# Women dressing as men - was this illegal?



## Toby Frost

In several Shakespeare plays, women dress up as men. Clearly this is something that could be mentioned on stage, if usually for comedy, but would it be illegal for a woman to wear men's clothing in real life? I gather that the 16th century authorities regarded playhouses as pretty rowdy and immoral, and (albeit a long time earlier) I think cross-dressing was one of the charges levelled at Joan of Arc.

So: would the average Renaissance citizen (in, say, London in 1580) regard this as either an offence against creation, a crime or both? Any pointers on this would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

I'm no expert on this but I would say it was not the clothing as such, but impersonating a man in order to achieve a position/vocation not allowed to women at that time?

I think it was heavily implied that, as a woman and a commoner, Joan of Arc had no place leading an army into battle.


----------



## Toby Frost

I suspect the J of A aspect is a bit of a red herring, since they were looking for an excuse to kill her anyway. 

In general, it seems very hard to tell what Person X could get away with in most situations.


----------



## goldhawk

Throughout history there were various sumptuary and clothing laws.  What is illegal depends on what country and what time-frame.

See:
Clothing laws by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sumptuary law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Nik

IIRC, there were numerous instances of women 'passing' as men in the UK armed services circa Napoleonic War. Presumably their officers turned Nelsonian eye !

Historically, IIRC, many craft guilds were 'men only', with rare exceptions for eg daughters of Master Craftsmen.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

Tobytwo said:


> I suspect the J of A aspect is a bit of a red herring, since they were looking for an excuse to kill her anyway.



Nevertheless, it was something they could use as an excuse.  And as it was a relapse they arranged themselves, while they were arranging things they could have contrived something else.

But the rules in Catholic France in 1431 may have little bearing on the situation in Protestant England a century and a half later.

What happened in the playhouses is not such a good indication either, since the girls dressed as boys were really boys dressed as girls dressed as boys.  Assuming they would have let a woman on the stage in Elizabethan England to begin with (which they didn't)  would they _really_ have allowed her to dress as a boy and make the fantasy a reality?  The female characters in the plays put on male attire as a disguise to protect their virtue, which the audiences obviously found palatable.  A woman openly dressing as a man might have been a very different thing.

Edit -- But then, what about women dressing as men or boys in masques held privately at court?  I wonder if that was allowed?


----------



## dustinzgirl

Yeah they did not allow women to act, so everyone on stage was a male in Shakespearean times. 

Also, laws against women dressing as men exist today. In some countries, like Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan women were/are whipped and even killed for dressing like men. In Malaysia women can not wear the same clothes as men. 

And in some countries, like France and Turkey, woman's traditional clothing, specifically the hijab, is outlawed. 

But no where do we outlaw how men dress. 

Interesting, no?


----------



## Ursa major

Although wasn't there a US state where it was ruled (in a court case) that women had less restriction on them appearing with no clothes than men, due to less-than-obvious physical differences (if I may word it like that)?

(It may have had something to so with some sort of student ritual in public.)


Whether you see this as a bias towards women or towards men is up to you.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

I assume, Ursa, that you (or they) are referring to primary sexual characteristics rather than secondary ones.  Since, um, the differences above the waist can be very obvious indeed.

*Un*dressing, however, is another subject, although local and contemporary notions of decency definitely play a part in what is accepted, what is frowned on, and what is outlawed.


----------



## Ursa major

I didn't want to hijack the thread, Teresa (and still don't), but the issue - one of freedom versus oppression, in this case that men are free to dress as they like, but women aren't (with examples of how a woman can't wear what is, traditionally, women's, not men's, clothing) - had already been raised.

It seems obvious that men have less restrictions placed on them in terms of their clothing (taking account of the whole world), but I don't think it's true to the extent Dusty has suggested. My example was merely a rather extreme example illustrating this point.


----------



## The Judge

Not found anything about Elizabethan England yet, but 18th century France has thrown up Charles d'Eon de Beaumont.  Baptised as a boy s/he was raised as a girl and appears to have had feminine features, being accepted at the Russian court as a woman.  S/he then took up male dress but the King of France ordered her/him to assume female clothing -- presumably on the basis s/he was thought to be a woman and it was immoral (or worse) for her to dress as a man.

Wikipedia has an article on cross-dressing which may be of interest - particularly a list of people famous/notorious for doing this.  Catalina de Erauso may be someone in the rightish time line as she was born in 1592 - if the article is to be believed, the pope gave her dispensation to wear men's clothing, which again suggests some kind of legal prohibition.


----------



## The Ace

Mosaic Law explicitly forbids women from dressing as men, probably the basis for any such laws in Jewish/Muslim/Christian circles.  Whether non-theocratic states have ever followed such rules is a strange one.  Presumably some countries have had such laws while others haven't.


----------



## Arthur_Connelly

This came up on another forum and the example of La Maupin was given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//Julie_d'Aubigny

La Maupin

Crossdressing would have been regarded poorly in that era. Strangely  though, views  on the subject grew more conservative as time went on rather than more  progressive. 

