Thoughts experieces and why don't more men wear kilts??

[Nighthawk]

LOL.


Took me a minute there.

Regards,
Rex.

You're welcome. I'm an autocad designer, so I spend most of my behind a computer.

Well, I must say I do have a breech-clout. I've worn it into stores on the way back from hunting and I got about the same level of interest in my clout and leggings as I usually do in the kilt.

I think overall it is a fear of standing out. After all, the wolves pull down the one that stands out. The only opinions I care about are my wife, my son, and my rater(only applies to work). As General Patton said, " If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking." It seems to me that the folks here are some free thinking sorts and so can make an independant decision regarding their sartorial preferences. That's my two pence worth anyway.

YMOS,
Tony

That's what I love about this community!

[Bigkahuna]

Well said bro!!! I totally agree...I see the kilt as a tough man's garmet, and like our ancestors we're al rebeling against convention and being ourselves, something America used to pride itself on, but lately we've all become sheep...

KILT ON!!!!!

Some are sheep. Some are wolves. Me, I'm a sheepdog!!

[Kiltman]

I

Some conclusions: Kilt wearing is always positive thing as long as you look correct. Many many more men would love to wear a kilt if they felt comfortable to do so. The cost of well made real kilts does not help.

What can we do to increase kilt wearing??? I do feel quite passionate, and I know for a fact that during the last few years I have converted at least 2 men into wearing the kilt from time to time, just 2 though not enough….. Martyn

The most difficult part is getting someone to wear it for the first few times. Once one realizes how comfortable, practical and handsome they are I think others would wear them too.
Changing the culture will take some time, but we can do it. Here in Spokane wearing the kilt is generally without incident. Spokane is not noted for its cosmopolitan attitude towards anything. If it can be done here it can be done most places.

[O'neal]

The resurgence of Celtic bands wearing kilts will help as well as the increase of Irish/Scottish/English Pubs.

[O'Callaghan]

Not to mention that the Puritan influence was really felt the strongest in New England, and even then really only in Massachusetts. By the early 1700s, the Puritan era was coming to a close in New England as more non-Puritans began moving in, although there always has been a residue of Puritanism under the surface.

As Rathdown hinted at, the term Puritan really only applies to English Congregationalist who sought to "purify" the Church of England. We tend today to use the term to describe many denominations and beliefs, but believe me a Puritan would take offence at being lumped in with other groups.

T.

The Puritans in the US are known today as the Church of God. There is one near us, although I've never met anyone who admits to going there on Sundays. Nor do I know what they currently believe, but I'd be surprised if they weren't a straight laced crowd. I heard that they chose their present name specifically to avoid people knowing who they were?

[macwilkin]

The Puritans in the US are known today as the Church of God. There is one near us, although I've never met anyone who admits to going there on Sundays. Nor do I know what they currently believe, but I'd be surprised if they weren't a straight laced crowd. I heard that they chose their present name specifically to avoid people knowing who they were?

Without going off-topic, but you are incorrect; the Congregationalist Church was the church of the Puritans, and it is now part of the United Church of Christ (UCC).

T.

[ixoyedeg]

That is a part of it. It is only, in my experience, a small part though. The biggest problem, here in the States, is that we live in a society that is still very much influenced by the Puritans. We also live in a very homophobic society. The kilt kinda looks like a skirt, and looks nothing at all like pants, so it therefore is effeminate. Men wear pants- peiod. I had a guy tell me that once. I looked at his rather attractive jean-wearing girlfriend and said "I'm sorry, sir- I mistook you for a woman!" She thought that was hilarious- the guy got just got red-faced mad and cursed at me as I walked away withy a grin on my face. The real problem is that we as a society in the States have a very closed minded attitude. If something doesn't fit in with our narrow minded view of what is socially acceptable, then it is a problem. Is there a good scientiffic, social, or psychological reason not to allow gay marriage for example? No, there is not. The reason gays are not allowed to marry is because one group of people wouldn't don't like it. There is this attitude about my way of doing things. My way is the right way. If you have a different way of doing things, then I have leave to force my views on you. (Oh yeah- and don't you dare try to force yours on me!) We have a fear of ridicule, we have a fear of breaking convention- because we have been conditioned to believe that the majority is correct. The Backstreet Boys sold 45 million copies of their last album- therefore, it is quality music. The Denver Symphony has never charted with their CD releases- this means that the Backstreet Boys album Millenium is better than the Mozart released by the symphony. We as a species need to be led, to be told what to do- it's much easier to be a part of the herd than to run with the pack. Personally, I see us as the pack- as I don't want us to become the herd. I like that not a lot of men have the stones to strap on a kilt. People who have the guts to buck the norm stand out, and those are the people I like to be around. How could I identify a rabble if everyone looked like us?

