Service (NPS) personnel denied her the
opportunity to portray a male soldier in a re-creation it produced for the public. See id. at
4. The case turned on whether the NPS employed a sex classification or applied sexneutral
standards of historical accuracy that Cook failed to satisfy. Cook argued that she
effectively concealed her sex but the NPS categorically barred her from consideration.
See id. at 6. NPS countered that Cook’s costume was not historically accurate and failed
to conceal her sex. See id. at 8. It did not defend “the use of gender as a proxy for an
important aspect of historical authenticity in casting dramatic roles in public education
programs.” Id. at 5. Consequently, although the district court ruled for Cook, it did so
based on factual determinations specific to the case, including a finding that NPS
personnel ignored historical accuracy problems presented by male actors but applied a
harsher standard to Cook based on her sex. See id. at 27-28.

ETA:
http://touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-5950.htm
33 Hamlyn v. Rock Island County Metro. Mass Transit Dist.,
986 F. Supp. 1126, 1133 (C.D. Ill. 1997); see also Cook v.
Babbitt, 819 F. Supp. 1, 14 (D.D.C. 1993) (In cases where a law
or regulation makes an explicit reference to a suspect
characteristic, purposeful discrimination is self-evident, and
the measure is subject to challenge on its face without any
evidentiary inquiry into the motives of the relevant government
actors.).

Pvt Schnapps

08-01-2008, 02:44 PM

Nope. The ruling specifically left open the possibility of banning women portraying men, as I understand it. I read the original ruling when it was posted on the OTB a while ago, but it seems to have been lost in a crash, though I'm sure it's available on paid legal sites. If some lawyer-types have access and want to comment, I'd be curious.

As I read it, the only reason the park lost was because they banned the woman based on authenticity standards higher than they applied to the men. But Cook v. Babbitt wouldn't set a precedent against banning women from portraying men just because they were women. It's the same legal idea that allows movie studios to "discriminate against women" by consistently casting men to portray male romantic leads.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I found this summary at http://www.stjohns.edu/media/3/edb2d66d292641de8f65ecaf05a3a940.pdf

"The only apparent published decision on sex discrimination in casting addressed an
equal protection claim. In Cook v. Babbitt, 819 F.Supp. 1 (D. D.C. 1993), a female Civil
War enthusiast claimed that National Park Service (NPS) personnel denied her the
opportunity to portray a male soldier in a re-creation it produced for the public. See id. at
4. The case turned on whether the NPS employed a sex classification or applied sexneutral
standards of historical accuracy that Cook failed to satisfy. Cook argued that she
effectively concealed her sex but the NPS categorically barred her from consideration.
See id. at 6. NPS countered that Cook’s costume was not historically accurate and failed
to conceal her sex. See id. at 8. It did not defend “the use of gender as a proxy for an
important aspect of historical authenticity in casting dramatic roles in public education
programs.” Id. at 5. Consequently, although the district court ruled for Cook, it did so
based on factual determinations specific to the case, including a finding that NPS
personnel ignored historical accuracy problems presented by male actors but applied a
harsher standard to Cook based on her sex. See id. at 27-28."

This summary still leaves a lot of room for discussion, but I think the implication is that simply saying "girls can't play" isn't so much a standard as a sign you hang on a tree fort.

There are other ways to go. For example, I think the standards for ATB represent one of the more honest attempts to reconcile the various issues involved.

As I've stated in several venues, a serious study of the actual demographics and appearance of civil war units leads inevitably to the conclusion that a handful of women with decent impressions are far less of a problem than the average age and weight of the men. The question remains of what we should do about it. I don't recommend we require all units to meet an actual historical standard, because then we would have a very small hobby indeed.

Instead I think that folks need to be realistic about the available pool of people who want to wear wool uniforms in summer, and stop hiding misogyny behind claims of principle.

hanktrent

08-01-2008, 04:06 PM

"[NPS] did not defend “the use of gender as a proxy for an important aspect of historical authenticity in casting dramatic roles in public education programs.” Id. at 5. Consequently, although the district court ruled for Cook, it did so based on factual determinations specific to the case, including a finding that NPS personnel ignored historical accuracy problems presented by male actors but applied a harsher standard to Cook based on her sex. See id. at 27-28."

This summary still leaves a lot of room for discussion, but I think the implication is that simply saying "girls can't play" isn't so much a standard as a sign you hang on a tree fort.

The problem is, the NPS didn't defend on what's bolded above, so there was no ruling on that.

Yep, you can't just say "girls can't play" if it's about recreational camping in old timey clothes in whatever situations would be covered by anti-sex-discrimination laws. But as far as I know there's been no test yet of using gender as a factor when "casting dramatic roles" in living history programs.

I'm really surprised there hasn't been a case where a male "female impersonator" sued to be hired as a women's lingerie model or to dance in a female chorus line or something, on the basis that he was just as attractive in make-up and costume, and just as graceful and skilled, as the genetic women who were hired. Maybe there has been. It would be the same kind of 5-foot/skill rule and I think would directly apply.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Pvt Schnapps

08-01-2008, 04:11 PM

The problem is, the NPS didn't defend on what's bolded above, so there was no ruling on that.

Yep, you can't just say "girls can't play" if it's about recreational camping in old timey clothes in whatever situations would be covered by anti-sex-discrimination laws. But as far as I know there's been no test yet of using gender as a factor when "casting dramatic roles" in living history programs.

I'm really surprised there hasn't been a case where a male "female impersonator" sued to be hired as a women's lingerie model or to dance in a female chorus line or something, on the basis that he was just as attractive in make-up and costume, and just as graceful and skilled, as the genetic women who were hired. Maybe there has been. It would be the same kind of 5-foot/skill rule and I think would directly apply.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Maybe they didn't have to sue. If I remember "The Crying Game" correctly, some guys can beat **** out of the "5 foot" rule... :)

Bill_Cross

08-01-2008, 04:35 PM

I'm really surprised there hasn't been a case where a male "female impersonator" sued to be hired as a women's lingerie model or to dance in a female chorus line or something, on the basis that he was just as attractive in make-up and costume, and just as graceful and skilled, as the genetic women who were hired. Maybe there has been. It would be the same kind of 5-foot/skill rule and I think would directly apply.
There have been a few cases of men petitioning to play on women's sports teams, etc. I think the social opprobium of men playing on a "girl's" team is too great to see much more than a smattering of this sort of thing.

While the legal implications of all this are interesting and may ultimately trump our speculation, the simple fact of the matter is that we have women reenactors right now who want to play "pants" parts instead of wearing dresses. The justifications for keeping them out boil down essentially to:

1.) women weren't allowed in the ranks Back In The Day: Yet we know that women did "pass." Because we often know the person who wants to pass in the real world today, we can't really suspend that awareness. So those who don't want women at their events insist they can spot a cross-dresser at 50 yards, while others insist the better impressions from women who want to "do it right" are often as good as those from male reenactors.

2.) their impressions aren't "good enough": This is one area where there is some valid criticism of the obvious "gal troops," though we as a group lump the worst ponytail-wearing, big breasted, wide-bottomed, perfume-wearing farbs in with those who, like Alex Garbeck (whom I mention only because I know her impression) look as much like a youth from 186X as many of the male youths in the ranks these days.

3.) "good events" are "good" because they don't allow gal troops, even if the attendees look no more like the Boys of 186X than the gals: As has been stated repeatedly, few of us look like THEY did. If you examine my avatar (taken with a wet-plate camera having uncoated optics), I can pass for an officer, but probably am too well-fed and old for someone in the ranks. Yet there isn't a CPH event I've ever been turned away from, because I have all the right kit, am a pretty fair first impressionist, and am male.

M E Wolf

08-01-2008, 06:30 PM

Dear Sirs;

I realize that my time has been short on this particular list. In reading the entire thread about ‘women’ being in the ranks in re-enacting; I am very disappointed by the tone and ‘spirit of intent’ for which has been very negative.

For those to whom proclaim authenticity; I must recline and consider as to truthful authenticity; each re-enactor/impressionist and the like; would have to be approximately 142 to 147 years before the present day. This is not including the vast age differences; recorded in the Official Records of the Rebellion - Medical Records; to which those serving ranged from 13 years old to their 60’s. Some recorded heights have been from 5’2” on upwards.
Most equipment is reproduction and; nowhere have I seen a full military force to which mirrors that of any known ‘major’ Civil War Battle; e.g. First Bull Run --authentically replayed before modern eyes. If my memory serves me correctly; only General D. Eisenhower in the early 1950’s put a full force on the field for both sides of the rebellion and allowed all, to appreciate the magnitude of the battle of First Bull Run/Manassas. As an avid student of the American Civil War; his troops were not in ‘authentic’ and or reproduction uniforms. However, the memories of my parent’s generation as I was but an infant--etched in their minds the price paid in the American Civil War in just one ‘major battle.’

In addition, men with amputated limbs, were allowed to serve in the American Civil War; to include a Confederate General who was blind due to battle injuries, was permitted to remain in service at that rank.

That said; Official Records of the Rebellion; Burial Report by Brig. General William Hays, July 17, 1863 - OR Series 1, Volume 27, Part 1; page 378; clearly identifies a woman having been buried at Gettysburg; who was part of “Pickett’s Charge.”

I proffer for further claims that women did not serve in uniform; the documentations in the National Archives, Pension Records; Provost Marshal examination of June 20, 1864 by Colonel J.P. Sanderson (Prov. Marshal General - Department of Missouri) in the case of Mary Ann Pitman - Official Records of the Rebellion; Series 2, Volume 7; page 345-355; Provost Marshal Report for 23rd Kentucky Infantry, National Archives; not including far more documented ‘Governmental’ recognized agents/officers of both sides of the rebellion; in addition -- Newspaper articles by Morning Chronicle Aug. 26, 1864; Kansas City Star May 24, 1929; New York Times Aug. 26, 1864, Washington Daily Morning Chronicle, Aug. 26, 1864--all covering the women serving in the Civil War; support the facts that women did serve in uniform in many capacities. There is way more than I could ever document here on such a forum. However, “They Fought Like Demons-Women Soldiers of the Civil War” have detailed documentary evidence which supports the involvement of women in men’s uniforms, to include some who rose in the ranks to become junior officers.

In researching history; I take into account that the reasons for women joining the military on either side; Confederate or Union; was as similar to that of men. Some joined because they thought it would be fun. Some joined because they wanted adventure. But, most joined because it was the right thing to do. It is no different then as it is today. Men do not have an exclusive right to be driven by honor, patriotism, moral/ethical responsibility, sense of duty and to answer the call in a crisis. I am seeing that a great many women remained cloaked through the entire conflict and when all was said and done; resumed their personal lives like any man did.
I am not finding much evidence to support that women joined the military for “glory” or for “woman’s liberation” and or “equal rights.” What I am finding is that desire to help in any capacity possible. Some served as nurses, some served as doctors, some served in making ammunition--twenty three women perished at the Washington Arsenal [Now Ft. Leslie P. McNair] in supporting the cause; which permitted more men to join the battlefield. Even presently, women are subjected to unequal treatment, pay and or respect. When Veterans Day comes about; few give thought about the woman in service, who perished or is recovering from wounds. I also do not see women in general, shoving such in men’s faces as well.

What I further submit for consideration; is that in finding out in post-war revelations that; what former veterans thought were boys or men; in finding out that they were a female; had been with surprise but--also appreciation and at times admiration. Perhaps the lessons on those who wish to participate in re-enactments; is that to insult women who wish to participate on the battlefield--is insulting the memory of any/all women who fought and often died on both sides during the rebellion. If any veteran of the Civil War had the desire to be cruel to women who served; it would have been manifested then.

In addition, I wish to offer for even more consideration; that not all generations of relatives produced boys from the links to their blood relatives who served as male soldiers. Perhaps, this may be the only form and or capacity to honor their blood relations of the veterans of the Civil War. To rob a person of a means to give deep honors and respects to their relatives, is most unfortunate when it is based on gender/sex. It would be no less hurtful and or vindictive; if men refused women to place flags on the headstones of their dearly cherished relatives. As well as to ’attempt’ to understand what price was paid so that ’we’ in general can stand as one united country. It must be experienced physically as to embrace it mentally and emotionally.

My curiosity then swings to the thoughts and considerations; as to why male recruitment, participation and or support is faltering to such a degree, which causes the ratio of men to women so destabilizing and or threatening the existing men making up these existing re-enactor’s groups, companies, etc. Perhaps, the ratio of women is but a symptom of some larger problem.

I do realize when any group and or organization suffers from frustration; the ones who suffer the most are the ones who are not responsible.