Part of the problem wasn't so much a woman dressing in a man's clothes  as a woman acting like a man, which is to say, a woman forgetting her  place. As has already been mentioned, the theater itself was a different  place than it is now and actresses were regarded poorly by some. There  were those who saw them as little more than prostitutes. As always, the  viewpoint is different depending on what  social class a person was. A noblewoman wearing breeches is something  different than a farrier's daughter doing the same, noblewomen being far more restricted. 

I think it depends  on who the character is and what they're actually doing. That will be  the difference between "Well, look that that little trollop" and "Burn  the witch!"  

I've found a few articles about the subject in early modern England, but  all of them relate to how it was perceived within the theater. As far  as society at large, I can't give anything else aside from the  second-hand things I've already given.


----------



## Toby Frost

Well, modern times aren't really what I'm thinking about, and I do agree that the theatre was probably something of a rule unto itself. All actors were male until very much later, but the _concept_ of women dressing as men seems to be most openly expressed in plays (in whatever context).

I know there are examples from the 18th Century: a friend of mine wrote a novel based on a couple of examples, including a successful surgeon who turned out to have been a woman. To be honest I think this is an issue I can work round: I suspect dressing as a man was both sinful and illegal (not sure they differentiated much then) and wouldn't have been tolerated even for practicality's sake. 

The reason I raise this is because - although the stuff I'm writing is riddled with anachronisms and incosistencies - I do want to give a sense of place and time, albeit distorted. Although I am writing a fantasy world I don't want to move so far away from reality that anything is tolerated: I found it odd in Scott Lynch's writing that the Watch, and IIRC the army, included women officers. It jarred a little somehow. 

Of course, if Joan of Arc hadn't been captured, and she'd won hands down, who knows how the church would have regarded it? Interesting. Perhaps, Judge, the issue is precedent: if Ms Arc's equivalent survived and formed a knightly order, what then? As with most fantasy, if you can make it credible enough, it'll probably work. I'll just have to get to work on the credibility...


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

Ursa major said:


> It seems obvious that men have less restrictions placed on them in terms of their clothing (taking account of the whole world), but I don't think it's true to the extent Dusty has suggested. My example was merely a rather extreme example illustrating this point.



Well, there are societal restrictions and there are legal restrictions.  I think that women, traditionally (and still in many parts of the world) endure harsher penalties -- which would often include legal penalties -- but I completely agree that men are also restricted, if only by community standards that require them to conform if they wish to maintain their position in the community.  Depending on when and where, the censure of one's community or one's peers could lead to some very serious misfortunes (losing your job, being ostracized, being disinherited, etc.) and should not be discounted.  Again, women would likely suffer much more at the hands of society for sartorial improprieties, but that does not mean that men would _always_ get off lightly.

So whether it was actually _legal_ for women to dress as men in, for instance, Elizabethan England, it might nevertheless have other consequences that our heroine (or Toby's) ignores at her extreme peril.


----------



## Toby Frost

Yes, it's a heroine. It's also worth mentioning, I suppose, that almost no-one then would regard wearing the opposite sex's clothes all the time as desirable anyhow (we're talking about practicality here, not, er, other reasons).

As a general point women have been depicted as wearing some very silly things in fantasy in the past, much more in pictures than books. High heels? In a battle? A little realism goes a long way!


----------



## Arthur_Connelly

It goes without saying that almost any woman who ever fought in battle  would have dressed as a man, even if she wasn't trying to pass herself  off as one. The simple practicality of male dress almost demands this.  But one weird thing is that in the medieval era, it was not uncommon for  women to ride horses astride, but centuries later if a woman did the  same thing it was scandalous. 

I think you can get away with it though. Joan wasn't the only woman to  ever fight or threaten the mores of the time, just the most famous, for  the Western audience anyway. I really dig Lady Ann Cunningham for one.

Timeline of women in Medieval warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Timeline of women in early modern warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toby Frost

Thanks for those: very interesting.


----------



## ctg

Dear Toby, 

I think you would be right to address the situation in a fantasy, just like Mr Pratchett has done in the Monstrous Regiment with one of his main characters, who in the turn is a woman dressed in a man's military uniform. But if you put your before 20th century woman in man's clothes, then address them as butch, not as a girly girl. Although there might be very girly moments, but that's just the salt, if you know what I mean. 


Best, 
C.T.


----------



## Ursa major

The Ace said:


> Mosaic Law explicitly forbids women from dressing as men....


 


In the list of mosaic laws to be found on Wiki (613 Mitzvot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia): there are these:


> 70. Men must not wear women's clothing Deut. 22:5
> 71. Women must not wear men's clothing Deut. 22:5


Obviously the first of these was not enforced, at least in the theatre, in Shakespeare's time.


