Link to the related website that has useful info: the Age of Nelson.

This forum is devoted to the Royal Navy during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1793 - 1815).
And why not the other navies of the period?
To avoid spam, you must register to be able to post - it's free.

FAQ         Register         Profile         Search         Log in to check your private messages         Log in
Female transvestism and the 17-18 cen Dutch navy
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.ageofnelson.org Forum Index -> Age of Nelson
 
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PMarione
Site Admin


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 883

Post Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Going through my shelves I just found another book by Linda Grant de Pauw: Seafaring Women, Boston, 1982, ISBN: 0-395-32434-3
Not very impressive: anecdotic, no sources quoted but a bibliography.
She gives some examples of transvestite but always the same ones (Hannah Snell, etc.).

Other books on women and the sea:

About half The Hidden Navy by Evelyn Berckman, 1963 is devoted to the subject.

Women of the Sea, Edgar Rowe Stow, New York, 1962
The Female Marine, Alexander Medlicott Jr (ed), New York, 1966

In French:
Femmes de la mer, Anne de Tourville, Paris, 1958

@+P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PMarione
Site Admin


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 883

Post Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just received the Tradition of female transvestism in early Modern Europe.

I was rejoicing at reading it till I opened it.
The previous owner has highlighted most of it in inkpen.
Ninety percent of the joy is gone.

The sad cow even signed her crime: Louise Allein, Nov '90.
So now the world knows that she is a criminal and merit to be put in the stocks for 2 days.

Book highlighting is the only crime I believe worth the pillory today.
Or maybe send her to sort the lost baggages at Heathrow's T5.

@+P Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Redfish



Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 59
Location: Arnhem

Post Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick,

if you happen to know Dutch, you are welcome to lend my Dutch version of the book. The former owner of my copy was extremely decent. Makes me wonder if he/she had read it at all before sending it to the second-hand bookstore...
You migth find it worthwhile to ignore the annoying highlightings and read the book. To my opinion it is better than Stark.

Danni
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PMarione
Site Admin


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 883

Post Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, Danni, for your kind offer.
I can read a book in Dutch (or in Spanish) but I prefer French or English (even highlighted).
Will keep you posted when I have read it.

Highlighting comes along with cutting pages with your fingers and breaking the back of the book. Tear off pages is a lesser crime as you just drop it in the wastebasket or better return it to the seller: he can't refuse to take it back.
Maybe the pillory is not such a good idea (unproductive) then definetly luggage duty for one week at T5.
@+P Exclamation


Last edited by PMarione on Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PMarione
Site Admin


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 883

Post Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Small book makes quick reading.

A very interesting book indeed.

They have compiled an impressive sample of 119 examples in Dutch literature, court reports, etc. between 1550 and 1839. Alas they were probably carried over by the difficulty of their search in concluding that:
Quote:
The 119 cases of female cross-dressing between 1550 and 1839 described in this book show that in former times it was not at all exceptional for women to take on the appearance of men as solution to their personal problems. And, in spite of differences, these women can in many ways be described as one group.

It's difficult to imagine that 119 people over 3 centuries make a not exceptional group even for the small Dutch Republic.
One can argue that only those who have left traces have been identified but even if they were 10 times more, they qualify as a characteristic group.

They also discusses at length some truisms like "they were young women from the lower classes in society".
It's again very difficult to imagine the daughter of Lord Something signing for the navy or the army without being discovered in 10 secs and brought back home for a good spanking except in some novel.
"The majority of the women on our list were discovered." Seems rather obvious to me if your archives are the cases of the women who were discovered.

But don't misread me: the book is still excellent.

Quote:
Of the 93 women we know had their professions as men, eighty three were or had at one time been sailors or soldiers. Many of the soldiers were marines or were transported overseas to serve with the East or West India Company; a minority served with the navy. So more than half of the disguised women practised a trade at sea precisely where, in fact, the chance of discovery was greatest. [...]
The land army harboured 22 of our women. This probably is an underestimation because it was easier to hide one's real identity in the army than at sea, as is indicated by the fact that two-thirds of our known land soldiers had been in service for extended periods of time. Only a few of the women on ships were able to continue their disguise for more than a few months.