Perhaps thoughts on how to apply false hair and tricks of the trade by makeup artists can be sponsored; as to assist women in their impressions as male soldiers. Men, I find when gentlemen assist others--even women with their goals, earn more respect and all work harder in turn in appreciation. To me, my opinion is; this is where gentlemen can be inspirational and guiding leadership; as well as to teach through appreciation.

I certainly do hope, with all sincere intentions; that the struggles within the living historians/re-enactors/impressionists, et. al., will be a mission for all to ‘problem solve,’ as to balance the ratios to create less negative and obvious conflicts between women and men who wear the soldier’s uniform.
I am seeing that the real enemy--which is society which is made from newer immigrants that couldn't give a thimble’s care, or a passing glance to American History or the lessons of the Civil War; do not see our battlefields as our castles and monuments. It is not the woman’s sole burden to shoulder the blame for struggles within the re-enactment community. All must share the load, the joys as well as the sorrows; in my humble opinion.

With the opportunity to inspire so many -- it is sadness that the opportunities might be missed in doing so.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

Pvt Schnapps

08-02-2008, 01:29 PM

I think you make a lot of good points about women during the actual civil war, and the situation today. One point worth special emphasis is that the vehemence in today's opposition has more to do with contemporary perceptions than historical attitudes.

M E Wolf

08-02-2008, 10:26 PM

Dear Private Schnapps/M. A. Schaffner;

In response to your post. I do realize it is difficult to overcome 'modern' perceptions and 'attempt' to embrace the historical attitudes and or behaviors.

I offer for consideration, that what is still so bold and the foundation of the military of the past and currently; is Military Discipline

In giving reference to: 1861 Revised Regulations of the Army of the United States and 1863 -The Laws of War; the profound words within these references are worth a revisit.

Military Discipline--

1. All inferiors are required to obey strictly, and to execute with alacrity and good faith, the lawful order of the superiors appointed over them.

2. Military authority is to be exercised with firmness, but kindness and justice to inferiors. Punishments shall be strictly comfortable to military law.

3. Superiors of every grade are forbidden to injure those under them by tyrannical or capricious conduct or by abusive language.

For me, in my personal observations and opinions; these three paragraphs are the foundation of the military. I also notice, there is a lack of a hyphen before words -- inferiors and or superiors. The 'author(s)' of "Military Discipline" clearly made no exception; e.g. female-soldier, Black/Negro-soldier, White/Caucasian-soldier and or any mixture of 'labels' and or 'titles.'

These same "Military Discipline" existed then as they do today. I am not able to embrace excuses that modern perception is in conflict with the historical; as some may hope to claim. Without Military Discipline; I must wonder (outloud in text form); why bother wearing a uniform, be an impressionist and or attempt to inspire others to listen, learn and or share their stories of 'how' and or what 'might' have been; if Military Discipline is not embraced fully as the foundation and the guidence of Military re-enactment's attitudes and behaviors.

I offer for further consideration--it was the lack of "Military Discipline" that has lost battles. In an example; supported by the Official Records of the Rebellion-First Bull Run/First Manassas; the attitudes of all who were not wise to the ways of military and or battles; was that it would be a 'show' and perhaps a short lived brawl and or duel. Both the Confederate and Union Forces, ignoring Lt. General Winfield Scott's observations; thought the 'rebellion' would be a 90 day affair. Historical records and reports read like a poorly planned 're-enactment.' The lack of "Military Discipline" was most evident. Although there were 'excuses.' Some, indeed justified --such as Major John G. Reynolds - US Marine Battalion; lead raw recruits to whom had not learned their facings; militia units and untrained volunteers. The Confederates suffered the same situation -- lack of Military Discipline. Military Discipline was evident in veteran leadership and veteran 'regulars' and those who had the guidence, support and leadership of veterans in the rank and files to support those with unsteady nerves; being their first bloody battle--and not some 'gentleman's duel' in numbers.

That said, even with the lack of "Military Discipline;" there was no shortage of courage, of sacrifice, compassion, resolve, injuries and --yes --death; on either side.

In presenting the summary of the battle of First Manassas/First Bull Run; I hope consideration of the lessons of what 'lack' of Military Discipline had done to wreck an army. Could consideration be given that in the same spirit of "Military Discipline" be examined as to a potential symptom of the decline of behavior and or attitudes of those identifying as "impressionists, re-enactors, living historians and or any other title/label' that associate with the military aspects of the 'community' at large? With "Military Discipline" having governed the attitudes and behaviors of the military in 1860-1866; on and off the field; could this lack of 'carry over' be a possible symptom?

In my sincere appreciation for all those who do their best to bring to light; any and all aspects of the 'fighting' soldier/sailor/Marine; I cannot help but see individuals as individual ambassadors, representatives and or the 'business end' of re-enacting and as 'sentinels' to cause all -- to never forget what those who lived and died in the Civil War/Rebellion; have done. It is every American's duty --to never forget our brave Nation's veterans.

Equally, the appreciation for those to whom dedicate their time, funds and energies to re-enacting and those family members that share them with us all; must not be forgotten as well.

All have my sincere respects.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-02-2008, 11:32 PM

Hallo!

929. Any free white male person above the age of eighteen and under thirty-five years, being at least five feet three inches high, effective, able bodied, sober, free from disease, of character and habits, and with a complacent knowledge of the English language, may be enlisted. This regulation, so far as respects the height and age of the recruit, shall not extend to musicians or to soldiers who may "re-enlist," or have served honestly and faithfully a previous enlistment in the army.

REVISED REGULATIONS FOR THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, 1861. Page 130.

CHS
Cherry Orchard Mess

"And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner."

Cherry picking is condusive to Military Discipline, how, exactly? ;) :)

hanktrent

08-02-2008, 11:57 PM

Cherry picking is condusive to Military Discipline, how, exactly? ;) :)

I was wondering about that. What if surgeon-reenactors exercised military discipline in examining recruits as they should?

Troops, whether regulars or volunteers, should include no men that are not perfectly qualified, both physically and mentally, for the hardships of the public service... An examination of the kind here mentioned demands both time, patience, and skill. In order to make it thorough, the candidate must be completely stripped, so that if any disease or defect in the exterior of the body exist it may be at once rendered apparent... The diseases which unfit a man for military service are... imperfect development or absence of the testes...

(A Manual of Military Surgery, Samuel David Gross, Ira M. Rutkow, 1861 p. 151-153)

It would seem the strongest argument for including women portraying soldiers is just the opposite--it's only a hobby, we're not really enlisting in the army, etc.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-03-2008, 09:47 AM

Hallo!

Indeed, and these are all partisan arguments in the end according to one's chosen personal Mental Pictures; coupled with how much of History versus Hobby one chooses to practice and defend; and when studying the Past for purposes of understanding, and selective simulation/emulation of what items and areas- we use a microscopic on while others choose to use a telescope- and others choose to invert the telescope to make the exceptions the rules if not new realities.

And so tend to divide us accordingly, some like a finger pointing at the moon, and some focusing on the finger instead.

IMHO, in any Mental Picture... ulimately people do what works for them.

Others' mileage will vary...

CHS
At work with the Cherry Orchard Mess
A proud member of the I Reject Your Reality and Sustitute My Own Rifles, Reunion Tour 1861-1865

zouavecampaigner

08-03-2008, 11:10 AM

We have a go-round about this every 6-12 months. If the women are in somebody else's unit there's not a lot you can do but squint or go home.

Scott,

I find that, if I take my contacts out, or am not wearing glasses, it makes the entire reenactment experience a lot more authentic looking ;)

Hope you're well!

Regards,
Shaun Grenan

zouavecampaigner

08-03-2008, 11:52 AM

Being here in the vortex of it all, I get to see a lot of things, be it in town, at events, or visiting my place of work. It seems to boil down to the fact that reenacting would be a wonderful hobby...without all the reenactors in it...

And from my dabbling in other eras, it doesn't change with the time being portrayed. *le sigh* But, as my good friend says when we're doing WW2, and "campaigner" WW2 guys get on our case about portraying the FFI (NOT the resistance hmph!) during the Normandy campaign, "what are they gonna do, fire us?".

Regards,
Shaun

sbl

08-03-2008, 12:42 PM

I've stopped wearing my period specs as I look like Gepetto the toymaker with them on. The events look just great and my old girl-friend from Rev-War days hasn't aged a day.

M E Wolf

08-03-2008, 05:36 PM

Dear Hank.Trent,

Sir, it is my understanding that the sudden surge of personnel being pressed into service; the surgeon was not giving much time to anyone who would pass on an exterior examination.

There were times when men would go through for a woman, approximately the same height, weight, hair color and such; then swap places. He would go elsewhere and she would pick up and join in a unit. It would be based upon an assumption that all got through a medical examination.

Today, this is less likely to be done; as women are allowed to serve openly.

One thing I do see sir, is that if man or woman is determined -- they will meet up with all efforts as to achieve that goal.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

hanktrent

08-03-2008, 06:23 PM

Sir, it is my understanding that the sudden surge of personnel being pressed into service; the surgeon was not giving much time to anyone who would pass on an exterior examination.

That's correct. But it was a failure to do his duty and exercise military discipline. As you said, "Without Military Discipline; I must wonder (outloud in text form); why bother wearing a uniform, be an impressionist and or attempt to inspire others to listen, learn and or share their stories of 'how' and or what 'might' have been."

Today, this is less likely to be done; as women are allowed to serve openly.

Exactly. Modern reenacting doesn't include the military discipline which was supposed to exist in the 1860s. It's not even supposed to include it, and rightfully so, I think. How would you drag back against their will and punish reenactors who left early? It's good to try to portray the level of military discipline (or lack thereof) that was present at the time and place being reenacted, I think, but in modern life one simply can't force volunteers to do what they don't want to do.

One thing I do see sir, is that if man or woman is determined -- they will meet up with all efforts as to achieve that goal.

Y'know, this part of the discussion brings up an interesting question. In the 1860s, it was truly against the law for a female to serve in the military. Not to say whether that's immoral or moral, but it was, nonetheless, legal fact, just like theft, assault, etc. were illegal as well.

Today, there are two levels of "rules" at reenactments. One is the pretend laws of the 1860s. Someone might be asked to portray a thief who breaks the 1860 laws, with the support of the event organizers, with certain common sense rules--everything he took would be kept safe and returned at the end of the event; certain things would be off limits like maybe he could only steal repro money but nothing of actual value; if caught in the act, he'd receive a period punishment but only until the event ended. I think reenactors who attend the kinds of events that include surprises would be cool with that.

Then there are the real laws of 2008. If someone was really stealing things at an event, it wouldn't be an even more authentic portrayal of a thief, it would be a real crime in 2008, and those who attended would not be happy that they'd been taken advantage of.

So then the question comes, if a private event truly says "no females portraying soldiers" and no exceptions are granted, and a woman decides to sneak in using false ID knowing she's not legally allowed on the property dressed as a soldier, is that just a more authentic portrayal of a female soldier? Would it be morally justifiable in a crusade to gain future respect of other reenactors and help the cause of women soldier-reenactors, to prove that some female reenactors really can pass as they would have in the 1860s? Or is it just an example of 2008 fraud and taking advantage of others in real life?

I realize that's not what anyone has proposed, but it just struck me as an interesting hypothetical ethical question.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

M E Wolf

08-03-2008, 06:29 PM

Dear Curt-Heinrich Schmidt and List Members;

First, I must apologize for a very lengthy post however, my desire is to offer it while my mind is swirling with potential ideas.

Sir, your words have eloquently expressed the analogy of the situation of the division. Further sir, I attach my observations to your analogy as being like that of “a glass half full - a glass half empty” analogy. Both are honest, visually and physical evidence to which both are correct. The problem I see, sir--is that there is lack of respect towards both sides of the division.

Different but not deserving of negative attacks. What I would wish for sir, would be the realization that negative attacks prove to be poison on both sides. There could be unity if the divisions were separated into a “branch” under the head organization.

Philosophies between “Hobbyist” and “Historical Impressionism” should be respected fully and equally. However, seeing the division between the two and in conflict; I must wonder [out loud in text form]; if any consideration has been made as to create ‘Branches.’ Each ‘Branch’ created as to address these different qualities; as to attract the individuals that may/could be interested.

Once these “Branches” could be organized; I must offer for consideration; how best these “Branches” could support one another; as both need dire support and representation for the entire health of the re-enacting community sir.

