Women and Kilt Wearing

[Iolaus]

And how do you achieve that except for fighting tooth-and-nail against any suggestion to the contrary?

The only opinions that really matter are those of the people I actually interact with, and I believe that most of them know me well enough to not think that, and the fact that I tend to wear the kilt in such a manner as to reflect a masculine demeanor sends the message to people that don't know me.

...and, I am a man of substantial stature (bearded, 6'2", 235 lbs), so I really don't get much hassle about it.

[Rigged]

It's not just a matter of opinions, it's a matter of general social acceptance for practical purposes, such as wearing kilts to work, to church, to court, or any such situation where other people's judgements can have serious financial, social or legal consequences.

And yes, men's right to have kilts recognized as a male garment runs smack up against women's right to wear whatever they want.

The consequence for men losing this is that we're pretty much stuck with trousers or crossdressing as options.

If men win, women will still have more clothing options than we do, including kilts because when it's acceptable for men to wear kilts anywhere, it won't matter if women wear them.

[Manu]

what does make a dress a woman's only garment.

the way its made to fit a woman's body. A man wearing a womans cocktail dress would be ridiculous and cross-dressing. Come on, we all know better than that.

[Iolaus]

It's not just a matter of opinions, it's a matter of general social acceptance for practical purposes, such as wearing kilts to work, to church, to court, or any such situation where other people's judgements can have serious financial, social or legal consequences.

And yes, men's right to have kilts recognized as a male garment runs smack up against women's right to wear whatever they want.

The consequence for men losing this is that we're pretty much stuck with trousers or crossdressing as options.

If men win, women will still have more clothing options than we do, including kilts because when it's acceptable for men to wear kilts anywhere, it won't matter if women wear them.

I suspect that, years hence, fashions will be drastically different, and we will be thought of as analogous to some of the early women's libbers who chose to wear slacks to help break gender boundries, except in this case it's fashion boundries. As in all cultural swings, some will be militant about it, and some will simply go their own way despite the reactions they get. Eventually, if kilts become more prevalent, someone will sue their employer and make the whole thing a legal issue, and with that kind of publicity, the social education will take off.

[CameronTaylor]

Recently I read through a long thread started by the (self-appointed) tartan police about who is "allowed" to wear what, now here we are with some trying to dictate what is acceptable for women to wear.
Curious to draw a line in the sand over an article of clothing me thinks.
I recall Hamish once typed in response to an unrelated topic it is important to show yourself in the best light possible, to look good at all times.
True enough - look good, feel good. In that light my girl Sheri will wear the kilt I bought her, my friend and favorite bartender Amber will wear hers and look better than most people here - I'm buying her a California tartan kilt.
I'll not post pictures so as not to upset the delicate sensibilities of the dress police.
I wonder what more important matters than a woamn in a kilt one should consider taking such a firm stand on.

CT - still unthreatened by a girl in a kilt

[bubba]

When did this become a battle with men winning or losing? I refuse to get in that fight. I'm not into causes, I wear my kilts because they're comfortable, not to prevent women from wearing them or draw any lines in the sand.

[Jeremiah]

[Angus MacSpey]

Personally, I'm sick of seeing women wearing pants. Everywhere I go, women wearing jeans. It's boring, it's predictable, it's tasteless, and it's tacky. Did I mention boring? And those "fashionable" types who wear the low-waisted jeans with the belt line 3 millimeters above the little man in the canoe - that looks awful. Even on the few girls without the spare tire.

I have yet to find anything redeeming about seeing every couple at a movie theater dressed in matching jeans.

Maybe it's got something to do with the way I was raised - in a Christian sect in which women never wore pants. Maybe not. But whatever happened to femininity in women's wear? You know what's really sexy on a woman? Something she made herself, because she can sew, knit, or whatever.

So, yes, I am going to step up here and take the brunt of the arrows from the hippies. I believe a woman's place in a society is very different from a man's. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Whether you wish to believe that a Supreme Being created us as we are, or whether we evolved to be the way we are, the simple fact remains: men and women are made to complement each other; to fill a place that the other can't in order to ensure that everything is done.

If the "feels-good-do-it" crowd were right, we would be a race of asexual beings, capable of reproducing by laying eggs fertilized by glands contained in the same body. But we're not. Everyone would be strong and muscular to do work, while being gentle and nurturing at the same time. Everyone would have milk glands and testicles.

I, for one, stand tall to do my duty as a man. I build things, I fix things, I fight wars to defend my territory. I expect my woman to do what I cannot - birth and raise the next generation of boys and girls to do the same.

Since the idiotic feminist movement decided to throw out hundreds of thousands of years of human history, everything has gone awry. Too many "career women" in their 30s and 40s now have suddenly awakened to find that they want children, after all. They cannot completely suppress biology. But alas it is too late for them. Before that stupidity, there was no "sexual harassment" in the workplace. There were no "latchkey kids." The was little illegitimacy. There were no kids shooting their classmates. There were no millions of schoolchildren on anti-depressants because they didn't have enough parental attention.

What does this all have to do with kilts? I'll get to that in a couple hours - as soon as my errands are done. I really must run.

[Robin]

Well...I'm curious about part 2, because I didn't understand part 1 :confused:

[Pleater]

Before that stupidity, there was no "sexual harassment" in the workplace. There were no "latchkey kids." The was little illegitimacy. There were no kids shooting their classmates. There were no millions of schoolchildren on anti-depressants because they didn't have enough parental attention.

OK I can agree on the shooting and antidepresants, but women have been expected to provide sexual gratification for their 'masters' for millennia.

Women were mere posessions, both actually and legally, given away by their fathers or brothers to their husbands, unable to own anything in their own right, not even thir own person.

Little illegitimacy? I supose sending the mothers to secure institutions and having the children adopted does hide a lot, as does sending the children off to the colonies as soon as they are old enough to do useful work, which included prostitution. Society always had ways to preserve a veneer of respectability whilst allowing men to keep control.

Children of village families were left alone when the parents were expected to help with the harvest - a residue of the feu duty. Maybe they were not latch key kids because there was no latch?

By the way - many women are perfectly able to have children in their 30's and 40's. My two sons were born when I was 31 and 34, and I was not considered unusually old. There were women ten years older having children.

Oh, and men do have milk glands.