They agree with me (sorry Linnaeus, no "fragile female creature", the authors must be sexists: "Quarrelsomeness was indeed generally regarded as a typical feminine vice at the time" Smile )
Quote:
The portraits that exist of women dressed as men are not really helpful in giving an impression of how they looked. These are generally illustrations in books or commercial prints, and the figures depicted were meant to be recognised as women in disguise.
In literature, these women are usually represented as handsome and charming young men, objects of passion to the women they met.
The historical sources, however, do not depict our women as being pretty as women, although as men their charms were usually rated higher.
Margaritha Reymers was described by a con temporary as 'large and coarse of body, by which she could easily appear to be a man in her soldier's clothing'. Maritgen Jans was said to be 'too sweet of face to be a man'. But after her discovery, when she again wore women's clothing, it was 'the feeling of many that men's habit became her better'.


Of the sample, one quarter were quickly discovered (a few hours to a few days), one quarter kept the role for up to 6 months.
One half were not discovered for more than 6 months (up to 13 years in one case).
Among the difficulties that they describe, there is one that I overlooked in my 1st post: the difficulty of impersonation.
A pair of breeches or trousers was not enough to pass for a men even at the period (today it must be very difficult for a woman to pass for a man even wearing a necktie, the contrary is still as easy if you accept to shave your legs). There are plenty of other psychological differences to adjust: language, mimicry, gestures, carriage...

For the motivations besides those already discussed, they add patriotism. I am not convinced.
I am still not convinced by the homosexual motivation, but I missed completely the point with my genetic stanza: I would have spoken of transsexuals (even if at the time they didn't exist as the word was not invented).
Quote:
She said she was in appearance a woman, but in nature a man.

Seems a great motivation to me.

Here is a last quote from Wikipedia:
Quote:
When speaking of historical figures, when cross-dressing is not clearly related to specific events (like an escape or disguise) it is usually impossible to state clearly what the motives for cross-dressing were.
This information was rarely recorded or preserved. Documents on the subject are often either court records (where the cross-dressing person may have said whatever they thought would minimize their punishment) or accounts by other people who might not understand the motivations correctly.
Furthermore, historic figures were often unable to identify themselves as homosexual, transgender, transsexual, or transvestite because these classifications simply had no names or social recognition in their era.


In conclusion a must-read if you are interested in social history of the navies - I am not alone with Danni (Linnaeus disqualifies as feminist retard) if I check the number of views of this thread - (and if you can put your hand on a "not highlighted copy" - I am still fuming).

@+P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Redfish



Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 59
Location: Arnhem

Post Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



I could not find a larger picture on line and I do not have a scanner. The picture is in large in Time Life's Fighting Sail. Painting is A.W. Devis' 'Death of Nelson'.
In the larger picture in the book, it is more clear that the Lieutenant on the right has the type of face that could be just as well male as female. Wink He is of slender built.

Does anyone know his name (or is it indeed a she, wearing a Lieutenant's jacket for whatever reason Wink )?

Danni


Last edited by Redfish on Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alexlitandem



Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 129

Post Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

" The type of face that could be just as well male as female".

Hmm. Now what type is that please? `Nelsonian' ?

Begins with an `A' perhaps?

BTW The original cross- post for this `transvestite' thread was barely amusing for its deliberate contrived provocation. But in jest, no doubt.

The book however, supposedly provoking the post, is itself less amusing for its manifest confusions and even grosser idiocies, category mistakes and gross generalisations.

Quote from the original poster on incidence of (what exactly?) cross-dressing, transvestism, women in disguise... yada, yada...?

Utter self-serving rubbish.

Nice to see a few stats Patrick.

A phenomenon more widespread than one would have imagined?

What utter, utter, bloody rubbish. What retarded, ignorant, lazy, statistically inept - more like just feminist self-serving - authors.

(Weren't women by any chance? And how can we be sure of that?

Not one of the chaps?

Eddie Izzard?)

And some libraries will have paid money to hold copies.

(And Linneaus? You say: "A few quotes that come randomly to hand:"

What a total liar you are. Irony is not your strong point.