----------



## J-WO

I read once that in Elizabethan times there were strict laws on dressing in higher status clothes, ie- a peasant dressing in Lord's clothing. Clothes played a significant part in dividing the classes. 

Not really cross-dressing of course- more up-dressing- but a lady doing both would be a socio-cultural powder keg.


----------



## Ursa major

J-WO said:


> I read once that in Elizabethan times there were strict laws on dressing in higher status clothes, ie- a peasant dressing in Lord's clothing. Clothes played a significant part in dividing the classes.


 
This link, provided by goldhawk, is concerned with that question (under the sub-heading, England):



goldhawk said:


> Sumptuary law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## The Judge

Toby, I've checked a few of my books to see if I could find anything else definite, but nothing so far.  In particular I have a very good book on Restoration London (called, er, _Restoration London_...) which although a bit past your era does make a few references back.  The author goes into great detail about women's and men's clothes -- 17 pages in all -- and for example notes that "Mourning had inflexible rules" (from societal pressure rather than legal proscription, though) but nowhere does she mention the possibility of women wearing men's clothes.  She does say in reference to the men's fashion of wearing petticoat breeches, garments whcih were open "with no sewing up between the legs", that they could have produced "a _frisson_ of cross-dressing" but that's it.  She has a wonderful eye for quirkiness, though, so I'm sure that if there had been specific laws on the issue she would have mentioned them.  Mind you, although she has a chapter on sex, she doesn't mention any instances of cross-dressing for sexual pleasure (perhaps the petticoat breeches were sufficient...)

I've also been thinking about the issue of Shakespeare's plays.  In none of the commentary I've read about the cross-dressing boy actors has there been any note that these actions outside the theatre would have been prohibited.  I think as others have said, that there would have been moral disapproval and worse if women were thought to be moving out of the sphere allotted to them, but I don't think there were laws as such.  And again, in my forays into legal history I've never come across any court judgements or notes of conviction concerning such activities.

Good luck with the book - and I trust our doughty heroine is successful in her strategems.


----------



## Ursa major

After an intensive search on Google (a few seconds typing _"cross dressing" elizabethan england _) I found this (on the first page of results):
17th century life and times cross dressing​


> Hic Mulier and Haec-Vir echo the debate surrounding the fad of female cross-dressing, adopted not just by lower-class women such as Long Meg of Westminster and Moll Cutpurse, but also noblewomen and citizens' wives. King James himself denounced the fad, which resulted in comment in the pulpits.
> 
> "Yesterday the Bishop of London called together all his Clergy about this town, and told them he had express commandment from the King to will them to inveigh vehemently and bitterly in their sermons against the insolency of our women, and their wearing of broad-brimmed hats, pointed doublets, their hair cut short or shorn, and some of them stilletos or poinards. (Swords) The truth is the world is very far out of order." John Chamberlain, reported to his friend Dudley Carleton on January 25, 1620


 
there are Wiki entries on both pamphlets:
Haec Vir (Haec-Vir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia); and
Hic Mulier (Hic Mulier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).​Both of those wiki pages have links to the text of both pamphlets.


----------



## Peter Graham

> In several Shakespeare plays, women dress up as men. Clearly this is something that could be mentioned on stage, if usually for comedy, but would it be illegal for a woman to wear men's clothing in real life? I gather that the 16th century authorities regarded playhouses as pretty rowdy and immoral, and (albeit a long time earlier) I think cross-dressing was one of the charges levelled at Joan of Arc.


 
You have to be careful when talking about 16th Century authorities, as things changed on a daily basis back then! During that century England ceded from Rome, established the Church of England, became Proddy, became Papist again, became Proddy again, fought with Scotland and France, then allied with Scotland, fell out with them again, got friendly with France, fell out with France again, decided that France wasn't so bad after all even though we had finally lost Calais, fell out with the Dutch, decided that the Dutch were alright, fell out with Spain big time, then fell out with the Irish and then finally allowed the Stuarts to take the Crown on the strict understanding that they forgot they had ever been Scottish.  This was only fair, as previous monarchs had been obliged to forget that they were French, following the away defeat that was the Hundred Years War, or Welsh/notherners following Bosworth Field. 

Laws were passed and went unheeded, various religious nutters grandstanded against depravity (in others), the poor remained dirt poor and the rich pranced around in tights, eating marchpane and listening to woeful madrigals played by proto-Stings.



> So: would the average Renaissance citizen (in, say, London in 1580) regard this as either an offence against creation, a crime or both? Any pointers on this would be greatly appreciated.


 
I suspect not. There had been earlier laws about who wore what, but they had been primarily class based rather than gender based and were a throwback to feudalism. The jolly and frequent cross-dressing in the plays of Shakespeare, Congreve, Jonson et al suggests that cross dressing was regarded as a bit of a laugh rather than an offence against law or god - although the Puritans, Jesuits and the rest would have thought otherwise.

