11-26-2009, 02:20 AM
I am always delighted to see and experience a good historical impression, in any period, from anyone, regardless of all the claptrap we use to divide ourselves up--and that includes gender. By the same token, I'm always annoyed as heck when I see a crap impression.
I'll admit that I have a slight preference--but only a slight one--for women portraying--and glorifying--the role of women qua women. Despite the best efforts of male historians, it often turns out that women had more to do with armies than cooking the food and providing sex. But I now accept--and enjoy--women protraying men, as long as they do it well. And so many of them do it well that I think it would be foolish of me to have two standards, so I try to limit myself to just one--enjoy a good impression, be sad to see a bad one.
Further, as a person who has run a group with a membership over 50 for twenty years--most groups without women as FULL PARTICIPANTS--not hangers on, not "girlfriends" and not second class citizens, but fellow living historians with valued roles, and sometimes leaders--such groups seldom grow very large or last very long. This is not the real army, and the dynamic social stresses of the "real world" often take single men right out of the hobby--if their women aren't happy in it.
I'll further note--and I do hope I irritate a few of you--that historical groups that actually "live the life" instead of dressing up and playing it cannot function long or well without women. Our groups go out for a week--sometimes longer--in fairly adverse wilderness conditions with nothing but period equipment. If you can cut wood with an axe and cook over an open fire in freezing rain, no one really gives a crap about what gender you carried in--just whether you carried you share of the rations.
Twenty five years ago, I was a young man who believed that such wilderness adventures were "for men." I was wrong. i hope some of the folks posting on this list learn the lessons I learned, in the military and out of it, and take them to reenacting. Women belong any place they want to be and can earn a place in--just like men, no better and no worse.
I'll admit that I have a slight preference--but only a slight one--for women portraying--and glorifying--the role of women qua women. Despite the best efforts of male historians, it often turns out that women had more to do with armies than cooking the food and providing sex. But I now accept--and enjoy--women protraying men, as long as they do it well. And so many of them do it well that I think it would be foolish of me to have two standards, so I try to limit myself to just one--enjoy a good impression, be sad to see a bad one.
Further, as a person who has run a group with a membership over 50 for twenty years--most groups without women as FULL PARTICIPANTS--not hangers on, not "girlfriends" and not second class citizens, but fellow living historians with valued roles, and sometimes leaders--such groups seldom grow very large or last very long. This is not the real army, and the dynamic social stresses of the "real world" often take single men right out of the hobby--if their women aren't happy in it.
I'll further note--and I do hope I irritate a few of you--that historical groups that actually "live the life" instead of dressing up and playing it cannot function long or well without women. Our groups go out for a week--sometimes longer--in fairly adverse wilderness conditions with nothing but period equipment. If you can cut wood with an axe and cook over an open fire in freezing rain, no one really gives a crap about what gender you carried in--just whether you carried you share of the rations.
Twenty five years ago, I was a young man who believed that such wilderness adventures were "for men." I was wrong. i hope some of the folks posting on this list learn the lessons I learned, in the military and out of it, and take them to reenacting. Women belong any place they want to be and can earn a place in--just like men, no better and no worse.
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
