As a dyed in the wool feminist I can't help but feel women who make this choice are being mighty selfish. By chosing a male portrayal instead of doing research on what women in the middle ages really did, they give give credence to the idea that medieval women simply "sat still and wore pretty dresses". Based on where she says she is active this gal is taking this portrayal into an educational setting, so she is really right in the public eye. Even if she doesn't say a word, people will see she's a woman and *assume* that cross-dressing was common/acceptable, and the myth of the WOMAN WARRIOR lives on, while the contributions of all the millions of -real- women are lost.

I can live with women fighting in the beer and bash societies because they're not really about education, they're doing it as a sport. However, taking this "disguised women" thing into an educational setting makes me so sad, because it's just throwing away an opportunity to educate people about women's roles.

So please indulge me as I mount my soapbox and encourage all women to rise to the challenge of adopting a portrayal that will educate the public to the diversity of roles and activities the occupied the days of medieval women from all stratas of society. Right now the only portrayals seem to be "disguised man/boy" or pampered and bored Beverly Hills trophy wife; an unfortunate black and white distinction when the reality reveals a thousand shades of grey. Women were artists of every ilk, working in every medium from paint to metal and stone; women ran or participated in the running of financial empires that spanned continents; if they could afford it they hunted with hound and hawk; women became accomplished writers, musicians, brewers and merchants; they ran huge charitable institutions which cared for hundreds and thousands of indigent and sick people--the list is nearly endless.

I issue a challenge to all female reenactors to seize the opportunity to put to rest the flawed impression that all medieval women either disguised themselves as men and participated in men's activities or sat around filing their nails all day. Women were not simply adjuncts to history, women made history, and we do them a terrible disservice by ignoring the opportunity to educate the public about their substantial and significant contributions to history.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus

--------------------

I think that most serious groups feel that the typical has a virtue which ought to be respected. So a group of ten re-enactors, one of which portrays a cross-dressing prostitute, a female in knightly harness, and an Arab convert to Christianity could be considered personal fancy rather than a serious effort to portray medieval tropes as we understand them, even though records exist for each.

The same thing is a problem in small troupes who just don't have enough emphasis on non-gentry portrayals--the group I am with is going to be faulty in this area--but the problem is less serious to the extent that the portrayals are typical of the trope.

By the way, I agree that we do not exist as organizations or groups purely to serve the public. In my case, public service is a side benefit of my hobby--I do it for entertainment and personal fulfillment.

I think Gwen's problem is with persons putting themselves in an educational role and portraying the atypical--such groups have so few opportunities to affect peoples' understanding of the middle ages, that to overemphasize something that was rare bothers her, and she wants people to understand the roles and contributions of women as they were (and they contributed in spite of males having center stage), not as we might like them to be (some folks are obsessed with 'righting past wrongs vis a vis female marginalization').

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus

Anyway, we've been over this ground before, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes or create hard feelings. Groups make their own choices about who they let do what. Museums decide who they let do what. If there were 500 women reenactors presenting a range of portrayals, this wouldn't stick under my saddle so much. But there aren't, and it does, and I apologize if I've offended anyone with my opinion.

I'm still ramping up my merchant impression, per "The Legend of Good Women".

If I want to tag with the army and not be a laundress or something like it. I can always be a cantinier (sp) water barer or discover the "mystery" of black powder artillary pieces.

All of these allow women to be women in the place and time.

Even Charles the Bold, in order to put some of the women to use, gave them a trumpet and banner and turned them into a civil engineering group. I believe this was before the "english archer" incident.

Maybe groups should have two or more activity pillars with guidelines/standards for each pillar:

• Educational/Historical Interpretation (museum/public)common roles vs. exceptional
  
• Re-enactment (strict or lose) the latter allows gender bending (or set up a scenario that allows them to gender bend and have it end a court trial)
  
• competitive sport: Form a WMA team allow women to compete with historical tactics and methods outside of a museum style venue.
  

Just some thoughts. I'm not advocating women pretending to be men, but as John put it, you have to be explicit up front about historical roles and groups that don't allow it, should not be persecuted for it.

J

--------------------

I grew up a tomboy, jousting with my (mostly male) friends on bicycles, playing sports, disdaining dresses, dreaming of the 'warrior woman' fantasy, and participating (rather well) in SCA wars. I intend to enter into jousting competitions at some point in the future.

However, when I am reinacting the past, I intend to reinact the past. I wear a nice middle-class cotehardie when I am portraying a scribe from Wells, complete with veils, tassled pouch, neat little turnshoes, and women's gartered hose. I have had to explain to our contracted jousting troupe why we can't use their women jousters.