Joan of Arc was a good bit earlier - feudal habits were still dying hard. She was sold to the English after being captured by the Duke of Burgundy (I think - wiki fans may wish to correct me) and we did her in primarily out of revenge.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

> "Yesterday the Bishop of London called together all his Clergy about this town, and told them he had express commandment from the King to will them to inveigh vehemently and bitterly in their sermons against the insolency of our women, and their wearing of broad-brimmed hats, pointed doublets, their hair cut short or shorn, and some of them stilletos or poinards. (Swords)



Nothing said here about women wearing breeches instead of skirts, though.  I've seen pictures of women wearing all these fashions -- but quite modestly attired in skirts, hoops, bum rolls etc.

It is interesting to note that it may have been enough for females to include a few items of "masculine" clothing while still dressed as women to earn the ire of the clergy.


----------



## Susan Boulton

Toby;

I suggest you get a copy of Medieval Women A social history of Women in England from 450-1500 by Henrietta Leyser.  I know the period is a bit before the one you are looking at, but there are some wonderful tit-bits about attitudes to women, way of life, law etc.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

SJAB said:


> Medieval Women A social history of Women in England from 450-1500 by Henrietta Leyser.



(Making note of title.)  I wonder if the book is available in this country.


----------



## Susan Boulton

Teresa Edgerton said:


> (Making note of title.) I wonder if the book is available in this country.


 
Teresa, it is available on Amazon uk, so it might be in the states as well.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

Nope.  Two articles about the book available through amazon.com, but not the book itself.

I see that it's not horribly expensive at amazon.co.uk (except for the shipping which would be difficult right now), but right next to it I see, which could be of use to Toby:

Women In England 1500-1760: A Social History (Women In History) by Anne Laurence 

Not that I've read or could vouch for the book, but the period is right.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

dustinzgirl said:


> Yeah they did not allow women to act, so everyone on stage was a male in Shakespearean times.
> 
> Also, laws against women dressing as men exist today. In some countries, like Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan women were/are whipped and even killed for dressing like men. In Malaysia women can not wear the same clothes as men.
> 
> And in some countries, like France and Turkey, woman's traditional clothing, specifically the hijab, is outlawed.
> 
> But no where do we outlaw how men dress.
> 
> Interesting, no?


 
I'm pretty sure Iraq has more pressing concerns than clothing to spend their time on. Even in Iran and Afghanistan, it's only certain areas that are under the control of hard-liners like Hezbollah and Taliban, respectively, where women might be whipped for wearing 'manly clothes'. (And most definitely not killed. It's generally not a good idea to drop such controversial statements so casually.)

As for Malaysia, that's just not true at all. They have no such law.

France's ban on hijab is more to do with bigotry than sexism, and Turkey's ban is virtually lifted, now. (Not that it was widely followed, anyway.)

And as for no laws regarding men - sorry, but you're wrong there, too. Pretty much all Muslim countries forbid men from wearing women's clothing (i.e. cross-dressing). Restrictions on cross-dressing isn't nearly the sexist issue that you're making it out to be.


P.S. I apologise for 'hijacking' the thread, but I feel very strongly that dissemination of information should be treated with care. It's very easy to unwittingly perpetuate false stereotypes about people and cultures we don't understand.


----------



## J-WO

Teresa Edgerton said:


> It is interesting to note that it may have been enough for females to include a few items of "masculine" clothing while still dressed as women to earn the ire of the clergy.



Certainly still the case as late as the Nineteeth century with the 'Pit girls' and their trousers. And unfair too, given that skirts would get caught in the conveyor belt machinery. Maybe someone should have let the clergy have a go at the job in their cassocks.


----------



## The Judge

Even later than that, J-WO.  Women wearing trousers in the 1920s and 30s were seen as morally dubious and I have no doubt there were fulminations against them.  And it's only in the last 25-30 years that female lawyers were allowed to wear trousers in court.


----------



## Ursa major

To be fair, the courts haven't been in the vanguard of clothing fashion in recent years (centuries) in the UK.








(Please tell me there's been a case - perhaps '25-30 years' ago - where some grumpy old judge has seen a female barrister wearing trousers and demanded: "Take those off at once!")


----------



## Toby Frost

Not in the courtroom, as far as I recall.


----------



## The Judge

At this point I shall refrain from making any jokes about barristers' briefs...


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

When I was a young woman going to our community college, they made a  change to the dress code so that women would be allowed to wear slacks  -- but it was not to be a permanent change until they saw how it all worked out, and we were not allowed to wear jeans.

What it was they feared would happen if it _didn't_ work out, I have never known.  I also wondered then, and still wonder now, why the young men were allowed the informality of jeans and we were not.

This was in 1968 -- about a year after the High School I had attended outlawed culottes, and a couple of years after "granny dresses" were ruled improper (supposedly high-necked, full-length, long-sleeved calico dresses were too much like nightgowns and were therefore deeply suggestive).  This was amusing, considering how many girls were being sent home to change their clothes or given detention because their skirts were too _short_.

