5 foot rule and female "soldiers"???

[RJSamp]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[bulletsponge]

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]

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.

Who said that was the standard?

[flattop32355]

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]

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]

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]

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?