Things of Interest: Sexism in the Hobby
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…
My experience with the reenactment scene is with Civil War era stuff, in which case it would be totally accurate to have a few girls playing soldiers.
Also, the common response is that there are often very old men playing what would have been young boys, and no one bats an eye because they’re all men so who cares? But actually it sure looks a lot more accurate from a distance to have a young, healthy girl with her hair tucked in and her chest tamped down by a uniform playing a private than it does to have an old, fat, greaybearded man playing a private. The whole point of the “Things That Are More Authentic Than A Girl In Uniform” post is that usually the people complaining about girls on the battlefield aren’t all that accurate themselves. This whole “accuracy is paramount” thing is more or less a sham. You want to get as close to accuracy as is reasonable, as close as is necessary to teach those who are watching and participating what it was like – you want young people to be able to get into the hobby without having to empty their bank accounts to make sure their handkerchiefs are the right fabric and that their shoes are the right kind of leather. You approximate history.
It can’t ever be more than an approximation of the original anyway. Units that were once a hundred men now have twenty, battles that involved tens of thousands now involve a few hundred, battles that happened in France have moved to Michigan and have entirely different local terrain – is it more detrimental to the memory of a fallen soldier to fake his death without experiencing any of his pain than it is to have his part played by a woman?
And how could he possibly care, anyway? He’s dead. Reenactment is something we do to remember those who came before, and to learn, and to teach… and I’m pretty sure girls can do that just as well as boys. Are you terrified that if some person watching a WWII reenactment sees a woman in a men’s uniform playing a man, they’ll somehow come away with the impression there were women on the front lines back then?
This whole “insult to their memory” thing just seems pretty overblown to me. You let people fudge accuracy all the time in order to help the whole operation run more smoothly and be more enjoyable for participants and onlookers. The only time it’s enforced with so much emphasis on “insult to their memory” is when a young girl who could easily pass for a guy from the sidelines wants to get involved and honor the memory of those who went before.
Just because you’re 19 doesn’t get you out of the accusation of the old boy’s club. The whole point is that it’s both “old” and “boys” - the older ones will let the young boys in and keep out the girls, because the old boys are in charge.
By the way, I reenacted in California - as a Civil War accurate girl - and there were plenty of girls, old and young, that played as soldiers on the battlefield when they wanted to, and no one had issues with it and I didn’t notice it impeding the education of the visitors at all - if the person was in a teaching position they might make a point of explaining that most soldiers were men and a few women fought in disguise, but people aren’t actually stupid enough to think that women were drafted alongside their male peers.
I won’t start with it, but I’ll end with it: Check your male privilege.
I certainly agree on the idea that having older men portraying units which they really wouldn’t be a part of is equally horrible - again going from the WW2 aspect, having twenty stone bespectacled paratroopers is horrifying and ridiculous. They should either portray Homeguard/LDV or get out, quite frankly. There is no value in inaccuracy on any level and such people shouldn’t get a pleasant reception - it crosses the line from accurate portrayal to playing at soldiers and dressing up which is quite frankly disgusting in the same way that ‘MilSim Airsoft’ is as well.
The idea that ‘accuracy is paramount’ is a sham is equally horrifying - it’s not, or it really shouldn’t be. Yes, the hobby is expensive - you build it up slowly. Whilst it might not be as relevant with conflicts that are outside of living memory, having boots made of the right leather, the correct laces and the right number of hobnails is essential - I’ve had veterans inspect the soles of my boots. Living history at least, if not re-enactment, should be an extension of experimental archaeology whereby, from as many sources as possible, the lives these individuals led are emulated as close to accurately as possible. There shouldn’t be a slip-up anywhere, because somebody will pick it up. Approximation simply is not good enough, either for education or for private experience.
When one steps into the period of portrayal, it should truly be stepped into, at least in my opinion, and that of the founder of the society I belong to. That means leaving behind modern (and postmodern for that matter) ideals, concepts and ideas about equality - they simply didn’t exist. You can’t simply approximate the bits that seem enjoyable and leave out the nasty aspects simply because they’re unpalatable.