The Nation in general is war weary. I must offer thoughts and consideration, that this may retard the interest; as perhaps the assumption that re-enactments only ‘fight.’ Although battles are indeed the major portion of re-enactments; I must wonder [out loud in text form]; if consideration has been given, as to assemble as to form parades and or tattoos; give artillery limbered demonstration, such as the drivers and full limbered artillery pieces in skill of driving, maneuvering, the unlimbering process and the sequences up to firing the pieces; on an active military base and or open space for the public to appreciate a closer look; as well as the Calvary units. Further, has any considered having military drill units go on the field with present military drill units; as to paint an arch from past to present; as well as to appreciate the skill in doing the ’manual of arms.’

With re-enactments so far in the battlefield, the public is never up close while re-enactors are ’in action.’ Demonstrations are one thing however; I do know there is much, much more than a brief demonstration -- there is mastery and an art form to these skills.

Personally, I have not seen any crisp and in detail Civil War re-enactment ’how to’ of all the commands, response and obedience to commands; representing all arms of the Civil War; to include the; pickets, guards, Provost Marshal, Quarter-Master, Aide-de-Camp, Adjutant, the assistants; filling in the books, calligraphy/copper plating script work on the books; reading the maps and strategy and or tactics; engineers, saber manual drills and weapons drills -- the most rare being the smooth transition into ’reverse arms’ as well as for the saber to go into ’reverse arms.’ Generals to Privates, and all in between; sharpshooters, etc. There can be so much more opportunities to ‘teach’ and ‘inspire’ as well grab someone’s attention and then the desire to participate.

This could be expanded from squad, company, regiment, battalion and Corps levels. Proceeds then can be deposited into the “Branch” that created said CD-ROM ‘how to, how it was, how it is.’

Has there been any consideration to having a computer expert who writes games and programs; as to see if the afore listed can be done, as to make it interactive? One form educational and another form 'game?'

Has there been any, to whom own pure bred horses and or mules; to which may approach their equine’s breed association; as to see if they will sponsor a trooper, the artillery unit, cavalry unit, the blacksmith forge; artillery forage, ambulances, etc? Further; if horses are needed, there are often surplus horses that do not make it in racing that need homes. I offer consideration, could there been an exploration to see if a ‘racing stable’ can sponsor an equine driven re-enactment unit? American Driving Society may be one avenue of inquiry; as well as the American Quarter Horse Association, American Morgan Association, American Standard-bred (trotters and pacers); American Saddlebred Association--may be able to find some ideas on sponsoring units and or individuals.

Have there been any considerations to create a ‘honorary’ section within a re-enactment unit; to which those who cannot physically participate and or any other causes why they cannot take the field but, really want to learn how to drill, about cavalry, artillery, etc; as well as to be taught saber drills and such--in exchange for financial support and or dues?

Sir, my thoughts on finding a revenue engine as to help defray costs is as important as finding harmony between the different philosophies of re-enactments

Have any given consideration to contact University History Professors as to help illustrate, via uniform, re-enactment/demonstration, etc.; to bring the battlefield to the classroom? Have any approached Universities as to see if they would be willing to host a ‘parade’ and or ‘tattoo’ and or any other like options?

Has there been any consideration to drill and go through the ‘honors’ for wounded veterans in military hospitals? Civil War music serenade on the grounds? See if the US Military would help in show casing military pride and history; giving exposure to re-enactors as well as giving back a bit? After all, if Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and Marines can sponsor a race car -- why not adopt their re-enactment units?

Realizing that General H. Norman Schwartzkopf [Retired], is a 'student' of Civil War history; have any considerations been given; as to invite him to speak at any of the larger 're-enactment' engagements? His appearance could/may spark inspiration from many directions; as well as his own skills in military management may be something to draw from. The National Speakers Bureau may have his contact information.

Just some thoughts and concerns.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

M E Wolf

08-03-2008, 07:09 PM

Dear Hank.Trent;

Sir, again -- a wonderful post and one to invite thoughtful consideration and response.

Personally sir, I do agree that 're-enactors' cannot be forced into anything. However, those to whom wish to embrace a more rigid philosophy may indeed wish that harder boundary line. Real life, health issues and so much more falls into reality. The separate understanding is so very necessary.

Perhaps the one who left early and some 'discipline' is adjudicated; perhaps that individual can take the place of another person who wants to leave early at the next event. All forms of discipline really need to be worked within their home unit/organization. But, still -- the basics yet face me sir.
Respect. Respecting one another. Manners, treating private through general with respect. Sir, it is the lack of respect or manners, towards one another is what is so sad to see.

When women were discovered in the 'ranks' per se; they were cashiered and or mustered out. Really was up to the commanding officer. Then, they would go elsewhere and try to re-join. The Provost-Marshal would handle the cases if it went further up; as well as interviewing prisoners of war; who just happened to be a female. Sir, I do agree with you as far as being illegal behaviors however, on the appeal; they could say the specifications were not gender specific or the fe was dropped in printing. As one may know, the US Court system goes beyond most; as to render a just outcome.

As for the 'pretend' crime scenarios--I endorse it. However, sir--as you stated; it must be previously planned, agreed to and consented to; with boundries and the surprise elements are wonderful ways to put a bit of a zig and not always in a zag.

As for actual crimes - enforcement and prosecution is a must. If not, this individual will visit other re-enactment events, camps, organizations and the like; to which does no good to any and or all. Perhaps 'safes' could be provided as to put valued items in; guarded by the pickets and or law enforcement officers of that jurisdiction; in their property lockers and have them returned once the event is over.

As for an exclusive rule; e.g. no females allowed. Sir, I would hope that women respect these rules as fully, as if they had 'no men allowed.' In turn though, it is hoped that men understand that they may draw great inspiration, support, admiration by those women who portray a male soldier. Understanding men's strength and amazing qualities; my personal opinion is that women do not draw themselves to men out of lust but, see hope. Hope in being accepted for being themselves as well as help in being better in their endeavors of being a soldier.

Perhaps, women do not understand that men's 'eyes' draw to different focus points on other individuals. Out of place, odd and or noticed--it raises men's caution and that caution has a collateral affect on all men. Men do not see flatly. If there could be an understanding that men judge, by habit -- North, South, East, West and then go onto Northeast, Northwest, Southwest, Southeast as far as body frame/image assessments--they can see why men easily spot what is out of place. Little escapes the man's eyes and the said can be said of women yet--focal points are different. This is where men can assist women in their impressions of men. But, in learning these maskings -- such trust should never be betrayed. On the field of battle or in any 'risk' element of interaction; trust is paramount sir.

If I would be in the scenario, to which was exclusively male and there was to be a female who breeched the rules. There is no excuses for the violation. I would hope the individual is banned. Perhaps a remedy would be a mixed crowd venue; as to permit women to mingle with men but; once past the 'cord' which divides men from women--it should be a ethical boundry as well as a trust boundary. Perhaps it is the judicial side of my nature to be so firm on boundary, spirit of intent and evidence.

Now, that said -- should a female soldier enter in the case of an emergency, such as an emergency notification, etc.; the reality out weighs any exclusive rule; to me -- no different than law enforcement responding to an incident. One cannot say to the police dispatcher--'men only.' Got to take what you got in that case. Female officer is better than no officer.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-03-2008, 08:02 PM

Hallo!

"Sir, your words have eloquently expressed the analogy of the situation of the division. Further sir, I attach my observations to your analogy as being like that of “a glass half full - a glass half empty” analogy. Both are honest, visually and physical evidence to which both are correct. The problem I see, sir--is that there is lack of respect towards both sides of the division.

Different but not deserving of negative attacks. What I would wish for sir, would be the realization that negative attacks prove to be poison on both sides. There could be unity if the divisions were separated into a “branch” under the head organization."

Ah, the written form of "communication" is so imperfect.
I assume the above is rhetorical, but if directed at or for me... when I reply, here or elsewhere in other boards and fora, it is my intent to write in a factually, dispassionately neutral, and unemotional vein. The obvious weakness of which, when I write is:

1. What I thought I said.
2. What others thought I said.
3. What I really said.

If reviewing the over 10,000 posts I have made on several boards in the past 9 years, it should be seen that I champion the pursuit of the History-Heavy or History-Light Mental Picture without an agenda of negativity or lack of encouragement.
On the other hand, boards and fora, reflecting the Real World of Reenacting Reenacting/Reenacting/Living History on the Glowing Screen, are rife with battles, flame wars, personal and unit attacks and insults, hobby politics, personality clashes, heated emotions, differences of opinions, distortions of history and fact, etc., etc.

Sometimes, often times, too widely divergent Mental Pictures, like oil and water, cannot be made to stay well mixed. And some, like gasoline and fire, are volitile when mixed. Undisguised women, being presented as a common thing, or norm, across several hobbies, tends to be the gasoline and fire moreso than the oil and water.
Not a negative, just an emotionless observation based upon a few years of experience in several CW hobbies.

"It's no insult to say a dead man is dead." -Odysseus, "Troy"

Of course, others' mileage will vary...

CHS
In different hobbies together Mess

flattop32355

08-03-2008, 08:24 PM

So then the question comes, if a private event truly says "no females portraying soldiers" and no exceptions are granted, and a woman decides to sneak in using false ID knowing she's not legally allowed on the property dressed as a soldier, is that just a more authentic portrayal of a female soldier? Would it be morally justifiable in a crusade to gain future respect of other reenactors and help the cause of women soldier-reenactors, to prove that some female reenactors really can pass as they would have in the 1860s? Or is it just an example of 2008 fraud and taking advantage of others in real life?

An interesting scenario, and quite like the real world in 186x. I assume from the above that she succeeds in her ruse, rather than being either discovered upon trying to enter or being found out during the event.

If she succeeded, how would anyone ever know unless A) others were aware of her/complicit with her and failed to turn her in, or B) she makes herself known, either during or after the event?

In case A, the other reenactors would be as guilty of breaking the rules as was she. In case B, she has defeated her purposes, which is to go undetected and to perform adequately as a soldier, and must settle for a much baser goal, that of making other people look foolish.

In my limited experience with female "soldiers", those who try the hardest to blend in seem not to have proving a point as a goal in any way, shape or form; they just want to serve as a soldier in the hobby. In fact, they do not wish to stand out in any way, but to be as ordinary as can be.

Admittedly, these are the rarer cases, most often due to physical characteristics that allow for easier masking of their identity.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-03-2008, 08:32 PM

Hallo!

"In my limited experience with female "soldiers", those who try the hardest to blend in seem not to have proving a point as a goal in any way, shape or form; they just want to serve as a soldier in the hobby. In fact, they do not wish to stand out in any way, but to be as ordinary as can be."

Exactly true... as the Scale tips toward the History-Heavy side.

And I could steal that and say:

In my limited experience with "soldiers", those who try the hardest to blend in seem not to have proving a point as a goal in any way, shape or form; they just want to serve as a soldier in the hobby. In fact, they do not wish to stand out in any way, but to be as ordinary as can be.

;) :)

CHS
I am Curtis of Borg. We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Two of Four Mess

hanktrent

08-03-2008, 08:51 PM

Philosophies between “Hobbyist” and “Historical Impressionism” should be respected fully and equally. However, seeing the division between the two and in conflict; I must wonder [out loud in text form]; if any consideration has been made as to create ‘Branches.’ Each ‘Branch’ created as to address these different qualities; as to attract the individuals that may/could be interested.

Once these “Branches” could be organized; I must offer for consideration; how best these “Branches” could support one another; as both need dire support and representation for the entire health of the re-enacting community sir.

Are you aware of the wide variety of reenactments that are currently held? The farb-mainstream-authenticity-campaigner-progressive-hardcore continuum? The wide variety of opportunities from the GAC Gettysburg event (huge y'all-come battle event) to At High Tide (big battle event with higher standards than GAC), Sparks of Secession (civilian town life with both public and non-public times) to Immortal 600 (prison and guard life immersion with limited spectators) to Banks Grand Retreat (multi-day, multi-mile non-spectator tactical)?

Right now it seems to me there are events for almost every personal taste, what I would call different "branches" of the hobby that are amed at attracting different participants.

Just trying to understand where you're coming from, metaphorically, and how the things you're suggesting would fit in with or differ from what's already being done.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Army30th

08-03-2008, 10:00 PM

Maybe I've not been attending the "right events", either...but in my 18 years of reenacting, I've never seen a female soldier who looked like this:

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/images/roswak.gif

Private Lyons Wakeman, 153rd NYSV (Sarah Rosetta Wakeman), deceased 1863

Chalmette National Cemetary
St. Bernard Parish
Louisiana, USA
Plot: #4066 Section 52

I personally don't care if women are in the ranks or not, but if you are, you should look like a man, act like a man, and for pete's sake talk like a man, or at the very least a young man.

