Women (not?) at sea

[Velho e Bom Joe]

Or, "why were navies worse than some gamers?"

From what I've read, European crews during the age of sail were pretty much always male, and there was a LOT of (bad) superstition sorrounding the presence of women in a ship. They brought bad luck, discord, etc.

I know European (well, unfortunately pretty much most agrarian) societies were patriarchal as hell, but the absolute taboo concerning women aboard ships strikes me as even more drastic.

Of course, I imagine a lot of sailor work would be very physically demanding and more suitable for males that tend to be stronger, but surely there would still be many useful roles for women, some even that the society of that time deemed suitable for them, like cooking, repairing nets, sails or clothes; or jobs not physically demanding like navigation or surgery; And of course prostitution, because surely those long travel times would build up a lot of sexual wants on the men?

I could see perhaps the last point of sex possibly causing drama and friction among crewmates if such matters start to get personal... But would it really be so common as to explain this taboo? It's not like landbound armies (also male-centric) failed into infighting due to their camp followers.

Actually, was that taboo exclusively for military fleets? Were Merchant/Trading ships as bad? Exploration vessels? Fishing/Whaling?

How and when did that come to pass?
Is it known if that also was a thing back in Roman and Greek times (I guess so...)?

Also, not exactly related to women at sea, but still related to women AND sea... is there any truth that busy port cities also tended to be prostitution hotspots? I very often see that trope of the "seedy docks district" in fiction. It makes sense that the sexually frustrated sailors would be itching (both metaphorically and literally from venereal diseases I suppose) to have some fun times, but is the "seedy docks" that much of a deviation from landlocked cities to deserve that reputation?

At last, for all these questions: was it radically different in other regions, like did Muslims, Indians, or East Asians differ much?

 

[IsadorBG]

I am not sure what kind of answer you are looking for. You open by saying you know that ancient societies were very patriarchal but seem to not know what it means. This statement especially made me pause:

Actually, was that taboo exclusively for military fleets? Were Merchant/Trading ships as bad? Exploration vessels? Fishing/Whaling?

Do you know many female soldiers? Travelling merchants (even by land)? Explorers(famous or not)? Hunters?

This is the problem I have with this question, why is it so surprising that there are so few female sailors when they were few women having an outdoor profession to begin with? Those in particular stand out because most women of age would be married and have children, so the possibilities for them to travel, for months, if not years at time were almost unthinkable for that day and age. It's even to this day quite uncommon. 99% of seafarers in 2022 are men after all.

As for women usefulness, it really do not matter here. Remember, patriarchal society? As long as a men could do the job, then why even bother? And by the way educated women were not exactly to be found everywhere. Especially for the social classes that would supply navy men.

Also, keep in mind that the job of seaman was not exactly an easy one. Indeed, often poor souls were enlisted by forced in the ranks. By what can only be described as state legal kidnapping. Indeed, it was one of the reason of the 1812 war between the US and the UK as the UK forced enlisted Americans to serve in the RN! And the practice only ended by the end of the XIXth century.

So in the end, why women would even want to do such a horrible job to begin with?

Still, like everywhere else, they were seawomen. They were rare, and most often than not had to crossdress or become a pirate, but they existed.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Or, "why were navies worse than some gamers?"

From what I've read, European crews during the age of sail were pretty much always male, and there was a LOT of (bad) superstition sorrounding the presence of women in a ship. They brought bad luck, discord, etc.

I know European (well, unfortunately pretty much most agrarian) societies were patriarchal as hell, but the absolute taboo concerning women aboard ships strikes me as even more drastic.

Of course, I imagine a lot of sailor work would be very physically demanding and more suitable for males that tend to be stronger, but surely there would still be many useful roles for women, some even that the society of that time deemed suitable for them, like cooking, repairing nets, sails or clothes; or jobs not physically demanding like navigation or surgery; And of course prostitution, because surely those long travel times would build up a lot of sexual wants on the men?

I could see perhaps the last point of sex possibly causing drama and friction among crewmates if such matters start to get personal... But would it really be so common as to explain this taboo? It's not like landbound armies (also male-centric) failed into infighting due to their camp followers.