It is less than half a century, in the great land of freedom that is the USA, since females of all ages were given permission to dress like men -- or even like their own great-grandmothers.


----------



## Pyan

DA said:
			
		

> France's ban on hijab is more to do with bigotry than sexism



France's ban on the hijab is because it's not _French_...remember this is the only country in the world to have an official state department charged with maintaining the purity of the language, with the power to ban words that aren't French enough.





			
				TE said:
			
		

> I also wondered then, and still wonder now, why the young men were allowed the informality of jeans and we were not.



Probably because generally speaking, what men wear is not regarded as a clue to their sexual _mores_, and what women wear _is_?...


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

pyan said:


> Probably because generally speaking, what men wear is not regarded as a clue to their sexual _mores_, and what women wear _is_?...




Except that I don't remember that jeans had all of those sexual associations back then.  No Calvin Klein, no sexually suggestive billboards featuring half-naked young people in tight jeans ...

But maybe it was an unspoken belief (and this leads back to the original discussion, where the idea was more openly expressed) that women who _dressed_ like men must be suspected of practicing the same sexual freedoms as men.

Which would set up all sorts of naughty thoughts in the male students and distract them from their studies.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

pyan said:


> France's ban on the hijab is because it's not _French_...remember this is the only country in the world to have an official state department charged with maintaining the purity of the language, with the power to ban words that aren't French enough.


I don't believe that for more than 2.3 seconds. Give me 11 other examples of France banning items of clothing because they weren't French.


----------



## Ursa major

I think you may have misunderstood what Pyan was saying. France is very proud of its culture; it also seems to believe its culture is a frail flower that needs protecting.

In the case of language, France invents words for new(-ish) things so as to prevent French being "colonised" by other languages (English probably being the most obvious example). They are also keen on restricting the choice of names for their children. (At least, there used to be a list of permitted first names, but this may no longer be the case.)

While no doubt there are racial and religious aspects to the banning of the hijab, I expect the idea that France might host a _visible_ culture, one that isn't seen to be as French as all the other imported fashions that have originated in other parts of the world, seems to fit in with this.

This seems to be the most obvious answer to the question of why France is more bothered by, say, the hijab than other western countries, some of whom have, at least in parts of their countries, as high a concentration of people of Islamic faith as does France. Nor is France unique in having "race-sensitive" parties with a significant share of votes cast.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

First off, I apologise if my previous post seemed antagonistic.

Secondly, the problem with the French ban isn't just to do with Islam. They banned the Yarmulke (the skull-cap that Jewish men wear), and 'large' crosses as well. Now that brings up a question: why only 'large' crosses, as opposed to crosses, period? Shouldn't it then be 'large' Yarmulkes and 'large' (i.e. fully covering) hijab, as well?

Clearly, they have a problem with any open expression of support for any faith that is not Christianity. Probably because France considers Christianity to be the 'correct' religion (but are pretending that's not the case). Crosses should be banned, too. Just because Christianity has been in France for a while doesn't mean it's somehow more appropriate. What makes crosses more 'French' than hijabs or Yarmulkes? What if the King had banned crosses in France centuries ago?

Personally, I find it hard to believe it is anything other than oppression of faith.

And as far as culture goes... well, then they should really prevent anyone from wearing anything that is distinctly un-French. Are Scottish kilts banned, too? What about Indian Hindus who choose to put the _teeka_ on their foreheads? Would foreign expatriates be forbidden from wearing their un-French national dresses (e.g. the _qundoora _worn by Arab men)? What about the Mexican sombrero? Can't imagine Sarkozy wearing that...

I don't think it's simply about protecting French culture. It seems the parliament of France is singling out _religious_ items, and Muslim and (to a slightly lesser extent) Jewish items, in particular.

The question is - why?

*we're really staying on topic here, aren't we?*


----------



## Ursa major

No, I think it is _mostly_ a cultural thing. Yes, there'll be a religious element in it and a political one as well. (One can just imagine what would happen to the vote of the _Front national_ if all crosses were banned there; I doubt that it would go down.)

I'd guess** that however much the French state sees itself as being somewhat areligious, it did emerge from what had been a strongly Catholic culture. (Go back in time and ask a Hugenot.) I suppose the reason that they are against _large _crosses is that this is stepping outside the cultural norm and so might be seen as divisive (or some sort of threat to thei predominance of the state culture).

Religion and culture and politics do not exist in isolated silos. They affect one another. (Look at the dates of many Christian festivals: they have more to do with the culture of the converted than the religion.) And then there is history. I'm no expert, but I think you'll find that most of France's history has been intimately linked with Christianity, including the legitimacy of its rulers.

Are countries steeped in other faiths really any different?




** - I have heard of the issue of hijabs in France, but I have no idea about the situation regarding the other things you mention.