I think it's been said before that approximately 400-500 women served in the armies during the war. Out of lets say over 3,000,000 combantants, that's a very SMALL minority.

Rob Weaver

08-03-2008, 10:27 PM

As I arrived at the Gettysburg event a couple years ago I saw a young corporal lounging by the fire . I thought to myself, My, rank comes quickly in that unit for a teenager to be sporting stripes." Sometime Sunday morning, it occured to me that that young man was, in fact, a young woman. during this time, her company was next in line to my own, and the back of her dog tent was opposite mine. I never for all the world dreamed that that corporal was a woman. To this day, absolutely the best male impersonator I have ever met. At Gettysburg, mind you, make what you will of that.

Although I find this conversation interesting, it is one that the cyber-wheels of the hobby get stuck every few months or so. We are highly unlikely to solve the controversy to the satisfaction of all.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-03-2008, 11:48 PM

Hallo!

"We are highly unlikely to solve the controversy to the satisfaction of all."

What? Really? Naw! Omygosh! Cain't be! Say it ain't so!

I am bummed out. I think I will go to bed and sleep on it some more- and come back with the solution tomorrow morning.

G-night John-boy.

:) :)

CHS
Dr. Phil's Life Law #1 Mess

M E Wolf

08-03-2008, 11:58 PM

Dear Curt-Heinrich Schmidt and List Members;

Sir, I often find that when an individual mentions "Military Discipline" it is often assumed as being 'punishment' form of discipline.

However, my primary thoughts on "Military Discipline" is more of self control, training and becoming fluid enough as to second nature respond to the situation due to said 'training/disciplines.'

I often reflect on the rules needed most often sir, when engaged in a dangerous and or potentially dangerous sport, hobby and or art form; to include martial arts and or... re-enacting. Discipline equals practice and not fudging or making short cuts; as often these causes accidents; to which is often fatal. Discipline as well, to me--also means practicing the obedience of it.

This, sir is where the 'written' word can often be misunderstood as well as fit a situation of 'multiple' meanings; depending on the context of the use of the word 'discipline.'

For consideration sir, in the vein of the meaning of discipline to relate to training, learning the art of one's task, self control, etc.; I would think either "Hobby" and or "Hard core Historians;" would promote such. There must be some sort of etiquette, manners, behaviors and such--as to promote the esprit du corps.

And, historically more women than not; went throughout the military service without discovery and returned to civilian life. As mentioned, most just wanted to do the good. And for the modern female soldier; it is more difficult as there are few friendly avenues to partake in either hobby and or historical impressionist realms.

Sirs, I do wonder [out loud in text form]; if such incidents of such alleged attacks on women re-enactor soldiers in general; are caused by men's taking female participation as a personal attack; when none was intended and or, if insecurity is so much so; that the insecure men create the bigger fuss and bother; in which more secure men would barely ruffle their notice. Females could be just as hyper-sensitive and critical about men to whom fail to meet the basic requirements and or given special consideration due to their standing as 'men.' Yet, I see such female re-enacting soldiers, in general being most patient and long suffering as most gentlemen. I do not have all the answers however; "IF" sirs; men took to heart, that the soldier's creed in the 1860's era; in summary was --'it is not personal.' Perhaps men who are proned to taking things with 'thin skin' and or 'personally'; they would hopefully consider shifting the focus to the event and enjoy the moment; rather than being the 'self entitled vigilante and causing more drama, than the entire 'female soldier' issue.

Much to consider sirs.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

M E Wolf

08-04-2008, 12:07 AM

Dear Hank.Trent;

Sir, I do thank you for your response to my inquiry about 'Branches.'

When I was involved over 35 years ago, no computers or Internets existed; networking was limited.

My, how things have changed. :)

So, I do thank you greatly for being so informative sir.

Respectfully submitted,
M. E. Wolf

Rob Weaver

08-04-2008, 06:47 AM

Memphis

08-04-2008, 08:26 AM

Bill_Cross

08-04-2008, 10:13 AM

Ever notice how these "giant waste of time threads" get many times the posts and view of the majority of history based threads?
I heard a report on the radio about questions posed on list servers and forums, and it was observed how the "gassier" and more vague the question, the more likely it would receive lots of replies on lists and fora. The most specific questions (e.g., like our discussions about the specific details of history) got few or no responses.

Opinions are like posterior waste chutes: we all have one (some have more than one apparently). It's fun to go on at length about wimmin in the ranks when in most cases, our opinions mean nothing. Unless you're an event organizer or an authenticity inspector at one of the history-heavy events that check your kit for anachronisms, your opinion about cross-dressing is no more likely to have an impact on the hobby than your opinion about offshore drilling is going to lower gas prices.

M E Wolf

08-04-2008, 12:07 PM

Sirs,

Women in the ranks, which is in my personal opinion; one of those areas where it joins religion and politics. There will never be a solid closure on the controversy and or the discussion, as bias abounds sirs.

Yet sirs, the complaints in which women were overwhelming men in uniform in the ranks by ratio; may still be worthy of effort to address. If there is a drop in recruitment of men and or the noticed lack of interest in men, should not this be of focus; instead of the 'generalized' complaints against women in the ranks?

Perhaps this particular issue would be better as a fresh thread. Certainly sirs, the ratio of male to female is changing which seemingly is upsetting the applecart per se.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

flattop32355

08-04-2008, 04:10 PM

Ever notice how these "giant waste of time threads" get many times the posts and view of the majority of history based threads? Just an observation, and I fully realize what may be a waste of bandwidth for some may be the most crucial issue for others.

It may have more to do with the Historical threads having less room for opinion, where you need to be able to throw in your dollar's worth, than the "giant waste of time" threads, which only require a two cent contribution.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-04-2008, 04:39 PM

Hallo!

Adjusted for Inflation, of course.

:)

CHS
Half-Dime Mess

Army30th

08-04-2008, 07:31 PM

I don't know what events you are attending, but the ratio of men to women in uniform is not changing at least not in the CW scene. How many units made up entirely of women have you ever seen? And I'm not talking 5 or 6 dismounted "cavalryites" who "portray" infantry.

Put this shoe on the other foot: I don't see men clamoring in droves to put on corsets, hoops, and dresses to attend ladies "tea". And most certainly men drank tea.

Please understand that today's ideas of society and women's roles in that society are vastly different in ALL facets than that of the woman in the mid-nineteenth century. A woman in uniform in that era was an exception not the norm, and therefore should not be portrayed as such.

Yes, women were in the army in the 1860's. They didn't advertise that fact.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-04-2008, 08:44 PM

Hallo!

While I have some change left from my half-dime...

Last night as I got home about a half past ten
There was the woman I thought I knew
In the uniform of a man.
I kept my cool, I ain't no fool
Let me tell you what happened then
I packed my kit and I walked out
And I ain't going back again

CHORUS:

So take a letter Maria, address it to my wife
Say I won't be coming home, gonna get a new persona.
So take a letter Maria, address it to my wife
Send a copy to my old captain, gotta join a new unit.

You've been many things but most of all a good secretary to me
And it's times like this I feel you've always been close to me
Was I wrong to go to events to try to build a good persona
All research and no fun has just cost me a wife

CHORUS:

So take a letter Maria, address it to my wife
Say I won't be coming home, gonna get a new persona.
So take a letter Maria, address it to my wife
Send a copy to my old captain, gotta join a new unit.

When a woman doesn't look like a man it's hard to understand
That she would find more pleasure in events as a man
I never really noticed how manly you are to me
It just so happens I'm free tonight
Would you like to have some hardtack with me

CHORUS

So take a letter Maria, address it to my wife
Say I won't be coming home, gonna get a new persona.
So take a letter Maria, address it to my wife
Send a copy to my old captain, gotta join a new unit

Say good night, Gracie

CHS

davidf

08-04-2008, 11:37 PM

Well, let me put in my thoughts on this, since I have encountered this discussion so many times through my study of Civil War reenacting history.

First off, women in reenacting (reenacting in the modern sense, technically you could say veterans did their own reenacting after the war) has been around since the beginning, with the wives and sweethearts of NSSA shooters and other reenactors during the 50s and 60s hitching along. But the number of women who did this (if you put it in ratio with the number of guys who did reenacting) could not be compared to those of today. It seems that numbers of women reenacting in Civil War grew in the 80s, as did reenacting in general. But it doesn't seem like until the 90s that women reenacting soldiers didn't become a issue. In the late 80s, it seems like to at least a portion of the community, that the concept of having a women reenact as a soldier was a very alien idea. But then the incident with the one women not being allowed to reenact at Antietam (the name escapes me at the moment) occured in the early 90s. The 90s was full of discussion about this issue, especially on places like the Camp Chase Gazette, the place to talk about this stuff before forums on the internet. This discussion is just a continuation of this same discussion that you could probably say is 2 decades old by now. I have a feeling that this issue won't be solved, ever, as long as this hobby is unregulated by one national organization. Also, the debate won't ever end either because the issue pushes many personal buttons for people in this hobby (much of that has to do with why they are in the hobby). I think the best course of action was proposed earlier, there are so many different events these days, that you can probably find a event that fits your preference.

Pvt_Idaho

08-06-2008, 06:02 PM

RJSamp

08-06-2008, 07:35 PM

"I think the best course of action was proposed earlier, there are so many different events these days, that you can probably find a event that fits your preference."

Unless you are a woman portraying a soldier--in that case you'll find your event options fairly limited to the mainstream.

Having attended Outpost 2000, 2007....and having heard battle reports on a few other EBUFU events....don't really know how 'limited' the options to females portraying male soldiers really are.....of course you can always attend a farb fest...which opens up options a ton.

Pvt Schnapps

08-06-2008, 09:16 PM

Having attended Outpost 2000, 2007....and having heard battle reports on a few other EBUFU events....don't really know how 'limited' the options to females portraying male soldiers really are.....of course you can always attend a farb fest...which opens up options a ton.

Fact is, RJ, if a female doesn't care for farb fests, she has to negotiate a pretty wide range of discouragements. As long as they're not out and out bans, Private Idaho can overcome them. This is a soldier who has out-soldiered most self-proclaimed authentics. But there's a subset of events that are afraid to even give her a chance. And frankly, that stinks.

Pvt_Idaho

08-06-2008, 09:31 PM

A few events coming up in Virginia where women are banned from the ranks:

--Fisher's Hill
--the Preservation March near Upperville, VA

Women are not outright banned from After the Battle, Fredericksburg, VA, but are "highly discouraged."

If it's a "campaigner" event, more than likely it's off limits for a woman portraying a soldier.

hanktrent

08-06-2008, 10:07 PM

Women are not outright banned from After the Battle, Fredericksburg, VA, but are "highly discouraged."

So there's an opportunity. Are you going to that one?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Pvt_Idaho

08-06-2008, 11:09 PM

So I can drive two hours to an event only to be "discovered" and then told to go home???

hanktrent

08-07-2008, 08:42 AM

So I can drive two hours to an event only to be "discovered" and then told to go home???

Some thoughts...

1) I'm just laughing at the thought of a campaign event only two hours away. I wish I could find one that near to me! This year I'm travelling six to ten hours for every event.

2) Is that the actual stated rule, or are you just assuming? If it's the actual stated rule, I'd like to see a copy of what's actually said.

3) If you believe you can pass, and attending this kind of event is what you really want, and that's actually the stated rule concering discovery, is the small risk of discovery not worth the investment of a two-hour drive? I'm thinking of the investment over the last ten years that civilians have spent trying to change c/p/h military reenactors' attitudes from outright hostility to acceptance at campaign events. Sitting home and complaining didn't get the job done, when even the slimmest opportunities were offered.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Charles Weathers

08-07-2008, 11:28 AM

This is just an observation but is it just me or does it seem like events that ban women are in the north and not in the south? I have never had a problem around here. :confused:

hendrickms24

08-07-2008, 12:07 PM

This is just an observation but is it just me or does it seem like events that ban women are in the north and not in the south? I have never had a problem around here. :confused:

Huh? I think it has to do with the type of event not the region it’s located.
What type of events do you attend?

Pvt_Idaho

08-07-2008, 12:11 PM

The rules from the After the Battle Website

(http://www.stonewallbrigade.com/atb07_reg.htm)

"#3 Female Soldiers:

Because a historically very small proportion of Civil War soldiers were actually women, female soldiers are not encouraged in the ranks at this event. Female soldiers are allowed in the ranks at this event, but, if the true gender of a woman portraying a soldier is discovered and brought to the attention of a commissioned officer or non-commissioned officer, she will be treated in period fashion, meaning she will be immediately "discharged" and escorted from the boundaries of the event site. Persons so "discharged" shall not return to the military camp and shall cease presenting a military impression for the remainder of the event."