5 noses for you young man... or is that just a trick of the light?)


Last edited by alexlitandem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Redfish



Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 59
Location: Arnhem

Post Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alex,

Confused Surely I do not have to add winks all the time when I am pranking. Especially not on the first of April? I will edit my post, however, to limit confusion.

In one regerd I am serious, by the way: I would like to know this man's name.
The painting is in the National Maritime Museum. You may take a look there, if you wish to make a study of the man's features.

Danni
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alexlitandem



Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 129

Post Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No Danni, you don't. But, as it happens, `April Fool' stops at midday GMT, by tradition in the U.K.

But, I wasn't tasking your post. (I think I have already seen all the players in the painting in question named).

I was more commenting - belatedly - on the stupidity of the ideas that a) transvestism equates to lesbian / homosexual proclivities or life-choices; not empirically supported - thus removing ( at least offering counter-evidence ) one `motivation' for gender-disguise by women on board ship.

(An even more obvious piece of contra evidence, for the attention of the particularly hard of understanding, would be that were female transvestism to equate to lesbian pre-dispositions, it would be rather retarded for a woman / lesbian to cross-dress on a ship: there weren't that many other women there = not much lesbian potential!)

Talk of motivation is fraught with problems.

Talk of widespread incidence is just TOTAL idiocy.

By the way, Danni, I couldn't help noticing that most of the chaps on the left of the painting - including the rather fetching young chap at the back - whatever she was called - all seem to be looking `out of shot', to the viewer's left in fact.

Bet it was that Emma-wotshername-lookalike that distracted them... or was it ET Parker again?




Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Redfish



Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 59
Location: Arnhem

Post Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the Netherland the pranking goes on whole day, even on the eight o'clock news.

For a lesbian crossdresser, a brothel would indeed seem a more logical place to enter than one of the King's ships Smile .

One question: Google is not very helpful on ET Parker. Please explain!

Danni
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alexlitandem



Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 129

Post Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/memorials/Memorial.cfm?EventGroup=9&MemorialPage=2&MemorialID=M1998

Nelson - allegedly - was buried together with a lock of ETP's hair. But, surely, you knew that?

Rolling Eyes

Just as once a fellow enthusiast sought ( in vain ) to find a portrait / portrayal of Sam Sutton, so I too - to date - have sought in vain to find a portrait or authenticated portrayal of ETP.

A very deep and devious young man.

But one whom - without qualifications please - Nelson loved.

It was probably the red dress

Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter



Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 105
Location: Gosport, Hampshire

Post Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alex,

What tree have you just come down from - sorry you have lost me totally, and probably Danni!

Peter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alexlitandem



Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 129

Post Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peter,

Which bit did you not get?

Read the thread again?

Or, please, help me to clarify any confusion I may have inadvertently caused in your mind?

(Sure Danni is able to talk for her / himself?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter



Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 105
Location: Gosport, Hampshire

Post Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Alex,

Glad to see you are in good form,the bits that didn't make sense to me:

yada yada

Nelson loved!

red dress

begins with A perhaps.

And I had never come across ET Parker, I do remember something about hair though! We had a milkman called Parker once!

And only Patrick can award Noses!

As you know I am just a simple seafaring lad, and I was confused. I apologise for the bit about the tree!
Peter.
Confused


Last edited by Peter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:23 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter



Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 105
Location: Gosport, Hampshire

Post Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A. W. Devis, The Death of Nelson.

Hello Danni,

Devis joined the Victory after its return from Cape Trafalgar, he made many sketches and then later he did the painting. Quite recently the painting on Victory was cleaned and found to be the original. The copy was at the National Maritime Museum. It was always thought to be the other way around.

Over the years there has been much talk and speculation about the one figure, is it male or female. There were no women on Victory at Trafalgar.

The picture isn't completely accurate, as you are know doubt aware the decks on Victory are low, especially this one.

I always thought that the alleged woman was in the middle left of the painting which has been cut off on your picture.

Perhaps it was artistic licence by Devis!

The man in the top right of the picture was the carpenter, I think he was about 6' 5" tall.



Peter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.ageofnelson.org Forum Index -> Age of Nelson All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ   Search    Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Nun