----------



## Peter Graham

> Clearly, they have a problem with any open expression of support for any faith that is not Christianity. Probably because France considers Christianity to be the 'correct' religion (but are pretending that's not the case). Crosses should be banned, too. Just because Christianity has been in France for a while doesn't mean it's somehow more appropriate. What makes crosses more 'French' than hijabs or Yarmulkes? What if the King had banned crosses in France centuries ago?


 
No, no and thrice no.

The French are not bigots. But they do draw a very clear distinction between the state and the church. The state is run on secular lines, meaning that people's "rights" to express their faith are nearly always trumped by the secular law in the event of a clash. If the law says that all French schoolchildren have to dress a certain way, this applies to everyone. 

This is not bigotry. This is merely the logical conclsuion of a policy decison which keeps religion out of secular life and refuses to allow the perceived rights of an individual to trump the perceived best interests of everyone else. And good luck to them, I say.





> I don't think it's simply about protecting French culture. It seems the parliament of France is singling out _religious_ items, and Muslim and (to a slightly lesser extent) Jewish items, in particular.


 
Not true. You have to look at this in the round. As Ursa says, the French are proud of their culture and have collective wobblies at all sorts of things - look how they react every time an English word or phrase creeps in. 

They feel (perhaps rightly) that their language is under threat from the perfidious Anglophone and (perhaps wrongly) that their culture is also under threat. The very arguments you make as to why they shouldn't ban things (because people have a right to express their cultures and beliefs) are precisely the _same_ reasons that the French use to justify promoting their own culture and beliefs. OK, to many of us it looks like Canute trying to turn back the tides, but rushing to accusing a whole people of bigotry and intolerance is unfair and inaccurate.

Ca va,

Pierre


----------



## Daniel Hetberg

There was an interesting case in germany a couple years back, where a non-christian family sued the federal state of Bavaria to remove christian crosses from classrooms. Their child felt upset by this reminder of cruel torture.

Now, Bavaria is a really _really_ catholic area.

This lawsuit opened a whole can of worms about what is and what is not allowed at state intisutions, regarding religious symbols. 

I need to run off to work now, but I'll have a look at it later... don't remember the exact results anymore.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Peter Graham said:


> but rushing to accusing a whole people of bigotry and intolerance is unfair and inaccurate.



First of all, kindly do not attempt to prove your point by misrepresenting what I said. At no point did I "[accuse] a whole people of bigotry and intolerance". If that is what you interpreted, then that is a gross and abject failure on *your* part, not mine. My issue was with the parliamentary decision regarding this one issue, which I feel was done for the wrong reasons, and not with either the French people, or the nation as a whole. I find it highly annoying that you chose (and yes, it was most definitely a concious choice) to try and present my statements in that light.



> The state is run on secular lines, meaning that people's "rights" to express their faith are nearly always trumped by the secular law in the event of a clash.



And which clash are you talking about? What problems had occurred in France that caused the government to conclude that banning hijabs and the Yarmulke would be in the best interest of the nation's people and/or its security?



> This is not bigotry. This is merely the logical conclsuion of a policy decison which keeps religion out of secular life and refuses to allow the perceived rights of an individual to trump the perceived best interests of everyone else. And good luck to them, I say.


 
Which interests are those, then? The interest to not see any religion other than Christianity? The interests to see people's hair uncovered to check for dandruff? Save materials so we can clothe the homeless? And secular? Please, give me a break. There is not a single country on the face of this planet, least of all France, that is truly secular. US is supposed to have separation of chruch and state, too. But go ahead and whip out a dollar bill, and the first thing you see is "In God We Trust." Secularism is fantasy.



> Not true. You have to look at this in the round. As Ursa says, the French are proud of their culture and have collective wobblies at all sorts of things - look how they react every time an English word or phrase creeps in.


This is not a case of language, which is distinctly either French, or not French. On what basis can you say that hijab/Yarmulke is not French? Just because the majority of the people are Christian? That certainly doesn't tie-in with the whole 'separation of church and state' argument; clearly, there's a contradiction here. 

It's not like this law only affects foreigners traveling to France, there are plenty of French nationals who are Muslims. So who are the government trying to protect their culture from? The threat of their _own_ citizens?? This, frankly, is what I find most disturbing: the idea that they - and, apparently, you - feel that expression of any religion other than Christianity is a 'threat' to French culture. 

The fact that France has a centuries' old connection with Christianity is just circumstance; it is in no way some sort of 'absolute truth' that must always be followed. A French Muslim or a French Jew is no less French than anyone else. If Christians are allowed to express and practise their faith, then so should everyone else, and that is inarguable.



> The very arguments you make as to why they shouldn't ban things (because people have a right to express their cultures and beliefs) are precisely the _same_ reasons that the French use to justify promoting their own culture and beliefs.


Promoting their own beliefs is not the same as stifling someone else's. One need not come at the expense of the other. France is supposed to be a country that is democratic, free, and *cough* 'secular'. Singling out certain religious symbols is in contradiction to those values.