It's an interesting position to be in, but I think it is a responsible one. I take great delight in portraying my character, a woman from a town settled in a village, who doesn't quite fit in (and is gossiped about), making her living as a scribe; it is enough to me to show that women often were working in such positions, and the job was no longer relegated to the Church but taken on by secular workshops.

This is far more satisfying to me than taking on a borderline fantasy role. I enjoy fantasy, but I like it to be FAR removed from my history.

It's an interesting quandary at times, but I think that Ginevra hit the nail on the head. Medieval women were not boring and they are not boring to portray.

Assuming that they are is just as irritating to me as that inteview with the actress in A Knight's Tale muttering about the boring medieval dances, but how things 'get exciting' when they start to boogie to modern music, or how they refused to put men in hose because it wasn't masculine.

There's a mindset there that doesn't belong in serious living history, in my opinion.

---Diana---

Giovanno Bocaccio, Des cléres et nobles femmes
Spencer Collection, MS. 33, f. 18v.
French, c.1470
New York Public Library, New York.

I realize a writer isn't a scribe. I remember this plate of a woman sitting in front of a desk writing and thought she was a scribe. I posted this anyway because I didn't want to have dug this out for nothing.

quote:

---

I'm curious as to what evidence you have for a woman working as a scribe in 14th century England. Women certainly made inroads into certain 'careers' but I've never heard of scribes as being one.

---

Poll tax of 1378. You'll find lots of interesting careers for women in that weighty document, including a surprising number of smiths. Some craft careers did seem to exclude women altogether, with no explanation, such as tanners (no examples found of women tanners in that poll tax.)

I've come across the mention more than once in other sources, though I apologize for not having a bibliography ready for you at the moment. When I get a chance to go through the books at work I'll write 'em down.

Books, especially books of hours, were pretty much made in secular craft shops of all types by the 14th century. Often entire families worked on the projects, though one shop may or may not make a book from start to finish. Many did just parts, such as the illumination, or writing, or page sewing. There were a LOT of people and families involved in the entire mass production process, and this is the sort of scribe-work I'm talking about; not an official in London working in the Courts, for example, though I have no knowledge either way about women in that arena.

A typical way for women to enter into 'unusual' careers was to work in the career as part of the family, and then take over when the man of the house died or no one else in the area was able to do the work.

---Diana---

quote:

---

I think "The Legend of Good Women: Medieval Women in Towns & Cities" by Erika Uitz, discusses the why's of women not being allowed to work in certain guilds. The Continent tends to be more liberal in what's allowed than England.

---

I haven't read that one... do they mention the reason for the tanners? I'd already known reasons of other guilds barring women, but not this one. I'm wondering if it was thought to be damaging to pregnancies to work around the tanning pits (which it would be.)

--Diana---

It doesn't mention tanners specifically. I haven't finished the chapter, but I found one for the "cloth fullers". Fulling cloth was considered so physically strenuous that the guild actually forbade the fullers' wives to help their husbands' with their work.

I believe this is a Paris guild. So your milage may very.

J

--------------------

Not sure why I recalled an absence of tanners - perhaps it was due to an old examination of a particular area of England. I've been doing this for too many years I think; it all starts to run together.

Also, without going through the tremendous efforts of combing the polls again myself, here's a few tidbits from a couple of books I grabbed off the shelf at work (without having to do much hunting, really.)

In "Women, Work, and Life Cycle in a Medieval Economy" (Women in York and Yorkshire c. 1300-1520), some summaries of the polls in Yorkshire are put into tables. The 'other' category contains clerks (which is the main name the scribes apparently were called for this purpose), doctors, and barbers; in Southwark, female householders in this category made up 11.1% of those careers; in Oxford, 6.3%. In West Riding (rural areas only), the percentage is 8.8%.

In "Women in the Medieval Town" by Erika Uitz, the focus is mainly upon Germany and as we said, that may or may not have a lot of bearing upon English traditions (probably not.) However, it was something I happened to look into tonight and thought I'd pass along the interesting info contained there about female scribes/clerks:

"...one of the earliest records of women working as secular scribes comes from Basle, where, in 1297, a woman called Irwina was paid for making copies of documents... ...registers of the St. Sebald parish for the years 1429-1517 provide evidence of specialization within the profession. It records five female clerts, one female guilder scribe, three female clerks of court, three female tax clerks, and two female town council clerks."