Originally women were banned from the event, but thanks to the input from reenactors and members of the CWPT who are hosting the event who are supportive of the possibility of having well disguised women in the ranks, and the willingness of the event organizers, the rule was changed to what it is now.

Yes, I am lucky being only two hours away from Fredericksburg. I am at home looking at a storm cloud looming over one Civil War battlefield right now. I am 15 minutes from 3 battlefields, 20 minutes from 4, 45 minutes from 6...

I'd be interested in finding out how you as a civilian made inroads into acceptance at campaign events. The civilian story is to my mind very under represented -- we tend to focus on the battles and not the aftermath--which leads me to ask are specially selected civilians going to be invited to After the Battle?

Pvt_Idaho

08-07-2008, 12:25 PM

Dear Charles,

The events I've been talking about are in Virginia -- I suppose that is "north" to some (-:

hanktrent

08-07-2008, 12:45 PM

This is just an observation but is it just me or does it seem like events that ban women are in the north and not in the south? I have never had a problem around here. :confused:

For what it's worth, the event mentioned somewhere upthread, where soldiers had to send in driver's licenses as proof they were male, took place in Tennessee. Like hendrickms24 said, I think it has more to do with the type of event.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Pvt Schnapps

08-07-2008, 01:21 PM

For what it's worth, the event mentioned somewhere upthread, where soldiers had to send in driver's licenses as proof they were male, took place in Tennessee. Like hendrickms24 said, I think it has more to do with the type of event.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I think that must have been post #122 from "Mint Julep." "Type" in this instance must mean paranoid.

I didn't catch where the event was, and I don't know who he (or she?) is, but I did think there was a certain irony in debating the role of women with someone who does not sign his (or her?) posts. :)

hanktrent

08-07-2008, 01:33 PM

I'd be interested in finding out how you as a civilian made inroads into acceptance at campaign events. The civilian story is to my mind very under represented -- we tend to focus on the battles and not the aftermath--which leads me to ask are specially selected civilians going to be invited to After the Battle?

Not that I know of. And I think that's one of the first things civilians had to realize. Since campaign/progressive events depict a specific segment of a larger world, on a specific small area of land, there may have been no civilians in that area, and therefore there are some events where they just don't fit, like there are some events where soldiers just don't fit. As far as I know, ATB is occurring too close to the firing and too soon after the battle for civilians to be part of what's being portrayed.

So when civilians set aside the mindset that every event ought to have a few refugees in tents or USSC workers or whatever, and instead focussed on how they could add to what was already scheduled to be depicted, organizers were more apt to work with them, and eventually choose sites and venues that could include documented civilian portrayals, because civilians added to the experience.

Also, there was a stereotype--true in many cases--that civilians were demanding of porta johns, coolers, drive-up access, and any number of amenities out of proportion to their contribution.

For a long time there was the typical addition of a few refugees carrying everything, crossing paths with the military on campaign, and though civilian contributions are more varied in addition to that now, I think it served its purpose to show that civilians didn't necessary need amenities and could rough it just like the military.

As civilian roles got more exciting, and military participants saw it wasn't just about tea parties to entertain significant others while the soldiers reenacted, men who normally portrayed soldiers also started trying civilian roles, and that increased interest further.

Fortunately, interest in civilian campaign-event reenacting is proportionately low, so there's generally room for anyone who wants to do it, while keeping a realistic ratio to the military. The roles are surprisingly unisex, as far as physical activity. I'm surprised more women who portray soldiers aren't interested, but I guess they have an attraction to military life that wouldn't be satisfied portraying a civilian, just like military life is barely of interest to me.

So what's the parallel to getting acceptance for female soldiers? I dunno. I could see some. First, of course, realizing that it's a role with a lot of prejudice against it, and not everyone will change their minds ever.

Step one: Proving one can pass. Which means taking the risk that you won't.

Step two: Being willing to take the consequences like a man (heh) if you don't, to show you're willing to play by the rules as they stand now, before asking them to be changed. It's not the end of the world. I've screwed up and been "killed" and had to leave an event early, and may spend part of a future event in handcuffs, but them's the breaks.

The real bottom line: making others regret if you are caught and discharged, because the event seemed more accurate and more fun for them, when you were portraying a male soldier. Easier said than done. But I think that'd be what would change everything.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Charles Weathers

08-07-2008, 02:03 PM

Huh? I think it has to do with the type of event not the region it’s located.
What type of events do you attend?

I attend living histories, laid back events, mainstream, progressive, and anything else my battery wishes to participate in. Some events are farby but support a great preservation cause, others are strict in authenticity.

It was only an observation from the comments made on this forum. I found it interesting. I have no problem staying away from events that don't want me (what kind of fun would that be for me!? :rolleyes: ). I have confidence that where I do go I will be accepted, be able to share my love of history, and have lots of fun. ;-) That is what is important, after all! :cool:

hanktrent

08-07-2008, 02:09 PM

I think that must have been post #122 from "Mint Julep." "Type" in this instance must mean paranoid.

I didn't catch where the event was, and I don't know who he (or she?) is, but I did think there was a certain irony in debating the role of women with someone who wasn't man enough to sign his (or her?) posts. :)

The event was TAG, The Advance Guard, in 2003(?) or thereabouts. I can't remember if it was actually near Clarksville TN or if we were portraying the area near Clarksville--it was "set" a few counties away from its modern location. I attended as a civilian coming through the area looking for work.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Pvt Schnapps

08-07-2008, 02:20 PM

The event was TAG, The Advance Guard, in 2003(?) or thereabouts. I can't remember if it was actually near Clarksville TN or if we were portraying the area near Clarksville--it was "set" a few counties away from its modern location. I attended as a civilian coming through the area looking for work.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Was it that TAG that was "TICed" by "War on the James"?

Not that it matters, really. I have fond memories of the civilian interactions at WOTJ. It was almost too much of a good thing, but not quite, and totally sold me on the value of having civilians integral to a military event.

It also broke some new ground clerking and, from what I recall, had a very good bugler.

And for the record, I did NOT shoot MY prisoner. :)

Jim Dedman

08-07-2008, 03:14 PM

Charles Weathers

08-07-2008, 03:50 PM

As a side note...
The Olympics examines all female participants to make sure that woman are actually entering women's events. I heard on the radio that so far 5 Olympians have been thrown out! :shock:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jul/30/olympicgames2008.gender

hanktrent

08-07-2008, 04:02 PM

Was it that TAG that was "TICed" by "War on the James"?

Not that it matters, really. I have fond memories of the civilian interactions at WOTJ. It was almost too much of a good thing, but not quite, and totally sold me on the value of having civilians integral to a military event.

It also broke some new ground clerking and, from what I recall, had a very good bugler.

And for the record, I did NOT shoot MY prisoner. :)

Yep. What year was that? I went to both, both equal distant from me, a week apart. I only survived or avoided prison because nobody made me take off my boots, where I hid the letter that showed I was a home guard captain when I was captured, rather than an innocent horse trader.

What's funny is that I forgot to take the letter out, so I also accidentally went through TAG the next weekend with an old, sweaty, virtually illegible letter in my boot showing I was a member of the Henrico Co. Virginia home guard, in... um... Tennessee? :rolleyes:

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Pvt Schnapps

08-07-2008, 04:23 PM

Yep. What year was that? I went to both, both equal distant from me, a week apart. I only survived or avoided prison because nobody made me take off my boots, where I hid the letter that showed I was a home guard captain when I was captured, rather than an innocent horse trader.

What's funny is that I forgot to take the letter out, so I also accidentally went through TAG the next weekend with an old, sweaty, virtually illegible letter in my boot showing I was a member of the Henrico Co. Virginia home guard, in... um... Tennessee? :rolleyes:

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I think it was in fact 2003. Not to digress too far, but I took firper very seriously for that event. We were the 10th CT out of Hartford, so I was a former Aetna clerk who lost his job when all the slave policies were cancelled. I got to talk to Fran Kiger while I was guarding him about premiums and pay-outs (I think it was like $18 dollars for a 12 month policy paying $600) and a recurring nightmare I had -- something about calculating my personal actuarial table and never getting my life expectancy to go further than the following day. It seemed somehow appropriate for operations on the Darbytown Road.

M E Wolf

08-07-2008, 07:56 PM

Dear Charles Weathers/Natasha McCallister and Sirs,

There have been tests given to insure women were participating in female events. It would be interesting to go back in time to find out how many were not 'really' women participating in events past--before all the modern testing. :)

That said, sirs -- I wonder where the Vivandieres and or Daughter of the Regiment fit into things? There are 'alleged' to have participated in drills, manual of arms and the like however, never did go to the front. They stayed back and stayed in an 'alleged' supportive role, e.g. nurse, administrative, ambulance drivers, etc.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

Ross L. Lamoreaux

08-07-2008, 08:29 PM

Vivendieres and other women of the regiment, aside from laundresses in a garrison setting, are among the grouping of impressions that just didn't last past the first few months of a regiment's existance. By virtue of researching the Official Records, journals and diaries, and other first person accounts, you just don't see much mention that the women stayed with the army. You do however read much about getting the woman out of the camps, with the exception of some officer wives in winter garrisons. Vivendieres and the like were one of those deals where the high patriotism of the beginning of conflict created a stir for the women to participate and gather laurels, but as the horrors of war escalated, the sensibilities of the command staffs made sure to send the women out of danger and out of the camps. There are of course the stories of celebrated celebrities like "French" Mary and the like, but once again like female soldiers, reality is they were few and far in between.

Jim of the SRR

08-07-2008, 09:11 PM

Would someone tell my how you really know the re-enactor in question is a woman?

Suppose you accuse someone of being a woman and he/she insists they are not. Exactly what are you going to do?

If you are handling the matter in 19th Century fashion, the soldier is arrested and examined by a surgeon. Do any re-enactors portraying surgeons wish to attempt to examine an unwilling person to establish their sex?

What do you do if they refuse to provide 21st century id (like a driver's license) because they are doing "first person?"

My conclusion is, if a person says they are a male soldier, leave it at that despite what your eyes tell you.

We had this happen at an event (Perryville 2006 with the AOP). The reenactor was asked to report to the surgeon and asked to prove they were a man. No one forced them to strip, but if they did not then they had to leave. Of course, she chose to leave. This was a period moment for the female reenactor and those that witnessed her leaving under guard (the surgeons meeting was private). The battalion always reserves the right to ask people to leave. Denying what your eyes tell you is just plain ridiculous!

Jim Butler

tompritchett

08-08-2008, 12:25 AM

but I did think there was a certain irony in debating the role of women with someone who does not sign his (or her?) posts.

As a moderator I would like to point out that this forum does not require anyone to sign their post, we merely encourage it. Therefore, it is extremely out of line on your part to say anything derogatory about any member of this forum that choses not to sign his or her post.

I should also add that Mint Julep has returned from a long absence from the forum and before he left, he routinely signed his name to his posts. Those of us you were active on the forum when he was last posting do know his name and, by posting his picture as his avatar, he is definitely not trying to hide behind a blanket of anominity.

Memphis

08-08-2008, 07:39 AM

Hard to believe anyone wouldn't instantly recognize Mint Julep as one of Mother Hudson's own. Here is to that great wedding toast of all wedding toasts, too!

Back to our regularly scheduling PMSing.... ;)

RJSamp

08-08-2008, 09:47 AM

We had this happen at an event (Perryville 2006 with the AOP). The reenactor was asked to report to the surgeon and asked to prove they were a man. No one forced them to strip, but if they did not then they had to leave. Of course, she chose to leave. This was a period moment for the female reenactor and those that witnessed her leaving under guard (the surgeons meeting was private). The battalion always reserves the right to ask people to leave. Denying what your eyes tell you is just plain ridiculous!

Jim Butler

The issue here is the unfair application of standardS. Half of the AOP at Perryville 2006 didn't have WAIST LINES, and couldn't have marched to Perryville as they did. So much for support arms on the vertical.

They didn't look like soldier's, couldn't fulfill the responsibilities or roles, and would have been straggling halfway to Louisville and nowhere near the event site/battlefield. A double and hypocritical standard.

Denying what your eyes tell you is just plain ridiculous!

INDEED.

Ross L. Lamoreaux

08-08-2008, 09:55 AM

The issue here is the unfair application of standardS. Half of the AOP at Perryville 2006 didn't have WAIST LINES, and couldn't have marched to Perryville as they did. So much for support arms on the vertical.

They didn't look like soldier's, couldn't fulfill the responsibilities or roles, and would have been straggling halfway to Louisville and nowhere near the event site/battlefield. A double and hypocritical standard.

