When history textbooks covered the American Civil War, they left out this amazing fact about how women disguised themselves as men to join in on the action. That’s pretty typical of textbooks, right? Well, the cat’s out of the bag now because historians DeAnne Blanton and Lauren M. Cook have recorded more than 250 documented accounts of women who fearlessly served as soldiers for both the Union and Confederate armies while incognito. These accounts are chronicled in Blanton and Cook’s book They Fought Like Demons: Women Soldiers in the Civil War.
There were several motives: patriotism, love (to stay near a lover, husband, relative, etc.) and personal economy. An army private’s salary was thirteen dollars a month which was almost double the wages of most jobs available for women at the time.
The demographic of the women who went to battle included immigrants, those below the poverty line, farm hands and the working class. Blanton and Cook would contend that the prospect of earning a decent sum of money enabled women to feel empowered by seizing the right to unprecedented socioeconomic opportunities.
Most women were never found out because the troops seldom bathed and frequently slept clothed, so nudity was hardly an issue. Moreover, the poorly fitted uniforms helped tremendously in keeping the women disguised as men—pregnant women were even part of the ranks and often frightened their male counterparts when it came time to deliver. [via Brain Pickings]
When men started catching on to the women’s masquerade, the women were discharged from the army for reasons such as, “sexual incompatibility,” “congenital peculiarities” or “unmistakable evidence of being a woman.” (In regard to the last reason, I can’t help but think of Disney’s Mulan since the protagonist also dressed up as a man to fight for her country.)
Lovelies, what other little known facts about history would you want to share?
guest
Oh wow that’s pretty damn cool!! Women ftw!
guest
So women go to war for the same reasons as men? What a shock!
guest
1. Homemaking and seamstressing is not mundane.
2. Were the women COs? I’m guessing not, in which case, they get about the same amount of attention that male enlistees do. Meaning, their numbers are mentioned and not much else. 3. Women have fought in lots of wars throughout history… I thought this was generally known.
orchid / 194 posts
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing as @WaitingToShrug@xanga . It’s really cool that women did that, but homemaking and seamstressing were necessary occupations. Aside from that, though, this is really cool to read about.
guest
Yes, there was (still is) sexism regarding the stereotyped gender roles and the jobs society deems appropriate for women. That doesn’t make them bad or mundane jobs. Because you or I wouldn’t choose them doesn’t mean we should demean other women for their decisions.
As for textbooks, history is written by those with the publishers — and consists just as much of what is not as what is said. In northern North America, that typically means middle-to-old white males. The rank and file become mere statistics, which includes men and women, and all those others labels you can think of (black, white, First Nations, Asian).
What becomes phenomenal is when one of those pawns does something that made heads turn, or even the papers, be they male or female. They had just as much chance of getting this recognition as anyone else. What makes them exceptional is the lengths to which they went to inject themselves in the armed forces wherein they were neither welcomed nor permitted.
guest
lol mulan