I know there has been much more that I've read, this was just a quick grab and not exactly thesis material. I'll keep posting along these lines if people are interested, or just leave y'all alone and move on to other topics

We have a similar problem, but for me what works for the English, may or will not work for the French/Burgundian. Since I portray a Burgundian, English documents really won't help me.

Speaking of which, I see some female saddlers and marshals in the poll in Yorkshire as well.

I myself would discourage this behaviour, excepting in portrayals of times and places where this would be appropriate.

Historically, the practise indisputably did happen - judicial records exist of cases where women are caught practising the behaviour (I would refer to the records of the Town of Dijon in the 1460's as a for-instance, where women were barred from entering specific taverns and indulging in gambeling, and the court records examining the women who were caught doing so - otherwise respectable women, of some social standing).

One must note that practices differ in location and date, and as soon as we discard the notion that society was a universal construct of precisly similar rules across Europe, and that England in particular is the normative example, we can indeed begin examining the role of women, and bringing their role to the public in a spirit of education.

Aa a for instance - women were generally fobidden from Military camps in England in the mid 15th century, military campaigns were of short duration. Women even in traditional roles in England, portrayed as travelling with such troops and camping with them is as historically inaccurate, and damaging to educating the public as would be if numbers of them were women portraying woman soldiers undisguised - bevys of Joan d'Arcs dancing before the public eye. Both are equally incorrect, and offensive to the purpose if depicting English retinues on campaign during the wars of the roses is the intent of a group. Of course the way around this is to have a civilian setting the soldiers interact with - the creation of erectable portable buildings in English reenactment allow a realistic portrayal of English military and civil life side by side, and are an excellent solution to the problem.

In contrast, at the same time, soldiers families on the continent often accompanied soldiers on campaign - a cursory examination of commentaries by contemporaries of the campaigns of the Valois Burgundian army support this - note the descriptions of the camp at Neuss, and the descriptions of the Burgundian camp at Grandson being overrun by the Swiss a year and a half later.

Very specifically, women were expelled from the train of the Burgundian army, contrary to normal practise, due to an edict of Charles the Bold, coming about because of a specific incident in which he was nearly killed trying to break up a riot between soldiers over a female camp follower at Neuss. Evidence clearly exists for numbers of women, continuing to follow that particular army, disguised as men - and so exposed by the Swiss overrunning the Burgundian camp at Grandson, as these women desperately sought to prove they were not men in order to save their lives. Now, there is no specific evidence that these women were disguising themselves as soldiers, just as men, and given the large train following the burgundian army they were just as likely filling the role of drovers, servants, and craftsmen - but they were disguising themselves as men. Most likely these women were the wives and daughters of soldiers, who had no other means of support, relying on their families income which was dependant on the army. The only women present openly going about as women were the courtesans and prostitutes accompanying the great lords and captains of Charles the Bolds army, who seem to have ignored the edict.

Now, by having women disguised in this specific circumstance, one can properly edicate the public as to the role of women, while informing them of a specific historical condition that very much upset their life, and turned it on it's head. This assumes of course engaging the public in the topic - then again, some reenactment groups have problems engaging the public in an educational fashion in any way, regardless of how good a job they do at making a visual presentation. Avoiding the public and their questions, or worse yet, not knowing an answer to a question, and making an answer up rather than saying "I don't know that answer" seems to be a much larger problem in reenactment circles in genneral, than the "Bobs" as they call them in the UK, or the "soft soldiers" as they call them here. A very tiny portion of US reenators are women disguised as men, to the best of my knowledge. Very many reenactors make up answers to questions, in contrast.

The real issue is to properly research the role of women in the location and time a group portrays, and come up with appropriate portrayals for females specific to that time and place. On the continent, women as a general rule seem to have a larger set of choices to make.

Frankly, I have had a problem locating civilian reenactors of any stripe, although I have specifically attewmpted to recruit them, and even offered to place emphasis and focus on them. Most reenactors are attracted to a military portrayal. The bulk of groups are military units. The public is largely attracted to militaery displays. I think of this as the "Shiney Object Syndrome" - myu intent has always been to use the shiney stuff to lure people into camp, and then, while there, to educate them in other directions. This has met with varying success - you cannot force people to learn about subjects they are uninterested in.