Actually, was that taboo exclusively for military fleets? Were Merchant/Trading ships as bad? Exploration vessels? Fishing/Whaling?

How and when did that come to pass?
Is it known if that also was a thing back in Roman and Greek times (I guess so...)?

And when you're all stuck in a tiny tub, its even harder to avoid.

I don't know when. But I presume it's pretty ancient. I know there were taboos about even allowing women to visit on board ship when it was in docked in port (they might stow away).

Here's an anecdote from Portuguese maritime history: when Vasco da Gama's second fleet of 1502 landed in Kilwa (east Africa), Portuguese sailors "kidnapped" some local women and took them aboard ship for fun & games. When time came for the fleet to leave, the women didn't want to go back - they were afraid their families would reject them (or worse) for having consorted with foreign sailors. It became a huge issue. The sailors begged to take their new playthings along, but Gama wouldn't budge and ordered the women off. He negotiated all sorts of guarantees from their families, and protections from the local authorities, but the women refused to leave. Things were at an impasse. At length Gama relented, because they were likely to miss the monsoon tide if they didn't get moving. So he decided that for once - just this once - they could take the women along with them. Sailors were very delighted.

Event was enough of a rarity to be worth mentioning in the chronicles. As a rule, you don't take women.

Also, not exactly related to women at sea, but still related to women AND sea... is there any truth that busy port cities also tended to be prostitution hotspots? I very often see that trope of the "seedy docks district" in fiction. It makes sense that the sexually frustrated sailors would be itching (both metaphorically and literally from venereal diseases I suppose) to have some fun times, but is the "seedy docks" that much of a deviation from landlocked cities to deserve that reputation?

Yes. Still are, AFAIK.

 

[Kazanov]

I always saw the age of exploration voyages as suicide missions, the sea was dangerous, you could die from random diseases, shipwrecks, etc. Having women on board could add venereal diseases and fights amongst the crew to the mix.

For example i remember an ex-gf that got rejected at a job because she, being a woman, was seen as something risky, she was a programmer, and having a woman in an incel enviroment could be disastrous for work-climate. That was more than a decade ago, just imagine that 400+ years ago.

Men are basic animals, I cannot imagine being sorrounded only by them for 2 or more months...

Also, not exactly related to women at sea, but still related to women AND sea... is there any truth that busy port cities also tended to be prostitution hotspots? I very often see that trope of the "seedy docks district" in fiction. It makes sense that the sexually frustrated sailors would be itching (both metaphorically and literally from venereal diseases I suppose) to have some fun times, but is the "seedy docks" that much of a deviation from landlocked cities to deserve that reputation?

Im from a country with lots of ports and miner's towns. Both have a reputation for being prostitution hotspots (and venereal diseases). Men-only spaces tend to be places filled with degeneracy.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

It's even to this day quite uncommon. 99% of seafarers in 2022 are men after all.

98,8 % and doubling within last decade.We are geting there but slowly.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Or, "why were navies worse than some gamers?"

From what I've read, European crews during the age of sail were pretty much always male, and there was a LOT of (bad) superstition sorrounding the presence of women in a ship. They brought bad luck, discord, etc.

I know European (well, unfortunately pretty much most agrarian) societies were patriarchal as hell, but the absolute taboo concerning women aboard ships strikes me as even more drastic.

Of course, I imagine a lot of sailor work would be very physically demanding and more suitable for males that tend to be stronger, but surely there would still be many useful roles for women, some even that the society of that time deemed suitable for them, like cooking, repairing nets, sails or clothes; or jobs not physically demanding like navigation or surgery; And of course prostitution, because surely those long travel times would build up a lot of sexual wants on the men?

I could see perhaps the last point of sex possibly causing drama and friction among crewmates if such matters start to get personal... But would it really be so common as to explain this taboo? It's not like landbound armies (also male-centric) failed into infighting due to their camp followers.

Actually, was that taboo exclusively for military fleets? Were Merchant/Trading ships as bad? Exploration vessels? Fishing/Whaling?

How and when did that come to pass?
Is it known if that also was a thing back in Roman and Greek times (I guess so...)?

