Female re-enactors

[Duuring]

I had an unpleasant discussion on facebook yesterday with some civil war re-enactors who (besides saying I don't give a shit about history and accurateness and that I'm a little troll) said that women shouldn't be allowed to re-enact because there were no women in the ACW (except for some documented 300 etc). And "because women are over the greatest part farbs" (mind you, for these people, 'farb' was the word for everyone except them), it's best to just trow them all out.

Now, I found this a idiotic to say the least. You are going to forbid someone to re-enact on a reason they can't possibly change? One guy even had a daughter which wanted to re-enactment so badly...but he didn't allow her because she looked 'too female'. That's really harsh.

My opinion is simple; as look as they put as much effort in the hobby as their male counterparts, women should be allowed to re-enact just like anyone else. Historical accurate is important, but when you are trowing people out on these kind of reasons, you've gone to far.

Your opinions, gentlemen.

[Jocam]

Your opinions, gentlemen.

You're just as bad Duuring =D

[Duuring]

I'm yet to discover a female forumnite on this forum (kitty excepted). Let alone a female re-enactor. That doesn't mean I don't welcome them

[MaHuD]

If it's not a super serious re-enactment for say a video or w/e I don't see a reason to exclude them.

[Jocam]

Hehe, well, of course it's bullshit to deny them. You might be re-enecting the ACW, but you still live in 2013, get modern to dem basterds

[Bastard]

Make sure they look like men #murica

[Crunk]

The more souls the merrier, be that female or male.

[Onii]

Just give them a fake moustache, nobody will notice :p

But in all seriousness, of course they shall be allowed to reenact if they want to.

[Docm30]

Duuring, it's got nothing to do with historical accuracy.

[Duuring]

Duuring, it's got nothing to do with historical accuracy.

And I'm not quite sure what your point is... Though I think you are being supportive... 

[Docm30]

My point is that they're assholes and claims of historical accuracy are flimsy excuses to justify their sexism.

You don't see groups rejecting men because they're too old or too fat or need glasses, which would be necessary for strict historical accuracy

[Duuring]

The guys I spoke to also weren't for old or fat people. One guy gave up the hobby when he reached sixty, because there were no guys of sixty in the ACW. Now, that's extreme.

Of course, the joke is when you find a reason to exclude them

[Ililsa]

Seems perfectly fine to me.

If the group's casual about women taking part, they can.
If a group wants to be 100% realistic, then a woman could dress as a man and be a soldier, I can even recall finding a guide on how women could do this (binding, padding, androgynous hair style, etc.), or be a camp follower of some variety.

I agree with Docm, the guy's just an arse.

[Reverse]

If it was up to me, I would be these sexist pricks with a stick.
If someone has put in just as much, even more in some cases, to a particular hobby, then they should be allowed no matter what, and also, there were many women fighting in the civil war, just as there were 15 year olds fighting in WWI, they lied.

[Nipplestockings]

Well, it shouldn't be disallowed, but I don't think I approve of them reenacting without disguising themselves. In the civil war didn't women have to disguise themselves as men to be able to fight anyway?

And yes, it does have a lot to do with historical accuracy and immersion. It may be the more radical course to say that women aren't allowed at all and I disagree with that bit, but I can certainly see where people are coming from when they say they don't like women reenacting without making it subtle.