Why Do Some Take Such Offense...

**Mirthlesstroll** · 31st August 11, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by artificer

My usual reply to "Nice skirt" is (at the top of my lungs) "Thanks, but I'm only interested in women".

It's usually enough to make the offender (always a man) blush and feel a bit of an a$$ around his other friends (as this type of person is the sort who would never make such a comment without an audience/peer group to back them up.)

I'm totally stealing this for my newly kilted sons!

**Taygrd** · 31st August 11, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Geoff Withnell

So the many folk on this forum who do not have Scottish ancesters are not wearing kilts!? That seems kinda harsh to me.

Perhaps, however I should explain a little more. Is the US flag just a piece of fabric, Gettysburg just a parcle of land, USMC uniform a just a fancy suit? All of these things have significant meaning attached to them for most people. The kilt started out representing ones family, a regiment, and ones national heritage. These concepts still mean something to many folks. If I took a USMC Class A and ripped the sleeves of and wore it with shorts and a Coors light baseball cap would someone become upset? I know a Marine would have something to say about that. It is not so much about what it is rather it is about what it represents.

**Redshank** · 31st August 11, 08:48 AM

Some smart @rse once asked me what the difference was between a kilt and a skirt in an attempt to rile me and impress his wife and teenage kids, he shot off with his tail between his legs when I replied about 7 yards and a pair of balls to wear it.

**The Volusianator** · 31st August 11, 08:53 AM

But we're not talking about ripping a kilt apart, modifying it. In the end, a kilt is a kilt, no matter what the lineage of the person wearing it. If I'm not a NASCAR driver, but I put on one of their helmets, does it then become just a hat?

Originally Posted by Taygrd

Perhaps, however I should explain a little more. Is the US flag just a piece of fabric, Gettysburg just a parcle of land, USMC uniform a just a fancy suit? All of these things have significant meaning attached to them for most people. The kilt started out representing ones family, a regiment, and ones national heritage. These concepts still mean something to many folks. If I took a USMC Class A and ripped the sleeves of and wore it with shorts and a Coors light baseball cap would someone become upset? I know a Marine would have something to say about that. It is not so much about what it is rather it is about what it represents.

**artificer** · 31st August 11, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Taygrd

The kilt started out representing ones family, a regiment, and ones national heritage. ...

Not exactly, the kilt started out as a hunk of fabric meant to prevent the driving sleet from freezing a Highland man's bottom off.

Originally Posted by Taygrd

It is not so much about what it is rather it is about what it represents.

You mean, what it represents NOW. See above.

ith:

**Dale Seago** · 31st August 11, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Nighthawk

I explained the kilt to him... and he said "I know what it is. It's a f**king skirt, and only fags and cross dressers would wear one." Should I tolerate that?

I'd be inclined to reply, "Well, it's really a shame but there are a lot of ignorant people who actually believe that".

Very open ended and non-accusatory: From there it's all up to how he wants to self-identify. Sure, the kilt is a skirt: Specifically a male skirt that began as purely masculine wear, with many of those wearers being warriors. I'd also be prepared, depending on how far he wanted to push the matter, to demonstrate that some of those wearing it today are warriors as well.

**Taygrd** · 31st August 11, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by artificer

Not exactly, the kilt started out as a hunk of fabric meant to prevent the driving sleet from freezing a Highland man's bottom off.

You mean, what it represents NOW. See above.

ith:

True.

**FatherWilliam57** · 31st August 11, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by biblemonkey

A woman wears a skirt a man wears a kilt just like a woman wears a blouse and a man wears a shirt.

Bingo! We have a bingo!

**Peter Crowe** · 31st August 11, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Cygnus

By the dictionary definition, a skirt is "a separate free-hanging outer garment [...] covering some or all of the body from the waist down" - the definition of a kilt is "a knee-length pleated skirt usually of tartan worn by men in Scotland and by Scottish regiments in the British armies" (emphasis added).

I have no problem with that - especially considering that the definition goes out of its way to say that the kilt is a man's skirt (at least in Scotland and the military - it's not clear what it's called out of that context).

Going by the dictionary definition would also make the great kilt a dress.

I have been reflecting on the OP's original question on why people take such offence and a number of thoughts occur to me.

1) Offence may be too strong a word, but certainly while I can feel offended by some because that is their clear intent, I may feel only mild irritation with others that don't know any better.

2) For me personally wearing the Kilt is a reflection not merely of my nationality and ethnicity (Many Scots don't wear the Kilt for many different reasons) but of my immediate family upbringing and values learnt from earliest childhood. Consequently it has an existential quality which is part of my identity as a Scot, my parents son, and a heterosexual man.* (Not that I would seek to limit the kilt to only Scots or heterosexuals, far less to only Scottish heterosexuals). In summary, the kilt is part of who I am. Devalue the kilt or take it away from me, then you are devaluing me and attacking my innate dignity.

3) While the Kilt has strong martial associations, it is more than the dress of a warrior. The Kilt is also the national dress of a people and country (despite it's purely Highland origin in the XVI century and reinvention in the XIX century) which has a strong culture in all the arts and sciences, including all branches of philosophy going back to at least medieval times and which descends from an even older civilisation going back a millenia.

4) The Kilt does not cease to be a kilt because it is worn outwith Scotland, or by other than a Scot or someone descended from the Scottish diaspora.

**Taygrd** · 31st August 11, 11:15 AM

I too failed to answer the OP original question. So I will try to now and will leave it at this. The kilt, and more importantly the tartan, represents to me a deep family history, an emotional tie to my heritage and my ancestors. It is something which should be worn in pride and and respected. To some it is just a garment to be worn like flip flops. It has been debased to the point where in society it means nothing or been altered to represent something entirely different; so why would society not call it a skirt? This stigma has now been added to those who are traditional and non-traditional alike regardless of how you wear it or what you wear. So I take offence when I am lumped together with this stigma and someone calls it a skirt. I have only have close friends say that to me in jest and never a stranger. I guess I wear it well