Also, not exactly related to women at sea, but still related to women AND sea... is there any truth that busy port cities also tended to be prostitution hotspots? I very often see that trope of the "seedy docks district" in fiction. It makes sense that the sexually frustrated sailors would be itching (both metaphorically and literally from venereal diseases I suppose) to have some fun times, but is the "seedy docks" that much of a deviation from landlocked cities to deserve that reputation?

At last, for all these questions: was it radically different in other regions, like did Muslims, Indians, or East Asians differ much?

In addition to what been said before remember boys being on ships, even warships was common back then so physical labor alone cant be a restraint.
That said it would have been absolutely ridiculous and (dangerous) back then for a women or girl openly to join a ship crew. Remember how violent and rough such times where. Imagine a pregnancy on a ship....
It was by all means not practical and socially acceptable back then.

That said without doubt lots of women been sailors disguised as men (same with soldiers) and under outlaws women been still rare but not unkown in ship crews or even captains.

 

[Director]

There were women aboard merchant ships and warships. Sometimes as passengers or the captain's wife, sometimes 'disguised' as a man and helping with the sewing, cooking and cleaning, usually while coupled to a warrant officer. The big issue was sex - both the lack of it on a ship that was almost all-male and the potential of it if there was a woman. It's the same reason that prisons are segregated by sex: some men are bound and determined to get what they want regardless of what the woman thinks or says.

Of course, there's Churchill's quip about, 'rum, sodomy and the lash' and all the stories about cabin boys... but that sort of thing was severely punished. It happened as long as nobody had to take official notice. Same as having a woman or women aboard.

Port cities all had waterfront areas that offered, um, entertainment. Men who have been tightly regimented at sea are likely to cut loose on shore, drinking, womanizing, gambling and fighting until the police break it up or the money's gone.

 

[Velho e Bom Joe]

Thanks for the responses folks!

If it helps, part of this is my hobby of worldbuilding for a fantasy setting and trying to understand how much of the segregation was due to practical concerns, Christian morality and outright misogyny. I can handwave the latter two, but the first I'd like to understand so as to not come up with something silly.

I am not sure what kind of answer you are looking for. You open by saying you know that ancient societies were very patriarchal but seem to not know what it means. This statement especially made me pause:



Do you know many female soldiers? Travelling merchants (even by land)? Explorers(famous or not)? Hunters?

This is the problem I have with this question, why is it so surprising that there are so few female sailors when they were few women having an outdoor profession to begin with? Those in particular stand out because most women of age would be married and have children, so the possibilities for them to travel, for months, if not years at time were almost unthinkable for that day and age. It's even to this day quite uncommon. 99% of seafarers in 2022 are men after all.

As for women usefulness, it really do not matter here. Remember, patriarchal society? As long as a men could do the job, then why even bother? And by the way educated women were not exactly to be found everywhere. Especially for the social classes that would supply navy men.

Also, keep in mind that the job of seaman was not exactly an easy one. Indeed, often poor souls were enlisted by forced in the ranks. By what can only be described as state legal kidnapping. Indeed, it was one of the reason of the 1812 war between the US and the UK as the UK forced enlisted Americans to serve in the RN! And the practice only ended by the end of the XIXth century.

So in the end, why women would even want to do such a horrible job to begin with?

Still, like everywhere else, they were seawomen. They were rare, and most often than not had to crossdress or become a pirate, but they existed.

I mean, yes, back then women were rare in such outdoorsy* occupations, but at least, as far as I know, those other professions weren't so "taboo" to the point of spawning superstitions like the ones that existed in the naval world. I never heard of women "bringing bad luck" in armies, for instance.

The "marry and create a family" does make a lot of sense for the viewpoint back then though. There was a lot of social pressure for them to just be at home making babies, which frankly is somewhat understandable, if sad, given how lacking pre-industrial healthcare was and the demographic attrition from infant mortality.


*Though they did work in farming, so... it's not like poor women were spared of hard work. But by outdoor profession I take you mean ones that lead to a non-settled life full of lengthy travels.