Denying what your eyes tell you is just plain ridiculous!

INDEED.
Are you the pot or the kettle? The experience with the AoP was so vastly better than anything else offered there that its a waste of keyboard time to try to even dispel your false accusations

hendrickms24

08-08-2008, 10:36 AM

We had this happen at an event (Perryville 2006 with the AOP). The reenactor was asked to report to the surgeon and asked to prove they were a man. No one forced them to strip, but if they did not then they had to leave. Of course, she chose to leave. This was a period moment for the female reenactor and those that witnessed her leaving under guard (the surgeons meeting was private). The battalion always reserves the right to ask people to leave. Denying what your eyes tell you is just plain ridiculous!

Jim Butler

Did you give that person the event fee back? If you would have told me to strip in front of anyone to prove that I was not circumcised! I would have told you to go "F" yourself. I could understanding if the person impression is very bad (like green hair, a different service branches uniform, est. est.) and your requirements stated that the quality of goods had to be a this level. How many people at that event had hair down to their a$$ and other crap that was not period? Some of the best impression I have seen have been done by two females and the one that was a musican has left the hobbie.

Micah Trent

08-08-2008, 11:01 AM

I was at that Perryville event and don't recall a lady being marched out of camp, though if Jim said it did, I take what he said to be true.
If she did not meet that groups standards, which they had set for themeselves, then in my opinion, she did not need to be in camp and the officers did the right "authentic" thing, they got her out of camp.
I am sure they didn't make her leave the event. Most likely she fell in with another unit on the field. All Jim and the boys did was march her out of "their" camp.

Pvt Schnapps

08-08-2008, 02:05 PM

As a moderator I would like to point out that this forum does not require anyone to sign their post, we merely encourage it. Therefore, it is extremely out of line on your part to say anything derogatory about any member of this forum that choses not to sign his or her post.

I should also add that Mint Julep has returned from a long absence from the forum and before he left, he routinely signed his name to his posts. Those of us you were active on the forum when he was last posting do know his name and, by posting his picture as his avatar, he is definitely not trying to hide behind a blanket of anominity.

Tom, if "Mint Julep" -- whoever he or she is -- wants to stand by their posts and their attitude, s/he is free to do that. If s/he doesn't want to, I reserve the right to draw a reasonable conclusion. I don't really care who s/he used to be, though it sounds like s/he used to be a better person, at least as far as standing behind his or her words. Unfortunately, I have only the current statements to go, and no reason to assume his or her avatar is any more real than Sergeant Pepper's.

Perhaps I have misjudged this individual, but everyone who refuses to sign their posts has to understand that as an inevitable consequence. It's rather like speaking in public with a mask on.

Pvt Schnapps

08-08-2008, 02:20 PM

Are you the pot or the kettle? The experience with the AoP was so vastly better than anything else offered there that its a waste of keyboard time to try to even dispel your false accusations

I'm sure RJ was exaggerating -- I've heard a lot of great things about the AOP -- but I doubt he was exaggerating much and the point about demographics is a good one.

The average attendee at so-called "authentic" or "better" events is about 2-3 inches taller, 15 years older, and 40 pounds heavier than the average civil war soldier. Bell Ivin Wiley examined the descriptive information for 11,000 Confederate soldiers and came up with about 4% in their forties, with a negligible amount older than that, but if we eliminated that category from our events, we would lose half our attendees.

I'm not saying we should, or that we shouldn't have any standards at all -- I'm just arguing for a little more tolerance than some folks are willing to show.

I probably said this earlier in this same thread, but I'd like to see all the standards replaced by a handful of very simple criteria. Say, you can't set up camp the first night with anything you can't carry in one trip from the parking lot, and the second night's camp will be five miles away with no shuttle service.

If a woman can do that, she's welcome to play with any guy who'll do the same.

tompritchett

08-08-2008, 02:53 PM

If s/he doesn't want to, I reserve the right to draw a reasonable conclusion.

You have the right to draw whatever conclusion you like. However, you do not necessarily have the right to publicly voice that opinion here on the forum if that opinion involves name calling or insulting insinuations. In other words, one has the perfect right to draw the conclusion that another member is a utter *ss who lacks the ability to form a coherent thought even if his life depended on it, but one does not have the right here to publicly state that opinion about that person as doing such would be against forum guidelines. It is that cut and dried.

Remember, you also have the option to do as Bill Rodman does and just not respond to any unsigned post.

BTW, Mint Julep is indeed a he.

RJSamp

08-08-2008, 03:27 PM

Are you the pot or the kettle? The experience with the AoP was so vastly better than anything else offered there that its a waste of keyboard time to try to even dispel your false accusations

I'm both. Was just at AHT, Outpost 2007, Mill Springs, et al.....if you think the majority of our boys can march 10 - 25 miles per day and are skinny and athletic enough to pass as male ACW soldiers you've got the blinders on indeed... Wasn't at BGR, but 5 miles a day was almost beyond their capabilities. Have been at ALL NSA events since 1999. I am positive that the AOP experience at Perryville 2006 was Top Drawer. But to think that marching a 'mile' back and forth to the remote camp was 'campaigning' it....or that attending entertainment (and they were superb!) after a battle was authentic.....or that many of us were/are overweight overage overdrilled male reenactors (many of the Federals at Perryville were, after all, newly formed regiments! Heck most of the AOP's uniforms/hats had too much wear in them!) looked like ACW soldier's is laughable.

It's one thing to say that someone doesn't look like a soldier and kick them out of an event.....and quite another to say well they don't really look like soldiers but they are male so we'll let them in.

who looks more like a soldier, a male with a ponytail or a female with a ponytail? Who looks more like a soldier, a skinny female or a fat male?

We don't need keyboard conversations, we need to look at 44 man TIC brigades, inability to march, clothes that are worn more than the impression calls for, mismatched rifles in a company, lack of horses, et al

The emperor is naked, and I'm not afraid to say so. It's a double standard. It's hypocritical. and asking for driver's licenses at a CPH EBUFU event to prove gender is farb.

thpritchett

08-08-2008, 03:35 PM

I'm sure RJ was exaggerating -- I've heard a lot of great things about the AOP -- but I doubt he was exaggerating much and the point about demographics is a good one.

The average attendee at so-called "authentic" or "better" events is about 2-3 inches taller, 15 years older, and 40 pounds heavier than the average civil war soldier. Bell Ivin Wiley examined the descriptive information for 11,000 Confederate soldiers and came up with about 4% in their forties, with a negligible amount older than that, but if we eliminated that category from our events, we would lose half our attendees.

This hobby is full of compromises - I think we can all agree on that. The old adage we always hear it that what is important is "attitude" and that the reenactor is doing their best to be as authentic as possible in attitude, knowledge and kit. That is why even the best events let in males with slightly substandard kits (e.g., the cartridge and cap boxes may be sutler row but the rest of the uniform passes) or definitely outside the typical age and weight ranges. It is because of "their attitude". If a female is indeed doing her best to hide her sex (i.e., is showing the proper "attitude") and can perform as well, if not better, than some of the "acceptable" males, what is the difference in the compromises - besides of course "she's a girl" (to more I hear it, the more it reminds me of a bunch of 4rth grade boys whining about the tomboy who wants to join them in their game). Frankly one of the better 2nd SGT's I have served under was a female. She did her best to hide her sex, her kit was on, she knew her stuff, her impression in terms of height weight, and apparent age was more historically correct than the majority of the battalion, and, most importantly, she had the "right attitude". But she would never be accepted at many events where someone with a less perfect kit, lesser knowledge and definitely a less historically accurate height, weight and apparent age impression could walk in totally unchallenged. Are we indeed serious about "attitude" in this hobby or are we just being like those 4rth grade boys who are afraid of the tomboy who wants to join their game?

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-08-2008, 03:59 PM

Hallo!

"The emperor is naked, and I'm not afraid to say so. It's a double standard. It's hypocritical. and asking for driver's licenses at a CPH EBUFU event to prove gender is farb."

Agreed, IMHO.

But I believe the one side of the coin is a misplaced but somewhat understandable deasire to avoid having to actually inspect and make a decision, to someone's face, at the gate, regarding whether the female's impression of a male soldier meets a standard that like other standards is not mutually agreed upon.
Meaning, IF the NUG/PEC "Historical 'Standard'" was set to the bar of the female having to meet the standard or concept of being able to "pass undetected as a male (whatever that means)- it should/would not matter.

The cross some segments of the CW Community bears is that there is a Double Standard entrenched and at work:

1. Females impersonating males have a harder row to hoe just as their CW counterparts did in history. Moreso than the TWBG who already has the secret hand-shake by simply being a male whether 24 years old, 5' 8," or 140 pounds or not. But,

2. "If two wrongs don't make a right, three do!" often becomes the rallying cry for women to go "undisguised" and play as obvious females in male clothing under the argument that if Joe TWBG (No offense intended or offered to Joe TWBG, I am sure he is a great guy, and reenactor, but his name gets overly used...) is wrong on age, size, and weight; they can be as "wrong" on undisguised, visual gender.

IMHO, yes, it is a Double Standard that crosses the Hypocrisy Line.
To which lads counter "Yeah but, even Joe TWBG is a male as where the vast majority of CW soldiers, some few of which actually approaching being Joe TWBG.

King Solomon threatened to cut the baby in half and give each half to each of the claimants. "We" seem to do that for "ourselves" using the sword of history, and the axe of hypocrisy, and our ability to pursue our personal Mental Pictures in taking our half of the baby to events that best serve those varying Mental Pictures that work for us.

Others' mileage will vary...

CHS

Memphis

08-08-2008, 05:10 PM

Perhaps the final arbiter in the Battle of the Mental Pictures & Blank Screens could be that often ignored factor known as history instead of the bra burning urge to bring the considerable efforts of others down to their own liberally interpreted comfort zone. Is the trend of injecting modern politics (what this agenda is really all about) going to develop into a reenactor road show that visits each and every event regardless of quality, or just those the crusaders wish to tear down? History is trampled in the wake of this battle cry for every event to include at least one female posing as a male.

Before the usual vitriol flows, let us pause for a few long moments to consider just how many groups who produce campaign, progressive, and hardcore affairs no longer publicly advertise their events, and even go to the effort of demanding their events remained unmentioned online until they are over, if then. Could this be one of the reasons so many events have gone well beyond by invitation only to invisible and/or underground? A reenactor and/or living historian can have a full and incredibly satisfying season without attending a single, solitary, publicly advertised event, or suffer needless intrusions from those with a modern, liberal, in your face, political agenda. You may as well claim to completely solve the long term petroleum crisis only by inflating a few tires.

The answer to the above quandry remains elusive to some, but to turn the tree house or club house analogy around to a far more productive use: "If you stay at home, sit on the couch, and cry about the boys not letting you in their alleged tree house, then how do you know whether they will let you in or not, if you don't actually try?" Does that mental picture jibe with reality? You can't get on the team if you don't try out.

Gee, aren't these time wasting threads so much fun? :lol:

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-08-2008, 06:12 PM

Hallo!

"And the operator says "40 cents more for the next 3 minutes"

-Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show

Lads, Lassies, and Life Forms in between, Please deposit coins in the slot, and continue to post.

CHS

flattop32355

08-08-2008, 07:27 PM

Before the usual vitriol flows, let us pause for a few long moments to consider just how many groups who produce campaign, progressive, and hardcore affairs no longer publicly advertise their events, and even go to the effort of demanding their events remained unmentioned online until they are over, if then.

No vitriol, but a question and observation:

Such events are news to me, as I'm apparently not in that cph loop of clandestine events. Care to enlighten us unwashed folk with the names of these events? I can't recall seeing the AAR's for them.

Gee, aren't these time wasting threads so much fun? :lol:

That must explain why you tend to spend so much time posting on them. You could ignore them, but then....

Are you sure you're not Chawls Heef in drag?

Rob Weaver

08-08-2008, 11:05 PM

Perhaps what we need is to request that events post minimum stadard guidelines for women in the ranks. Gear and equipment, obivously, must conform to what is expected of males in the ranks. Deliberately addressing some of the most blatant of offenses (make-up, hair do, nail polish, in exempla) would define the stereotypical "galtroop" who, although she's a bit of a straw woman, is the one we really cringe at seeing in the ranks. I don't think such guidance would be any more offensive than reminding male reenactors that piercings and [;ugs ion your earlobes aren't period or correct either.

Why is is that this song keeps playing in my head when I read this thread? "Johnny's daddy, was takin' him fishin, when he was eight years old..."

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-08-2008, 11:31 PM

How d' ye!