All in all, it seems to me that your post was less about contradicting any factual inaccuracies in my statements, and more about making excuses on behalf of the French parliament to justify their ridiculous decision.

*EDIT* In any case, that's that; this debate is over. The thread now bears no relevance to the topic for which it was started. My apologies to Tobytwo for hijacking and disemboweling it; hopefully other, more considerate contributors than myself have sufficiently answered your query.

To borrow a line from Ryan Seacrest - DA Out!


----------



## Peter Graham

> *EDIT* In any case, that's that; this debate is over. The thread now bears no relevance to the topic for which it was started.
> To borrow a line from Ryan Seacrest - DA Out!


 

Come on!  You spill a load of ink getting all indignant about me and then try and pull the drawbridge up before I can respond?

Anyhow, let's move on.  I think that one area we have not considered in response to TobyTwo's original question is how laws are viewed in their day.  

A good modern example might be British motoring laws, especially those which relate to speeding.  A commentator looking back at our criminal law in a few hundred years time would be able to say with some certainty that speeding was a criminal offence which carried a significant fine, penalty points and could easily lead to you losing your driving licence.  

It would perhaps be harder for that same commentator to understand how people viewed that law, or how the courts usually dealt with malefactors.  Very few bans, very small fines and guilty pleas by post present a reality which is far removed from what a cursory look at the Road Traffic Act might suggest.  In addition, a significant number of motorists have very little regard or respect for speed limits, almost believing that they are in a game of "catch me if you can" with the authorities.

Look also at the drink driving laws.  These have not changed much over the years, but attitudes to them certainly have.

I suspect that the situation might have been similar with dress laws.  Not always and not everywhere, perhaps, but the very fact that nearly every comedy from that era relies on a spot of cross dressing as the main source of humour gives a strong inidcation of how such matters were viewed in practice, irrespective of what was on the staute books.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

*Moderating*

OK, this conversation is getting too heated at times.  I suggest that everyone step back to neutral corners, take a deep breath, and consider that everyone else means well, whether we agree with their opinions or not.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

I wonder if all that _pseudo_ female cross-dressing was put into Elizabethan comedies merely because it was funny or because it was titillating as well.

The "girls" in these plays always dress as youths for the sake of preserving their chastity and preventing male assault, but would this simply provoke audience sympathy, or would there be other reactions as well, not at the actual display (because they were real boys) but in contemplating the thought of actual females walking around in male attire.

The authorities who were railing against women adding masculine hats and other items to an otherwise feminine ensemble, were offended by something very different, I think, than fictitious young girls exposing their lower limbs in hose.


----------



## The Judge

Good point about the RTA, Peter - and no doubt there wasn't complete uniformity between the attitude of the authorities and that of ordinary people.  Nonetheless, I think there's a difference between laughing at something on the stage and being amused by, or even tolerant of, something in real life.  Men dressing as women is a case in point -- cleverly done by Danny la Rue, incredibly funny when it was Les Dawson, a staple of panto for decades -- but likely to attract unpleasant comments and worse even nowadays in everyday life.  It's a subversion of what is right in some people's eyes and when it's outside the safety of the theatre or TV screen it becomes threatening to their world view.

As for titillation, I've never seen an all-male production, but I wonder whether it's possible for the audience to suspend disbelief so entirely as to forget that the person playing Rosalind is in fact a boy playing a girl playing a boy?  Or even, would that add an extra thrill to it?


----------



## Dave

To return to the original question, I doubt that there was ever a specific Law banning it, but it would be wholly unacceptable as there were very strict rules about what you could wear based upon your position in society. However, that is besides the point; it can't see how anyone could get away with it. Everyone belonged somewhere and lived communally. Whether they lived in a town or the country, whether they are free or unfree, villeins and freemen alike were known in their home-towns. In a village tithing a stranger would not be accepted. In a town a stranger could pretend to be a merchant or a noble, but to do that you would really need to be a rich Lady. Such a person would be instantly recognised for who they really were.


----------



## The Judge

I've just had an interesting few minutes looking through the lists of the *Statutes of Apparel 1574*, Elizabeth's updating of the Sumptuary Laws.  Still nothing about women dressing as men, but if Toby's heroine wears any kind of material -- or colour -- above her station, they've got her.

I'm assuming, Toby, that she is time-travelling (?with Space Captain Smith?) from the present day, so she won't know any of the rules.  Just make sure she doesn't pinch an earl's doublet and hose.


----------



## Ursa major

I suspect that this will be TobyTwo's fantasy novel, rather than a continuation of the Space Captain Smith series.








(But if I'm wrong, please let Polly Carveth have a real pony.  )


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

I'm not sure that this is true for every place and period, but in general, violating Sumptuary Laws only resulted in a fine.  Those who were rich enough to pay the fines often violated the laws.  