Here's an anecdote from Portuguese maritime history: when Vasco da Gama's second fleet of 1502 landed in Kilwa (east Africa), Portuguese sailors "kidnapped" some local women and took them aboard ship for fun & games. When time came for the fleet to leave, the women didn't want to go back - they were afraid their families would reject them (or worse) for having consorted with foreign sailors. It became a huge issue. The sailors begged to take their new playthings along, but Gama wouldn't budge and ordered the women off. He negotiated all sorts of guarantees from their families, and protections from the local authorities, but the women refused to leave. Things were at an impasse. At length Gama relented, because they were likely to miss the monsoon tide if they didn't get moving. So he decided that for once - just this once - they could take the women along with them. Sailors were very delighted.

I knew I could count on Abdul to bring an interesting historical anecdote!
I wonder (...or maybe I should fear?) what happened to the women after that?

In addition to what been said before remember boys being on ships, even warships was common back then so physical labor alone cant be a restraint.
That said it would have been absolutely ridiculous and (dangerous) back then for a women or girl openly to join a ship crew. Remember how violent and rough such times where. Imagine a pregnancy on a ship....
It was by all means not practical and socially acceptable back then.

That said without doubt lots of women been sailors disguised as men (same with soldiers) and under outlaws women been still rare but not unkown in ship crews or even captains.

Totally forgot about the boys, true. That and the fact that women worked hard on farms make me slightly skeptical it was solely about the physical work aspect of it.

I actually thought about pregnancy and forgot to mention that in the OP. It does seem like something that would make long voyages impossible indeed, even if we assumed the expedition would go prepared with midwives and supplies specifically taking that into account, and having well behaved men, it's just not a good environment.

I always saw the age of exploration voyages as suicide missions, the sea was dangerous, you could die from random diseases, shipwrecks, etc. Having women on board could add venereal diseases and fights amongst the crew to the mix.

For example i remember an ex-gf that got rejected at a job because she, being a woman, was seen as something risky, she was a programmer, and having a woman in an incel enviroment could be disastrous for work-climate. That was more than a decade ago, just imagine that 400+ years ago.

Men are basic animals, I cannot imagine being sorrounded only by them for 2 or more months...

There were women aboard merchant ships and warships. Sometimes as passengers or the captain's wife, sometimes 'disguised' as a man and helping with the sewing, cooking and cleaning, usually while coupled to a warrant officer. The big issue was sex - both the lack of it on a ship that was almost all-male and the potential of it if there was a woman. It's the same reason that prisons are segregated by sex: some men are bound and determined to get what they want regardless of what the woman thinks or says.

Of course, there's Churchill's quip about, 'rum, sodomy and the lash' and all the stories about cabin boys... but that sort of thing was severely punished. It happened as long as nobody had to take official notice. Same as having a woman or women aboard.

Port cities all had waterfront areas that offered, um, entertainment. Men who have been tightly regimented at sea are likely to cut loose on shore, drinking, womanizing, gambling and fighting until the police break it up or the money's gone.

I see the point of rough males trying to have their way with women being raised often, but... I do wonder about the "All-male environment making men too horny" thing. Didn't it happen exactly because there were no women aboard? It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If we as a thought experiment handwaved away Christian sensibilities and put an almost equal ratio of men and women (and probably some very brave prostitutes willing to service the worst guys), things wouldn't get that bad...? Sure, some would be rejected and might try to force their way, but that's not exactly something that wouldn't happen elsewhere out of a ship.

Of course, the problem is with pregnancies that would happen in that case. But just something I think about.

 

[Geriander]

There were some pretty famous female pirates but of course that is an occupation that is already rebelling against the norms of society.

 

[bz249]

Thanks for the responses folks!

If it helps, part of this is my hobby of worldbuilding for a fantasy setting and trying to understand how much of the segregation was due to practical concerns, Christian morality and outright misogyny. I can handwave the latter two, but the first I'd like to understand so as to not come up with something silly.


I mean, yes, back then women were rare in such outdoorsy* occupations, but at least, as far as I know, those other professions weren't so "taboo" to the point of spawning superstitions like the ones that existed in the naval world. I never heard of women "bringing bad luck" in armies, for instance.

The "marry and create a family" does make a lot of sense for the viewpoint back then though. There was a lot of social pressure for them to just be at home making babies, which frankly is somewhat understandable, if sad, given how lacking pre-industrial healthcare was and the demographic attrition from infant mortality.


