I’m working on a somewhat sarcastic post that’s titled “Things That Are More Authentic Than A Girl In Uniform”.
I have a long list myself, but if you’re a woman who has ever been told that you being in uniform is inauthentic by someone who is inauthentic themselves, please let me know by either replying, sending me a fan mail, or reblogging with a response.
I’ve never been a woman in uniform, but I have been told that, as a woman, my presence at reenactments of certain time periods takes away from the authenticity of an event. Which is awesome.
Women didn’t exist then, right?
Yep. Welcome to the joy of trying to break down the door of an established boy’s club.
This has bothered me for a while, so I’d like to put my thoughts out there. I’m male, and a WW2 British re-enactor, based in England, for clarification. I’m also nineteen, if that helps to destroy the idea of the old boys club, in any way. These observations are simply based on a passion for accuracy and for history.
Firstly, I’d like to say, quite clearly, that I have no problem with female re-enactors. However, some clarification is required - I have no problem with female re-enactors whose portrayals are correct for women in the period depicted. This shall mostly be focussed upon WW2, as that’s my area of expertise.
This might seem ‘sexist’ on first appearance. However, one must remember that human history has, in the same way that the human present is, not and never been equal in any sense of the word. The reasons for this are best left to sociologists or the more extreme elements of the ‘social justice’ community to debate.
Why might I disagree with women in combat uniforms, you ask? Isn’t that horribly sexist to deny modern women the ability to portray combatants? Perhaps, if you think that way, but that would also make it horribly sexist for the Allied Powers (excluding the U.S.S.R, who stand on their own) or even the Axis Powers to deny that same right to women at the time.
I disagree because, in both the British Army and the United States forces there were no female combat troops (I’ll get to the ATS and other roles played by women soon), the same goes for Germany and Italy. Now, female re-enactors, as I’ve stated, are nothing that I have a problem with. Females portraying roles that were reserved for men I do have a problem with. It is simply a case of accuracy and authenticity - women did not perform those roles. Now, if a man depicting one of these combat units has an incorrect uniform/equipment, call him out on it. Historical accuracy is paramount - accuracy applies to all people at all times.
This isn’t because I don’t believe women are capable of these roles now, although that’s an entirely different game of cricket and related to sociology once again. However, front-line roles were not performed by women at the time. It is an insult to historical accuracy (and the main aim of the hobby, which is the education of the general public and the veterans themselves to display it as such). What about the U.S.S.R and the various partisans? That IS acceptable, because there is documentation of women taking part in these spheres of operations as combat troops. I have NO problem with this.
Living history and re-enactment is not a fun little jolly into history for self-indulgent reasons. It is a serious part of the historical education of the general public providing a legitimate reach into, in the case of WW2, history that is in living memory. If you want it to be a fun little jolly where you dress up in whichever uniform suits you best, do that, but to consider yourself a re-enactor in such a case might, in my opinion at least, be foolish and insulting to those who gave their lives. Re-enactors and living historians are more than that - we are living memories to the servicemen and women who gave their lives and youths for the sake of their beliefs, countries, families and so on.
This is not a diatribe against women, however. The roles played by women during wartime were of the utmost importance to the success of the Allied war effort. The ATS girls, for example, manned Ack Ack batteries throughout Britain, WAAFs and WRENs manned plotting rooms and radar rooms detecting German raids coming over the coast. Factory girls ensured that the service arms were supplied with equipment and the Land Army kept Britain fed when men were at war. These roles were of the utmost importance and cogs in the machine of modern total warfare.
Women who portray these roles accurately and with a passion should be commended for the committment and dedication they show to history and the memories of those who died at their posts - often ATS girls would watch their fellow anti-aircraft crewwomen fall and step up to man the post without a second thought, as echoed in various articles of literature and posters published at the time.
For a modern woman to appropriate the role of a servicemen on the frontline would be insulting to his memory for his committment, but also insulting to the servicewomen who gave their lives in such an important way. It seems, to my eye at least, to be a casting off of the majesty of the involvement of women to the war effort and highly disrespectful, in the same way that it would be highly disrespectful for a man to don an ATS, WAAF or WREN uniform and go about in skirt and stockings.
We cannot deny, nor destroy, the fact that the past was highly unequal. Instead, we, as re-enactors and living historians have a duty to represent it accurately, however abhorrent its moral ideas may seem to us today. The appropriation of roles, uniforms and so on that is inaccurate is unacceptable from either party because it is a disrespect to the memory of the veterans who gave their youths in the defence of freedom, democracy and all the values we hold dear. They fought for a better future for us. That does not mean we can deny their past. To turn their comittment into nothing more than dressing up and playing soldiers is both disgusting and disrespectful - re-enacting is not a nice little hobby solely for fun - it is a key part of the education of the general public.
We live as a memory, and that memory must be accurate, whether we agree with it or not.
If you find this inflammatory, I welcome healthy and open debate. What I do not welcome is ignorant comments that roughly follow the ‘CHECK YOUR MALE PRIVILEGE’ line. I have not intended to argue from that standpoint here - if you think I have, please reread it and reconsider why you are a re-enactor or living historian.
- Matt
Thoughts, ladies?
