Women dressing as men - was this illegal?

[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]

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]

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!