My challenge to craftsmen of any sort, or people interested in this subject who frequent these boards is to join up with existing reenactment groups, and present this aspect of life. To have soldiers without farriers, blacksmiths, coopers, boywers, wainrights, viandiers, priests, entertainers, hawkers of wares, drovers, gawkers and spectators, con-men, theives, respectable tradeswomen as well as most peoples misguided concept in reenactment circles as the traditional "campfollower" (read prostitute) being the sole female accompanyment to an army is as inaccurate as anything discussed on this thread.

I think it would be interesting to have a civillian group that had a small, portable erractable accomodation or two, to show up at reenactments. By seperating out military and civil life, we are doing a disservice to history, where distinctions were blurred, until much more recent times.

--------------------

Specifically, note the speed of the Wakefield, Towton, Barnet and Tewkesbury campaigns, the compositions of the army - retinues and levies collected - not professional soldiers on extended campaigns. I am fairly certain I have read of a prohibition of women in the train in the Second St. Albans/Towton campaign. I'll go look for a cite Brent, I'm pretty sure I will have better luck than a search for documentation to the contrary (with the exception of the person of Marguerite of Anjou).

--------------------

I can ask a friend who quotes that particular example at me.

And Jeff is also correct english campaigns by their nature are short and sharp (or dull) and assuming say normal men being raised for commission, ie tradesmen who looks after the business whilst mr man is away?

However a camp near a civilian settlement has the possibilities of interaction that would not have been prohibited.

--------------------

If a battle is being reinacted, then the game is pretty clear; nearly all of us grew up playing imaginary battles with our friends. You don't have to come up with some general point to the gathering.

If there isn't a battle reinactment, you still can practice troop movements and weapon use, which gives people a sense of accomplishment and doesn't require a lot of difficult location and prop acquisition.

Sure, it can cost a fair amount to get armor and weapons, but it costs a lot more to build a complete 14th century forge or pottery kiln, especially since that requires having property to put it on and generally more than just the one attraction for a well-attended LH weekend to be successful.

For people to spend a weekend pretending to be craftsmen, it's hard to immerse oneself in the idea of being 'craftsmen on the move' without a few workshops unless it's attached to a military reinactment, and then it's tempting to just do the military part.

For women, it's rough because there is no easy choice in portraying someone in a military camp and the chances to portray a regular village or town denizen are about nil.

It's one of the things I am fervently hoping Camlann Village can do for medieval-based LH in America, but even if it does, that won't help all the many groups out there who only have venues suited for battlefields.

It's a real quandary, and I sympathize with all the folks trying to forge ahead and find a solution.

In Delbrück's 1923 (?) "Medieval Warfare" (edition translate by Walter J Rennick Jr., page 514 Regulation of the Burgundian Company D'Ordinance folks.

"Charles had regulations issued concerning pay, leave and discipline.... (it goes on to say) No more than thirty women were to follow each company, and nobody was allowed to claim one of them as his own."

What that does to help your own regulations is beyond me, but I thought it might help somebody.

I wanted to poke my head in the door and say I liked Jen (Mrs Chef, I believe by Pooh switching to full-auto) o the 3 tiers of re-enacting: Education, Re-enactments, and tourneys. I really like that.

Quite frankly, I believe that yes, women have had a detrimental place in life and a great impact on history and also have a place in re-enacting. That place just is not dressed as a man in front of a crowd trying to learn something. Because regardless if you have 100 people in a group with flawless kits and impressions, its that one bugger that sticks out that the crowd will remember for years! Like having one dude in chucka-boots instead of correct footwear!

That one out-of-place element can ruin a lot, like the one chuckle-head in a picture of a battle: Everyone is tough, fierce and killing each other, but theres this one guy with a queer smile on his face giving fluffy-bunny love. AARGH! Civil War re-enacting (which i also do) is NATORIOUS for it, there was even a skit on South Park that is shamefully true!!

Anyway, off my tyrade and onto yours: If a woman wants to dress as a man, she should be portraying someone SPECIFIC. I think that if a girl can find solid evidence of "Ms. Sally Joe Crossdresser" dressing as "Mr. Cerdic Joe Crossdressed", she has every right to portray that person!! Same with Joan of Arc, France's shinning-pride little lady. Im sure France is proud to have a Joan of Arc re-enactor at its early 15C events!

But there is little use of 30% of a group being girls dressed as guys. Out of respect for those other re-enactors who pour oodles of cash and hours into their portrayal, leave it in fantasy. LARP can be fun too!

At large-scale re-enactments, it depends (as Jen pointed out) whether the event is loose or formal. Tactacles: up to the event sponsor. Live Battles in front of a crowd? Well, if there are some 300 or more folks on each side, a few ladies en rogue shouldnt be too much of a hastle, especially if arching as there is eveidence of women archers in some countries retinues. And dont ask me for referrence Brent, its not in my group, check the Medieval Seige Society or other immense European organizations that do it!