But getting caught would tend to happen at home, where everyone knew your status.  (And wearing the clothes and paying the fine would be done to impress then neighbors.)  Among strangers, if you dressed like an earl, people would assume you were an earl, if you could duplicate the manners and maintain the imposture.


----------



## Toby Frost

It is for the fantasy novel, but don't worry: providing she survives the Galactic War, Polly will be looting the Ghast Empire for every pony she can get.

The reason I asked this question was to get a backdrop on which to build a fairly real-worldeque fantasy world. What I've learned is this: 1) There are almost no clear answers here and 2) generally in the late middle ages and Renaissance, women tended to get the crappy end of the (generally quite rubbish for everyone) stick. However, it is clear that where there were different rules - usually in society-within-a-society situation like the theatre or war - the rules could change or at least be loosened. It is also difficult to tell exactly what the reactions of people would be, or how strongly they'd hold them. 

What this says to me is that so long as I do it convincingly I can get away with quite a lot. Provided the reasons are good and the options arise, there are options that I can use without clearly separating the whole story from either internal logic or its connections to the real world.

For my next thread I'll deal with something a bit less contentious, like abortion and gun control.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

Tobytwo said:


> For my next thread I'll deal with something ... like abortion and gun control.



(showing a set of carefully sharpened incisors)

At your peril.


----------



## Toby Frost

Only joking - I thought this topic was absolutely safe when I posted it!


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

One would have thought so.  It's an interesting topic, and I hope it can continue.


----------



## J-WO

There was that Pope Joan, too. Or is she a fiction? I'm not too up on my medieval stuff.


----------



## Toby Frost

I don't think she was. IIRC, she was a legend of some sort. There's a Father Brown story where Father Brown finds a secret panel covered in books with false titles: "The life of Pope Joan" is one of them. Why do I remember this kind of stuff?

That said this is exactly the sort of thing that interests me: half-remembered historical margin notes that can be extrapolated into reality in a fantasy setting. Clockwork vehicles, genuine faerie queens, magicians on islands calling up storms: all useful stuff. Each to their own, but I'm very fond of the badly-remembered-history style. Thanls for reminding me of Pope Joan!


----------



## Boneman

The Judge said:


> As for titillation, I've never seen an all-male production, but I wonder whether it's possible for the audience to suspend disbelief so entirely as to forget that the person playing Rosalind is in fact a boy playing a girl playing a boy? Or even, would that add an extra thrill to it?


 
Aah, well... at my all-boy boarding school, you saw that all the time (in the theatrical productions I hasten to add!), and it certainly didn't add a thrill to it, I'd rather have seen a woman playing a boy playing a woman anyday.


----------



## littlemissattitude

No idea about different time periods and regions of the world, but I was recently reading a book called *Gay L.A.*which treated in a scholarly but popularly written the history of gay culture in Los Angeles. According to the authors of that book, men who dressed as women were much more likely to suffer legal consequences there than women dressed in traditionally men's clothes clear up until the 1960s and 1970s.

Which made an interesting contrast to some of the Native American groups living in the region earlier in history. Most of those groups, as well as some Native American groups in other parts of the country, were very accomodating of those and had a specific role in their societies for those who felt the need to dress like and take on the roles of persons of the opposite gender.

It was an interesting book and I wish I could have finished reading it, but it was during the time that I was moving and it came due at the library before I was able to finish it.

EDITED: to delete stray punctuation mark.


----------



## J-WO

Has there ever been a society where both sexes wear the same kind of clothing? I mean where the notion of gender-based wear doesn't exist? There were periods in Egypt where both sexes wore make up, but I think they had differing clothes.


----------



## Peter Graham

> Nonetheless, I think there's a difference between laughing at something on the stage and being amused by, or even tolerant of, something in real life. Men dressing as women is a case in point -- cleverly done by Danny la Rue, incredibly funny when it was Les Dawson, a staple of panto for decades


 
I'm not sure about this.  I think there was a world of difference between a character in Shakespeare cross dressing and the music hall antics of Les Dawson and co.  In the former case, whilst I accept that there might have been a degree of titillation built in for the entertainment of the groundlings, the cross dressing was usually introduced as a plot device - typically to allow a character to hear or see things they wouldn't otherwise be party to.  It was often rather tongue in cheek, but the basic idea was that the cross dressing was understated and the character got away with it.

However, Les Dawon et al derived humour from cross dressing by being grotesque at it, or deliberately over the top in its execution (Dick Emery springs to mind).  The humour came from the act of cross dressing rather than from the complications which inevitably arose when a cross dressed Shakespearian character heard that X was in love with them, or accidentally attracted the attention of Y whilst in disguise.

As to the breaches of sumptuary laws, my guess is that social approbation would come equally from one's social superiors ("down goes a bishop, firs, and up ftarts a weaver!") but also one's equals - historically, the British have an ingrained dislike of "swanking" (as they call it in Yorkshire) and "tekkin' on airs an' graces".

Regards,

Peter


----------