*Though they did work in farming, so... it's not like poor women were spared of hard work. But by outdoor profession I take you mean ones that lead to a non-settled life full of lengthy travels.


I knew I could count on Abdul to bring an interesting historical anecdote!
I wonder (...or maybe I should fear?) what happened to the women after that?



Totally forgot about the boys, true. That and the fact that women worked hard on farms make me slightly skeptical it was solely about the physical work aspect of it.

I actually thought about pregnancy and forgot to mention that in the OP. It does seem like something that would make long voyages impossible indeed, even if we assumed the expedition would go prepared with midwives and supplies specifically taking that into account, and having well behaved men, it's just not a good environment.




I see the point of rough males trying to have their way with women being raised often, but... I do wonder about the "All-male environment making men too horny" thing. Didn't it happen exactly because there were no women aboard? It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If we as a thought experiment handwaved away Christian sensibilities and put an almost equal ratio of men and women (and probably some very brave prostitutes willing to service the worst guys), things wouldn't get that bad...? Sure, some would be rejected and might try to force their way, but that's not exactly something that wouldn't happen elsewhere out of a ship.

Of course, the problem is with pregnancies that would happen in that case. But just something I think about.

The problem is what is the motivation of doing so instead of like being a prostitute in the port? It is not that likely that being on a ship, vomiting the whole time and losing the teeth is justified by higher income (the sailors cannot spend their money at the sea).

For a male there might be a motivation that seafaring offered a (abysmal, but nonzero) chance of getting rich and thus moving upward in the society, including a chance of properly marrying. While in Europe poligary was not officially practiced, a poor guy still had a lower chance of marrying than a wealthy one, simply because he has nothing to offer.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

It seems that the time away from home is deciding factor. This also applies, for example, to overland medium-long-distance trade, which was also male occupation.

Even in the decidedly non-patriarchal society like Mosue, long-distance trade was male endavour (and in one way it ended with men beign more politically powerful in some ways, because they had to deal with foreigners, then that become their responsibility, that even affected marital customs of Mosuo elite, making it resemble more their neighbours).

For some reason or other, women don't seem to be that keen on leaving their homes for months. The segregation that follows is probably the direct reason for taboos, which afaik happened in different circumstances too, and against men, too.

It doesn't seem to have anything to do with patriarchy and discrimination seems to be an effect not the cause.

Here's an anecdote from Portuguese maritime history: when Vasco da Gama's second fleet of 1502 landed in Kilwa (east Africa), Portuguese sailors "kidnapped" some local women and took them aboard ship for fun & games. When time came for the fleet to leave, the women didn't want to go back - they were afraid their families would reject them (or worse) for having consorted with foreign sailors. It became a huge issue. The sailors begged to take their new playthings along, but Gama wouldn't budge and ordered the women off. He negotiated all sorts of guarantees from their families, and protections from the local authorities, but the women refused to leave. Things were at an impasse. At length Gama relented, because they were likely to miss the monsoon tide if they didn't get moving. So he decided that for once - just this once - they could take the women along with them. Sailors were very delighted.

Event was enough of a rarity to be worth mentioning in the chronicles. As a rule, you don't take women.

Huh. So much for the strength of the taboo. A little bit of fun and it's all forgotten now.

Why was Da Gama opposed to it? Somehow i doubt it was for cultural reasons.

I always saw the age of exploration voyages as suicide missions, the sea was dangerous, you could die from random diseases, shipwrecks, etc.

Exploration? Simple long distance trading voyages could have 50% casualty rate. (not that it has anything to do with presence of women. In fact they would probably fare better, having slightly better immunity and lower base caloric needs).

 

[Grandpa Maur]

Im from a country with lots of ports and miner's towns. Both have a reputation for being prostitution hotspots (and venereal diseases). Men-only spaces tend to be places filled with degeneracy.

You say degeneracy and i say good proper fun

I mean, yes, back then women were rare in such outdoorsy* occupations, but at least, as far as I know, those other professions weren't so "taboo" to the point of spawning superstitions like the ones that existed in the naval world. I never heard of women "bringing bad luck" in armies, for instance.

The "marry and create a family" does make a lot of sense for the viewpoint back then though. There was a lot of social pressure for them to just be at home making babies, which frankly is somewhat understandable, if sad, given how lacking pre-industrial healthcare was and the demographic attrition from infant mortality.