Our group doesn’t do combat re-enactments, not for that reason, but because it would be horrendously inaccurate and badly done. They’re often the most ridiculous and farcical things, having both taken part in a few and watched from the spectator side of the fence since childhood.
I’d be curious to learn where the idea that those who claim that having women in combat are often the most inauthentic themselves comes from. It’s a very odd claim, at least from my experience of re-enacting circles.
I’d also like to highlight the fact that women aren’t kept out in any way, I’m not entirely sure where that assumption comes from, - if the split isn’t 50/50, it might actually be in favour of women. That does not mean, however, that appropriating uniforms worn by men goes on, nor should it, in the same way that men shouldn’t appropriate uniforms worn by women. The idea that women wouldn’t be wanted or asked to be involved is equally ridiculous because women provided valuable, essential even, war work in all periods, camp followers shod, fed and cared for the army on the march in earlier periods and so on - it is simply impossible to fathom why anybody would want to diminish the splendour of that essential work by self-indulgently thinking;
‘I’d like to disregard all of that and fight in combat re-enactments because it’s more fun.’
That really really is not the way the hobby should work in any way.
I think if you continually raise the barriers on how people can participate, you’re just undermining your own goals. You want to educate, you want to enjoy, you want to honor, and you’re constricting this into such a tiny narrow window that the only people who can participate are perfectionist white males with considerable disposable income between 18 and 30, with everyone else either excluded entirely or relegated to support roles that may not be as fulfilling or interesting to them. Do you want to get people interested in participating and learning, or do you want all reenactors to sit around glorying in how perfect their costumes and tents are? Because I don’t see how being anal about accuracy to the point that you exclude a large number of potentially interested people is actually beneficial to what reenacting is supposed to be for, which as far as I can tell is education, remembrance, and fun.
Also, if you want to have a group dedicated to accuracy such that you don’t even hold battles, that’s great, that’s the whole “living history” approach, but saying battles are detrimental to reenacting as a whole because they’re impossible to do accurately just sounds silly - aren’t battles a huge draw for the public? Can I hazard that your experience as a WWII reenactor might be coloring your opinion of reenacting in general? Because battles seem like they’d be way easier to do in a way that would convey the basic idea without needing perfect accuracy in the context of the Revolutionary War or the Civil War rather than the World Wars, although I’m certainly not an expert.
I’m not saying accuracy isn’t important, but it still sounds like you’re sacrificing a huge amount on its altar. There’s a place for hyper-accurate units and a place for casual involvement units and a place for those in between, and to say girls wearing guy uniforms is point-blank farby and disrespectful – especially since many girls are otherwise far more committed to period accuracy than some men in the hobby, who really are just playing soldiers - still sounds, despite all your eloquence on the subject, narrow-minded.
The idea that women wouldn’t be wanted or asked to be involved is equally ridiculous because women provided valuable, essential even, war work in all periods, camp followers shod, fed and cared for the army on the march in earlier periods and so on - it is simply impossible to fathom why anybody would want to diminish the splendour of that essential work by self-indulgently thinking ‘I’d like to disregard all of that and fight in combat re-enactments because it’s more fun.’This basically sounds like telling women, “Why would you want to be able to work? You have such a vital role staying home and taking care of the children! It’s such a glorious calling!”
Not all women feel comfortable or happy in the role you’ve designated for them. I happen to be relatively feminine and prefer sitting around in camp in a dress to running around with a huge gun on the battlefield, but many women are more masculine and trend the opposite direction, and that isn’t because they don’t consider the other role unimportant, they are just more drawn to one than the other. And there are plenty of units where they can educate, honor, and enjoy without setting off the anal-retentive tendencies of nitpickers. Kelsey’s sarcastic list of reasons women have been excluded from reenactment units is just to point out that usually, it’s not about a commitment to accuracy, it’s about white men maintaining a little island where they don’t have to think about the fact that women and minorities have to be given equal consideration… in your words, someplace they can step into where “modern ideals, concepts and ideas about equality …simply [don’t] exist.”
You can have your hyperaccurate little club, just don’t go around telling everyone else that their version of the hobby is unsalvageably wrong, because in many cases they’re achieving worthy goals of education and remembrance too.
Somebody give this woman a hammer because she hits nails so well on the head that she should be a carpenter.