Private tourneys for sport are a great place for all to show their mettle! Tourney before the public should remain gender-specific. It was hard enough for a man to get into one, if he didnt have proper lineage paperwork; much less a female contender! And as sexy as form-fitting plate might be at times, remember: LARP.

In conclusion, hey Im all for the ladies! This is a free country and all that. But remember that the basis of living history groups and most re-enactors is a steep level of authenticity and promoting education. If a woman would not feel comfortale giving an hour-long lecture to a classroom on why she is dressed as a man in 15the century (insert country here), she shouldnt be doing it.

--------------------

~ Jason Banditt Adams
Illustrator for the gaming industry
www.Rogue-Artist.com

In that role, I think that, done properly, there can be a fair amount of gender-bending that is allowable, but with certain caveats. I know of one ACW unit in the East that has a woman in the ranks... but no one knows just who it is, so in that regard, since WE can't tell, then it's perfectly kosher in my mind. Same goes here. If a woman can portray a man to the extent that it's actually rather difficult to tell, then I'm all for it. Unfortunately (and I think that this is the heart of the matter) most don't. In fact, I certainly know of some women doing ACW on the West Coast who go out of their way to ensure that their gender is recognizable, which invalidates the entire exercise, in my mind at least.

For the events that I am presently doing, being more private affairs, I have no problems with a woman in the ranks, again with the caveat that I shouldn't have to have my face rubbed in that fact. That there are more jobs for men in most of the military reenacting events than for women is an unfortunate side effect of the (as noted by Diana above) the "Bright and Shiny" attraction of military historical portrayals.

For my own unit, I am actually encouraging women to ride in male roles. However, not in the roles of "fighting men". Since it was the rule for each mounted soldier to have with him a "boy" mounted on a "nag", I am encouraging women to fill that role, as it gives the woman an opportunity to ride, be involved in the event on a deeper level, and also provides the presence of an otherwise unseen aspect of an army on campaign. Unfortunately not all of us have a spare "boy" to dragoon into service, nor do they have either the skills nor usually kit to do so. But many women have not only the skills (i.e. know how to ride and can make the kit), but are in fact more likely to have one of the basic necessities for this role, this being a horse. For a couple with two horses looking for an historical venue to become involved in, it's in fact ideal. However, this would go only for the less strict events: for a Museum Impression, it would have to be seriously cut back to only those who, as above, can actually pass for a youth.

So there's my two cents. Yes women can, and should, involve themselves in the field, but with the caveat that it should only be under certain circumstances where the absolute historical integrity is less strict than museum-grade living history.

Cheers,

Gordon

--------------------

I intend to do some jousting competition if my wrist therapy does well and I'm back to being hale and hearty. I'd be really irked if nobody ever let me do that because I'm female; but I will never go near anything that could be misconstrued as educational, unless I'm reinacting a very specific instance such as the historical young lady that jousted an individual in lieu of her father over a matter of honor.

It's altogether too easy to forget the effect that visual things have on the public. I'm not happy with the current stage that Camlann Village is in for educational purposes (I'll never be happy! There's always more improvements to make) but the less damage done the better, in my opinion. People believe nearly everything they see and are told.

I love the idea of a female reinactor crossdressing so well that nobody can figure it out. Without it being banner-advertised it causes NO trouble at all. Sometimes I wish I was more mannish so I could play with such things.

Not saying anything against the "Be a boy for a day" idea that Gordon has, but that definitely sounds like more private entertainment and I'd be all for it under clear circumstances. We historians need to have fun from time to time, otherwise we end up so uptight even our hair is clenched.

---Diana---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diana Peterson:

Not saying anything against the "Be a boy for a day" idea that Gordon has, but that definitely sounds like more private entertainment and I'd be all for it under clear circumstances. We historians need to have fun from time to time, otherwise we end up so uptight even our hair is clenched.

---Diana---

[ 08-16-2005: Message edited by: Diana Peterson ]

---

You are absolutely right on this, that unless the charaterization is so good that it fools everyone (and that's a darned difficult row to hoe, frankly, and is best avoided) it just should not be done for public educational events. But as you noted, for somewhat private events (or ones that are not even trying to be historical, but rather "fantastic") that are for our own enjoyment and our own learning, I think it's fully reasonable.

Cheers!

Gordon

--------------------