*Though they did work in farming, so... it's not like poor women were spared of hard work. But by outdoor profession I take you mean ones that lead to a non-settled life full of lengthy travels.

Totally forgot about the boys, true. That and the fact that women worked hard on farms make me slightly skeptical it was solely about the physical work aspect of it.

I actually thought about pregnancy and forgot to mention that in the OP. It does seem like something that would make long voyages impossible indeed, even if we assumed the expedition would go prepared with midwives and supplies specifically taking that into account, and having well behaved men, it's just not a good environment.

I see the point of rough males trying to have their way with women being raised often, but... I do wonder about the "All-male environment making men too horny" thing. Didn't it happen exactly because there were no women aboard? It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If we as a thought experiment handwaved away Christian sensibilities and put an almost equal ratio of men and women (and probably some very brave prostitutes willing to service the worst guys), things wouldn't get that bad...? Sure, some would be rejected and might try to force their way, but that's not exactly something that wouldn't happen elsewhere out of a ship.

Of course, the problem is with pregnancies that would happen in that case. But just something I think about.

You got it right, it's the long-term absence from home. Even until recently, that kind of migration (not resettling, but more like gasterarbaiter was decidedly male thing). Physical capabilities are almost always red herring.

That leaves the question why didn't the more uprooted women serve on ships? Well, they did similar occupations (camp followers etc, although that's kind of mobile home)? I don't know. Maybe it's better beign a prostitute/"wife" of sailor(s) than sailor? Certainly seems less risky.

I wouldn't care about pregnancy. Toss the bundle overboard and you're set (seriously, who cares about kids before late XIX century? One person in hundred). Or do some makeshift abortion? I heard hard work is not healthy for pregnancy, thought it's not like pregnant women didn't work back then (for example in agriculture).

Btw, in general, vast male superiority in numbers (demographically) makes female position stronger, not weaker. The outcome is not some world with female slavery out of Gor fantasy books, at all.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Why was Da Gama opposed to it? Somehow i doubt it was for cultural reasons.

I'm guessing the usual reasons for not having women on ships: sex, jealousy, quarrels, indiscipline.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

I was thinking more about so many mouths to feed. But that rests on the assumption there were many women involved (which would probably also limit the number of quarrels? Not the discipline issues though).

And besides, there was probably a lot less crew during the return journey, so perhaps it's what you say.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

many women involved (which would probably also limit the number of quarrels? Not the discipline issues though).

More women = less quarrels?

That's a fantasy world.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

More women = less quarrels?

That's a fantasy world.

Less quarrels between men, yes, that's what i would think.

 

[cpreston5]

Surely many journeys would also be long enough to raise the issue of pregnancies potentially occurring and progressing late into term? Or from undiscovered pregnancies being brought on board and then coming to term.

That's also a whole load of potential medical, personal, and legal issues which most sailing enterprises would probably have wanted to avoid.

 

[Frank_Costello]

The answer is very, very simple

In the elder days, when men openly fought/killed each other over women and could defend themselves in the court of public opinion for having done so, having a woman on a ship full of men is . . . disruptive.

 

[bz249]

You say degeneracy and i say good proper fun


You got it right, it's the long-term absence from home. Even until recently, that kind of migration (not resettling, but more like gasterarbaiter was decidedly male thing). Physical capabilities are almost always red herring.

Well you got for ~25% more caloric demand ~50% more muscle power. So no, it is physical capabilities. The same reason why you won't consider an all women galley/lead mining slave group. It is not efficient.

 

[newtlord]

Well you got for ~25% more caloric demand ~50% more muscle power. So no, it is physical capabilities. The same reason why you won't consider an all women galley/lead mining slave group. It is not efficient.

This sort of reasoning always strikes me as odd, since statistical averages very rarely show up at the work place. Plenty of women have greater physical capacities than plenty of men (and a non-trivial portion of the necessary jobs on a ship can be done with a bare minimum of muscular strength- hence ships' boys and so on, as mentioned up-thread), so, if this were the sole reason, one would expect to see women somewhat underrepresented aboard ships rather than nearly absent.