I'm Roisin, I live in England I can't pronounce my middle name and I post infrequently which makes me sad
February 24th
12:17 AM

just a thought

In my Presenting the Past class we were talking about Historical Reenactments today and our lecturer brought up the subject of female reenactors and if it’s something we (the women in the class) would be interested in.

I said that if I got to actually like be in the battle field or got to pretend to be a roman gladiator then I would be interested (because that’s cool) but if I was just made to sit in a dress or just hanging around being a nurse (not that bring a nurse in war wouldn’t be somewhat interesting but I feel like in reenactments they don’t have much to do) then I wouldn’t be interested.

Another student brought up that this wouldn’t be historically accurate and therefore the educational aspect would be lost.

Firstly, you’re already pretending to be a totally different person in a time period thousands of years ago but a female pretending to be a man on top of that is just too inaccurate?

Moreover, it’s not that hard to dress a women as a man (this actually happened in the American Civil war so it would totally be historically accurate and has happened in reenactments before)

And although as a historian I believe in facts, would it be the worst to show children that women can be on a level playing field as men?