5 foot rule and female "soldiers"???

[hanktrent]

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]

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.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.