I agree on published (and enforced) standards, in advance, to try to get everyone nearer to the same page... But as we all know and come to experience, there are standards and then there are enforced standards and then there are standards....

I think it is a Jedi Mind Trick... I am stuck with "Lola" playing in my head. Make it stop, make it stop...

I met her in a club down in old Soho
where you drink champagne and it tastes just like Cherry Cola
C-O-L-A Cola.
She walked up to me and she asked me to dance.
I asked her her name and in a dark brown voice she said, "Lola"
L-O-L-A Lola, lo lo lo Lola
Well, I'm not the world's most physical guy,
but when she squeesed me tight she nearly broke my spine
Oh my Lola, lo lo lo Lola, lo lo lo Lola
Well, I'm not dumb but I can't understand
why she walks like a woman and talks like a man
Oh my Lola, lo lo lo Lola, lo lo lo Lola

Arrrrggggggg.gg.....ggg..

CHS

TheQM

08-09-2008, 12:40 AM

Before the usual vitriol flows, let us pause for a few long moments to consider just how many groups who produce campaign, progressive, and hardcore affairs no longer publicly advertise their events, and even go to the effort of demanding their events remained unmentioned online until they are over, if then. Could this be one of the reasons so many events have gone well beyond by invitation only to invisible and/or underground? A reenactor and/or living historian can have a full and incredibly satisfying season without attending a single, solitary, publicly advertised event.

Rodger,

I guess this is why we've never met? Like Bernie, I've never attended an invisible event.

Rob Weaver

08-09-2008, 06:27 AM

How d' ye!

I agree on published (and enforced) standards, in advance, to try to get everyone nearer to the same page... But as we all know and come to experience, there are standards and then there are enforced standards and then there are standards....

I think it is a Jedi Mind Trick... I am stuck with "Lola" playing in my head. Make it stop, make it stop...

Well, that's true. Really, those kind of standards need to be in place for the unit, too. Which, unfortunately, is another palce where the will to enforce is not present.

If it's a Jedi mind trick, it would be:
"I met him in a swamp down in Dagobah
where it bubbles all the time
like a giant carbonated soda,
S O D A, soda.

I saw the little runt/wimp sitting there on a log.
I asked him his name
and in a raspy voice he said Yoda,
Y O D A, Yoda,
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda."

yerbyray

08-09-2008, 09:19 AM

Are the rules really ever enforced?

Granted I attend mostly mainstream events and I always get a kick out of remembering the rules vs what I am observing.

Dogs in camp, guys carrying sheath knives that would make Crocodile Dundee blush, the infamous "six wing blinders" CCI caps, Cigarettes, obvious female soldiers dressed like males who could at any minute audition for a "Girls Gone Civil War DVD" walking dogs while carrying a package of CCI caps and smoking a cigarette, and my all time favorite.....218 grain FFF,because thats the most you can cram into the tube, ear splitting, tree branch rattling, and now shoe leather penetrating, overloaded cartridges.

It starts with individual unit commanders. They need to enforce their own rules as well as the event rules. Accountability at all levels.

Could umbrella orgainzations step in and enforce some of the standards that pertain to safety that are violated with the threat of denying insurance by revoking umbrella membership? This would only owrk if events required units to have insurance though.

It is my opinion that if an event were to expell someone for less than the most grave offenses it would just create turmoil and ultimately discredit the event.

I think this hobby should be for anyone who is interested. I do not think we ought to deny anyone the priviledge of reenacting but they need to follow the rules.

thpritchett

08-09-2008, 02:31 PM

Like Bernie, I've never attended an invisible event.

Considering how cliquish such an event must be, would you even want to?

flattop32355

08-09-2008, 03:28 PM

Are the rules really ever enforced?

Yes, they are.

Much has to do with the people putting on the event, and the goals they wish to met for the attending reenactors.

Much has to do with the reenactors who attend, and their willingness to accept those rules for the benefit of all.

Could umbrella orgainzations step in and enforce some of the standards that pertain to safety that are violated with the threat of denying insurance by revoking umbrella membership? This would only work if events required units to have insurance though.

The conumdrum for umbrella groups is that if they get too strict, they lose member units, which in turn can destroy the umbrella group. That's why they set minimum, rather than moderate or maximum standards.

Sometimes, to achieve certain commonly desired goals, it requires letting other, "lesser" desires and goals to slide; not necessarily breaking the rules, but bending them to near 90 degrees, at need. It's not ideal, but it can be beneficial. The words most associated are "compromise" and "tolerance".

There are those in the hobby who recognize neither of those words in their Reenactor Dictionary. That is their priviledge. Others are willing to give in order to gain something of what they seek. Both lose and gain something in their viewpoints and practices, whether they realize it or not.

To me, the best standard is to only go to events where I can meet my standards (which admittedly can vary), and to be willing to, at least, comply with whatever standards the event calls for.

Jim of the SRR

08-09-2008, 04:52 PM

Did you give that person the event fee back? If you would have told me to strip in front of anyone to prove that I was not circumcised! I would have told you to go "F" yourself. I could understanding if the person impression is very bad (like green hair, a different service branches uniform, est. est.) and your requirements stated that the quality of goods had to be a this level. How many people at that event had hair down to their a$$ and other crap that was not period? Some of the best impression I have seen have been done by two females and the one that was a musican has left the hobbie.

Actually, all the men in the battalion met the prescribed guidelines for the event and the battalion. No one had hair down to their a$$ or other "crap" that you speak of. If the female can pull it off all weekend without being discovered then that is great. Being part of the battalion is voluntary and you are not forced to attend if you don't wish to meet the guidleines. Clearly you are happy with your hobby and I am happy with mine (you are okay with hair down to the arse, women in the ranks and other things you tolerate...I personal am not, and that is okay).
In regards to expanding/large waistlines, yes they have been in and out of battalions I have been part of. BUT, for the most part people who are way out of shape will not be abel to keep pace with us. I am not saying we are as tough as the real soldiers or Olympic athletes, but our activity does require some minimum/moderate level of fitness. So, that excuse won't fly with our group.

Jim Butler

Jim of the SRR

08-09-2008, 05:07 PM

I'm sure RJ was exaggerating -- I've heard a lot of great things about the AOP -- but I doubt he was exaggerating much and the point about demographics is a good one.

The average attendee at so-called "authentic" or "better" events is about 2-3 inches taller, 15 years older, and 40 pounds heavier than the average civil war soldier. Bell Ivin Wiley examined the descriptive information for 11,000 Confederate soldiers and came up with about 4% in their forties, with a negligible amount older than that, but if we eliminated that category from our events, we would lose half our attendees.

I'm not saying we should, or that we shouldn't have any standards at all -- I'm just arguing for a little more tolerance than some folks are willing to show.

I probably said this earlier in this same thread, but I'd like to see all the standards replaced by a handful of very simple criteria. Say, you can't set up camp the first night with anything you can't carry in one trip from the parking lot, and the second night's camp will be five miles away with no shuttle service.

If a woman can do that, she's welcome to play with any guy who'll do the same.

Actually, the c/p/h side of the hobby has grown and progressed far beyond the AOP. The AOP does not really exist any longer as it did in its full flory several years ago. The great thing that the AOP did do, is it gave c/p/h reenactors a battalion structure and home. This gave the member groups the experience, knowledge and confidence to go forth and organize events, form progressive groups/messes/companies and they grew past the AOP. This knowledge and progression spread and evolved.
In regards to tolerance, I am all for "Compromise" events. I don't call them adjuncts as they require all the reenactors to meet a new higher, mainstream standard. At High Tide was a great example of this. I know that some c/p/h folks will villify me for sacrificng purist expectations and standards to support that type of event. At the same time, there are farbs who will villify the AHT organizers for enforcing a minimum standard. But, honestly I enjoyde the event and would like to see more of these type of "compromise" efforts. I think this is a venue for 'tolerance'.
The issue of women in the ranks seems to go even deeper than c/p/h vs. mainstream. I know mainstream groups who may begrudgingly allow it, but much of the rank and file men are pissed about it. I question the motives of women who want to portray men in the ranks. For example, my wife has a bunco night with the ladies in the neighborhood. Men don't attend or force their way into it because men are NOT wanted at this affair. In camp, in the ranks, at a poker game, etc, men need some bonding time (just as women need their bonding time). Women being around is cold water. Yes, maybe they can tolerate the rough language or campfire jokes, but most men aren't raised to be that way when a women is around. So, the men quietly may act like they accept it, but many are not happy about it. It goes beyond the quality of her kit or how far she can march. It is about social dynamics.

Jim Butler

Pvt Schnapps

08-09-2008, 10:34 PM

Actually, the c/p/h side of the hobby has grown and progressed far beyond the AOP. The AOP does not really exist any longer as it did in its full flory several years ago. The great thing that the AOP did do, is it gave c/p/h reenactors a battalion structure and home. This gave the member groups the experience, knowledge and confidence to go forth and organize events, form progressive groups/messes/companies and they grew past the AOP. This knowledge and progression spread and evolved.
In regards to tolerance, I am all for "Compromise" events. I don't call them adjuncts as they require all the reenactors to meet a new higher, mainstream standard. At High Tide was a great example of this. I know that some c/p/h folks will villify me for sacrificng purist expectations and standards to support that type of event. At the same time, there are farbs who will villify the AHT organizers for enforcing a minimum standard. But, honestly I enjoyde the event and would like to see more of these type of "compromise" efforts. I think this is a venue for 'tolerance'.
The issue of women in the ranks seems to go even deeper than c/p/h vs. mainstream. I know mainstream groups who may begrudgingly allow it, but much of the rank and file men are pissed about it. I question the motives of women who want to portray men in the ranks. For example, my wife has a bunco night with the ladies in the neighborhood. Men don't attend or force their way into it because men are NOT wanted at this affair. In camp, in the ranks, at a poker game, etc, men need some bonding time (just as women need their bonding time). Women being around is cold water. Yes, maybe they can tolerate the rough language or campfire jokes, but most men aren't raised to be that way when a women is around. So, the men quietly may act like they accept it, but many are not happy about it. It goes beyond the quality of her kit or how far she can march. It is about social dynamics.

Jim Butler

Not history, but "social dynamics"?

Give me a freakin' break...

Pvt_Idaho

08-09-2008, 10:56 PM

Jim,

Glad you enjoyed AHT -- I did as well -- reenacting the Wheatfield as part of the Irish Brigade was one of the highlight moments of my year.

I reenact as an infantry soldier because that's what 25 of my relatives did for real. I love history. I learn best by doing and experiencing in whatever distant way something of what these fellows did. I love firing my rifle as part of a drilled team with my pards. I like being one of the boys, playing cards and -- gasp-- swearing in their company. Social misfit that I am.

bulletsponge

08-09-2008, 11:01 PM

... I question the motives of women who want to portray men in the ranks. For example, my wife has a bunco night with the ladies in the neighborhood. Men don't attend or force their way into it because men are NOT wanted at this affair.
Bunco? Is that like when knitting gets AFU?

TheQM

08-09-2008, 11:12 PM

Not history, but "social dynamics"?

Give me a freakin' break...

IMHO, Jim Butler hit the nail right on the head. When it comes to those few women who've gone to the trouble to develop a good impression, a lot the "boys" just don't want them around. And frankly, I understand. When I know there's a women in the ranks, suddenly I'm concerned about where I'm going to take a leak and what words come out of my mouth. Perhaps I shouldn't feel that way, but I am a product of my upbringing.

Spinster

08-09-2008, 11:33 PM

Bunco? Is that like when knitting gets AFU?

No honey, that would be these folks and their related social networking
http://www.knithappens.com/content/view/13/31/

The Bunco crowd is here, and attracts a different demographic
http://www.bunco.com/

While neither of these groups are exclusively female, they are certainly predominately female and men are NOT the norm. (Knitting men are becoming a separate social phenomenon, primarly in the mathematics community)

Knows where the parties are located in all time periods,

bulletsponge

08-09-2008, 11:39 PM

Actually, all the men in the battalion met the prescribed guidelines for the event and the battalion. No one had hair down to their a$$ or other "crap" that you speak of. If the female can pull it off all weekend without being discovered then that is great. Being part of the battalion is voluntary and you are not forced to attend if you don't wish to meet the guidleines. Clearly you are happy with your hobby and I am happy with mine (you are okay with hair down to the arse, women in the ranks and other things you tolerate...I personal am not, and that is okay).
In regards to expanding/large waistlines, yes they have been in and out of battalions I have been part of. BUT, for the most part people who are way out of shape will not be abel to keep pace with us. I am not saying we are as tough as the real soldiers or Olympic athletes, but our activity does require some minimum/moderate level of fitness. So, that excuse won't fly with our group.

