Nate Back's opinion on the Women and the Civil War lecture

I found the lecture to be somewhat interesting, just very lengthy.  In no way am I a sexist or chauvinist  but the one thing that jumped out at me the most was the part that discussed the booming sex trade during the Civil War.  That is something that is never really pushed to the forefront of Civil War discussions.  I suppose that sex would be a high commodity during war times, with all the death and the promise of no tomorrow.  I chuckled at the mentioning of how the prostitutes were seen as a health hazard and such.  Maybe its my inner Beavis and Butthead that was in full bloom or the fact that I am still quite immature to be as old as I am.  My first reaction to the mentioning of prostitutes was Fightin' Joe Hooker.  I am now more aware of why Fightin' Joe had the resources to be known as the father of the term "Hooker". 

As a whole, I am not that interested in women's history.  I get bored with it easy. I am sorry but it just doesn't click with me. I did find the topic of women pretending to be men and thus being soldiers to be interesting in a non-immature manner.  I am very much interested in military history and anything military related gets my attention, so thus the mentioning of females serving in the army.  One of my favorite anecdotes was the story of the corporeal and the other soldier kept going to bed together and how the corporeal had a baby.  The stories of the drag soldiers reminded me for some strange reason of the 2009 film Pope Joan.  I was also reminded of the historical Joan of Arc (who is not related to the previously mentioned film in any way).  My tangent thought during the lecture was what things would have been like if a woman was allowed to be in command like Joan of Arc.  I wondered if she would have played a pivotal role in the events of the Civil War.  So until the day Joan of Gettysburg is written Me and the rest of the world may never know.