Women in Utilikilts

[macwilkin]

I don't think women should wear kilts unless they 'have' to, like in a uniform or for historical purposes. (If a Polish guy can play a Scottish soldier in a reeanactment, why is a woman wrong?)

As someone who has been a reenactor (mostly American Civil War, Spanish-American War and other assorted periods), I have no problem with women in the ranks, as long as their is a lot of documentation for their presence. If there was a woman that served in a particular regiment disguised as a man, and it can be documented, then fine. Otherwise, it's an inaccurate portrayal of history.

As far as Scottish regiments go, I'm not sure if there were any women who ever served disguised as a man (Sav, any thoughts?), but it is correct to have other nationalities in the ranks. Many "Highlanders" were actually Glaswegians and other Lowlanders, English, Irish, and one story comes to mind from Mr. Kipling's Army by Bryon Farwell of a Gordon Highlander seen praying in a synagogue in Aberdeen!

Even today, there are a number of "Scottish" soldiers from Fiji, other Commonwealth nations and last but not least Nepal, as a detachment of Gurkhas were seconded to the Royal Scots.

Pipe Bands are a different story...

Regards,

Todd

[MACKAY]

There's another way of looking at it I don't think y'all are considering- I've seen a couple wedding pictures and dates on this website- and usually the male in full Scottish dress is much more colorful than the female, what with the jacket, accessories, flashes, and hat... bascially, a lot more fussing than I do on an everyday basis. Or heck, even a formal basis..

Remember this from Sixth Grade Science class?

Okay class ... lights out, lets roll the movie…shhhhh (Film Starts) .... on the screen we see a male peacock displaying his colorful tail as he tries to impress the nearby hen, then we cut to a wild Turkey doing the same thing, and other cuts to various other colorful males of the animal kingdom impressing the females with acts of bravado or displays of colorful features and impressive plumage.

Narrator: "...We see through out the animal kingdom that nature has often provided the male brilliant colors and various physical attributes (antlers and such) by which to attract the female of the species, and to discourage other males from invading his territory...."

Perhaps we are just doing what comes naturally :-)


Brian Mackay

[Shay]

As someone who has been a reenactor (mostly American Civil War, Spanish-American War and other assorted periods), I have no problem with women in the ranks, as long as their is a lot of documentation for their presence. If there was a woman that served in a particular regiment disguised as a man, and it can be documented, then fine. Otherwise, it's an inaccurate portrayal of history.

To be fair, so are all of you being in fairly good health and having all your teeth, arms and legs or wearing wigs. I don't see a problem with a woman portraying a man on a stage or in a reenactment, or vice versa, that's just me.

BMackay- I was thinking of that, too!

which to attract the female of the species, and to discourage other males from invading his territory....

Hmmm... whenever I see a guy in kilts, he's at the bar talking to the women...

[macwilkin]

To be fair, so are all of you being in fairly good health and having all your teeth, arms and legs or wearing wigs. I don't see a problem with a woman portraying a man on a stage or in a reenactment, or vice versa, that's just me.

Shay, that's a bit of a "roast chesnut", I'm afraid. I will freely admit that there are a lot of reenactors out there, especially in the Civil War era, that are not historically accurate. But there are many of us who try -- naturally, were not going to run out and get lice, dystentery, etc., but anyone portraying a historical time period for educational purposes (like myself as a park ranger at a Civil War battlefield) should be as accurate as possible, with appropriate & reliable documentation. Yes, there are reenactors who don't take it so seriously, but they are misleading the general public (most unintentionally). As someone who makes their living in the field of history, I have a big problem with that. A reenactment or a living history program is not the same thing as a stage play, although there are similar elements.

I have no problem with women portraying men at reenactments, I just want to see the documentation that it is appropriate for a particular unit and/or battle, just as I would want to see for a "atypical" musket, uniform, etc.

Regards,

T.