Jim Butler

It didn't appear to me that Mark was "okay" with "hair down to the arse". Why do you insist on misquoting him? Do you really feel this improves your argument, or does it just improve your self-image?

bulletsponge

08-09-2008, 11:42 PM

No honey, that would be these folks and their related social networking
http://www.knithappens.com/content/view/13/31/

The Bunco crowd is here, and attracts a different demographic
http://www.bunco.com/

While neither of these groups are exclusively female, they are certainly predominately female and men are NOT the norm. (Knitting men are becoming a separate social phenomenon, primarly in the mathematics community)

Knows where the parties are located in all time periods,
Ladies playing dice! Truly, the tribulation has begun! :)

Ross L. Lamoreaux

08-10-2008, 12:29 AM

No honey, that would be these folks and their related social networking
http://www.knithappens.com/content/view/13/31/

The Bunco crowd is here, and attracts a different demographic
http://www.bunco.com/

While neither of these groups are exclusively female, they are certainly predominately female and men are NOT the norm. (Knitting men are becoming a separate social phenomenon, primarly in the mathematics community)

Knows where the parties are located in all time periods,
"Stitch and Bitch"!?!?!? Sounds like a typical party at my place -I'm usually doing both

thpritchett

08-10-2008, 12:33 AM

In camp, in the ranks, at a poker game, etc, men need some bonding time (just as women need their bonding time). Women being around is cold water. Yes, maybe they can tolerate the rough language or campfire jokes, but most men aren't raised to be that way when a women is around. So, the men quietly may act like they accept it, but many are not happy about it. It goes beyond the quality of her kit or how far she can march. It is about social dynamics.

While I will readily conceed this point, I also have seen how opening up camps to families has had the exact same effect. Having small impressionable children and their mothers around can have the same "cold water" effect.

However, returning to the woman in ranks, I have just one comment on this. If a woman wants to be offended by men being men, she must remember that she took upon herself to enter that arena and should never expect the men to clean up their acts because she is there. Historically, for her to be there, she would have been impersonating a male and her sex would have never been known. As an analogy, I am a cigar smoker. I would never light up my cigar in the middle of a crowd at an outdoor concert out of respect to others. But if I am just past the edge of the crowd and smoking a cigar, I will not put out that cigar for someone that comes up, sits close to me, and then complains. They made the choice to sit close to a cigar smoker and therefore they should have to live with the consequences rather than force their will on me.

Pvt_Idaho

08-10-2008, 12:44 AM

Ah, note to the boys of 195X. Welcome to 2008. Take a leak where ever you want. Do you really think anyone male or female with you in the ranks gives a rat's arse where you pee other than on your file partner, a pard or a spectator? THAT would be bad.

wilber6150

08-10-2008, 12:49 AM

For example, my wife has a bunco night with the ladies in the neighborhood. Men don't attend or force their way into it because men are NOT wanted at this affair. In camp, in the ranks, at a poker game, etc, men need some bonding time (just as women need their bonding time). Women being around is cold water. Yes, maybe they can tolerate the rough language or campfire jokes, but most men aren't raised to be that way when a women is around. So, the men quietly may act like they accept it, but many are not happy about it. It goes beyond the quality of her kit or how far she can march. It is about social dynamics.

Jim Butler

So one of your primary reasons for not wanting women in the ranks is that they interfere with your male bonding time? They wont let you play in their games so they cant play in in yours...OMG.. Now thats a legitimate excuse for keeping someone who loves history out of the ranks...:rolleyes: At least the reasoning is finally out in the open and explains a lot of the posts in this thread...

Spinster

08-10-2008, 12:55 AM

While I will readily conceed this point, I also have seen how opening up camps to families has had the exact same effect. Having small impressionable children and their mothers around can have the same "cold water" effect.

One wishes that was the case Mr. P.

I've noted a disturbing trend at events lately. First, the event is set up and publicized with a site map that says "soldiers only over there" and "civilians only over here". Then, some group or another pitches a hissy that they always camp as a "family camp".

At which point the organizers say okey-dokey, and plop all those family camping soldiers down in the designated civilian camp, where many of them proceed to behave like soliders on leave.

Some years ago, in writing after a national, Nicky Hughes noted that the truely separated civilian area behaved like civilians of the era--went to bed with the chickens, and got up with them too.

Would that we got the opportunity more often.

Ross L. Lamoreaux

08-10-2008, 03:04 AM

Pvt Schnapps

08-10-2008, 07:13 AM

IMHO, Jim Butler hit the nail right on the head. When it comes to those few women who've gone to the trouble to develop a good impression, a lot the "boys" just don't want them around. And frankly, I understand. When I know there's a women in the ranks, suddenly I'm concerned about where I'm going to take a leak and what words come out of my mouth. Perhaps I shouldn't feel that way, but I am a product of my upbringing.

I understand, guys, but this is the fourth or fifth time on this thread that the right to public urination has come up in the context of allowing women in the ranks. Do we realize how silly we sound when we talk as if the two were at all equivalent?

Talk about standards and authenticity! God forbid we should ever take authenticity to the extreme of having the police guard arrest those making a public nuisance. :)

Pvt_Idaho

08-10-2008, 08:41 AM

We are forgetting the primary reason against female soldiers - history itself.

Ah--hiding the boys club behind the sacred veil of history ploy.
But lest it gets forgotten--it's HISTORY. There WERE WOMEN in the ranks. And the real veterans regarded them with astonishment and awe. The veteran's wives, however, received them with less kindness. Like the carmudgions on this forum.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to put on my gear and march for a couple miles to preserve my boyish figure, work on an article and read about civilians in the Maryland Campaign and a selection from Wood's Dispensatory of the United States.

Have a good day.

wilber6150

08-10-2008, 08:42 AM

I don't believe he was saying that at all, he was saying there is a place for everyone, and there are some places that there should be no desire at all to be.

But that is exactly what he said; and there is nothing about whether its correct historically ;and also who has the right to determine how other people desire to relive history. If a woman can take a bunch of men sitting around a campfire eating beans simulating a scene from Blazing Saddles more power to her :)

In camp, in the ranks, at a poker game, etc, men need some bonding time (just as women need their bonding time). Women being around is cold water. Yes, maybe they can tolerate the rough language or campfire jokes, but most men aren't raised to be that way when a women is around. So, the men quietly may act like they accept it, but many are not happy about it. It goes beyond the quality of her kit or how far she can march. It is about social dynamics.

Jim Butler

Memphis

08-10-2008, 10:32 AM

I understand, guys, but this is the fourth or fifth time on this thread that the right to public urination has come up in the context of allowing women in the ranks.

Ever notice how old people go to the bathroom more often? Fits in with this thread so well.

I couldn't resist. ;)

Ross L. Lamoreaux

08-10-2008, 10:41 AM

Ms. Scanlon, of course you are correct, there were indeed women in the ranks in the Civil War. There are some wonderfully detailed research-based books on the topic, which I have read with interest. I have never espoused having absolutely no women in the ranks, just the percentage of such to reflect what the research of historians more learned than me have thought that it may be. Living history pursuits aren't a "boys club" for me, since I do not limit myself to just soldier portrayals, but as a citizen as well. I merely ask that women who choose their impression to be a martial one employ the same effort that those they choose to portray did to avoid detection. A post from several weeks ago on another thread explains my motivation about even commenting on the topic, as I recently attended an event that had almost 30 obvious female soldiers of all branches, and there was only 200 total military reenactors of both sides at this thing - having over 10% female soldier impressions. I found myself embarrased when I overheard several spectators say that they had no idea there were so many women allowed to fight in the Civil War, or worse yet, hear some of these women soldiers totally lie to the spectators about the subject - the best one by far was hearing a pony-tailed young lass discuss the "dozens of female Confederate Marines" who saw service in the war. Yes, history is sacred to me to a certain extent, but I surely don't hide behind that "veil".

hanktrent

08-10-2008, 11:18 AM

Ever notice how old people go to the bathroom more often? Fits in with this thread so well.

I couldn't resist. ;)

So that's why officers tell the men to keep drinking water when they're out in the field away from the porta johns. It's not for their health, it's a ploy to try to "out" the galtroops. :)

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Memphis

08-10-2008, 11:39 AM

So that's why officers tell the men to keep drinking water when they're out in the field away from the porta johns.

Could this then be the very reason why so many wartime soldier health pamphlets advised against drinking too much water? Oh, the humanity!

Good catch.

bulletsponge

08-10-2008, 12:14 PM

.. If a woman can take a bunch of men sitting around a campfire eating beans simulating a scene from Blazing Saddles more power to her :)
I subject my wife to at least two viewings of that scene whenever I watch that famed old ballad to political incorrectness. It's for educational purposes, of course...

thpritchett

08-10-2008, 12:16 PM

A post from several weeks ago on another thread explains my motivation about even commenting on the topic, as I recently attended an event that had almost 30 obvious female soldiers of all branches, and there was only 200 total military reenactors of both sides at this thing - having over 10% female soldier impressions. I found myself embarrased when I overheard several spectators say that they had no idea there were so many women allowed to fight in the Civil War, or worse yet, hear some of these women soldiers totally lie to the spectators about the subject - the best one by far was hearing a pony-tailed young lass discuss the "dozens of female Confederate Marines" who saw service in the war. Yes, history is sacred to me to a certain extent, but I surely don't hide behind that "veil".

While I can again agree about the accurate depiction of history to the public within limits, I find it most interesting that the most restrictive events for women, such as the one specifically mentioned earlier, are those for which there is usually no public. IMHO, the true issue here is the backlash that many of the more historically accurate crowd has had against the many female reenactors who in the past have made little or no effort to hide their sex. Consequently, many of us in the hobby have developed a knee jerk reaction of no women in ranks to avoid the issue of determining whether or not a female's impression is "good enough". In essence IMHO we have often thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Memphis

08-10-2008, 12:28 PM

Educating the public? The Hydra enters. (Not to be confused with hydration.)

When did "the public" become so much more important than interpreting history to each other? Like Ross Perot, I'm all ears.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-10-2008, 12:49 PM

Hallo!

Herr Roger...

In reviewing the History of the Hobby, and the Culture of Reenacting Reenacting over the past four decades...

IMHO, perhaps your question should rather be:

"When did interpreting history to each other become so much more important than interpreting history to the public?"

Meaning, folks have differing Mental Pictures, and IMHO it is a small minority of the "Hobby" that places the larger emphasis and effort on "themselves" moreso than the "spectating public." (With exceptions such as historical site interpretation,, etc., so noted...)

CHS

Jim of the SRR

08-10-2008, 12:53 PM

It didn't appear to me that Mark was "okay" with "hair down to the arse". Why do you insist on misquoting him? Do you really feel this improves your argument, or does it just improve your self-image?

I took it that his implication is that this is something he sees at events he attends and groups he has seen or associates with (unless his comment is just assumptions based on myths). I must assume he has seen this in the ranks somewhere and has come to accept it whether he likes it or not. He makes the assertion that I tolerate "hair down the the arse" so I should accept women in the ranks. At MOST events I attend I don't see women or 'hair down to the arse' in the ranks, as most events I attend don't allow either.

Jim Butler

Jim of the SRR

08-10-2008, 01:07 PM

So one of your primary reasons for not wanting women in the ranks is that they interfere with your male bonding time? They wont let you play in their games so they cant play in in yours...OMG.. Now thats a legitimate excuse for keeping someone who loves history out of the ranks...:rolleyes: At least the reasoning is finally out in the open and explains a lot of the posts in this thread...

I NEVER stated I WANTED to 'play their games'. So, your statement has twisted my words to what you would like to believe. Women should have thier hobbies, interests, etc without men to intrude upon them. Men should expect the same. If you want to be upset by the fact that many men want male-only bonding time, then be angry, but at least I am being honest. Everything in life does NOT have to be a multi-diverse, all inclusive, anything goes free-for-all where everyone arrives with their lawyer to sue or gripe if they are excluded.
And yes, the women choose to put themselves in the camps and ranks and in the midst of men behavior. However, many men will not continue to cut up or bond or pee publicly while a women is around despite her being 'okay' with it. And if you want to be technical, you can be arrested and cited as a sexual predator for urinating in public.
It is also time that some men stand up for the right for us to be and act as men. The 'Oprahization' of our society whimps down men, villifies any masculine behaviors, disenfranchises fathers from the family (look at the illigitamacy rates), and makes it okay to discriminate againt men (just watch a few TV commercials for proof).
We would like to make it about "History", but it IS the Social Dynamics that cause issues like this one.

Jim Butler