So first you say it is that people force their views on others, then it is that people are sheep. That doesn't sound very congruous.

I am really enjoying wearing the kilt, but perhaps we, as people who are going retro in our fashion, could avoid condemning people for not being progressive enough.

I think it is just ignorance. I like to tell people that men invented the skirt for themselves, then women commandeered the style so we invented p@nts, and they commandeered them as well, so I just say, "whatever, I'll just wear what I like."

BTW, I loved your response to the guy's girlfriend! That was classic!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Well, Wickipedia says it best (as to who they were and what they believed.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan

The part that I see as having had a lasting impact on US attitudes is the group piety and purity. I go to eBay France, for example, and do a search for kilts. What do I find? I topless woman modeling a kilt skirt- right on eBay for anyone to find!! In the States, that would be grounds for all kinds of litigation. "My son might see it!" Boo hoo. So what? Janet Jackson flashes half a nipple for half a second and we have a heart attack! I have to ask- why? What's the big deal? The only answer I can come up with is that it's latent attitudes left over from our Puritan origins. That's why they came here, after all- to get away from all the "degradation" of European society. The Puritan movement was so extreme that deviance could easily mean death. We can't be executed in this country now for being a little but different, but we can sure be persecuted for it. That was my whole point.

This is the thing that I think relates the most:

The central tenet of Puritanism was God's supreme authority over human affairs, particularly in the church, and especially as expressed in the Bible. This view led them to seek both individual and corporate conformance to the teaching of the Bible. It led them to pursue both moral purity down to the smallest detail as well as ecclesiastical purity to the highest level.

Individual conformance- you do what the majority tell you to do, both in public and in private. That is the way mainstream American society seems to me.

Thanks for the reply.

First, let me say that I think your characterizing Americans as "homophobic" is not only off-base, but way out of line. Pole, after pole, has shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of civil unions for everyone; that they are in favor of spousal privilege being extended to same sex couples. What they do object to is what they perceive to be an attempt by the government to regulate the ability of the churches to define what is, and what is not, a sacrament of the church. Clearly, what the government needs to do is get completely out of the marriage business, and leave that to the churches.

Using the existing body of civil rights law the president should instruct the justice department to draft model legislation for all the states to use in creating uniform "civil union" legislation. This legislation would then replace the present "marriage license" laws of the several states, and would give same-sex couples the same legal standing as mixed-sex couples. Once a couple had gone to the court house, paid their five dollars, and signed the "Decree of Civil Union" that would be it. In the eyes of the law they would be legally joined together. Marriages, and the ceremonies attendant there on, would then be the sole realm of the church, and would be conducted at their discretion and in conformity with the laws of their specific denomination. My personal belief is that if the church is going to baptize someone, then they ought to marry them as well. I'm sure other members of the vestry probably don't share my views. But at the end of the day it should be the priest who decides who he will baptize, marry, or bury. Not the Government.

As to the other points you have raised:

In my opinion, and experience, your basic thesis doesn't stand up. Individuals want to conform, they are not directed to conform. Since the dawn of time humans have lived in packs, tribes, clans, communities-- simply to survive from one generation to the next. This "communal mentality" is instinctively bred into us as a species, the same as it is bred into a pride of lions or a pack of jackals.

It has nothing to do with "mainstream American society"-- it is the same in any country you would care go to. Societal norms do vary from culture to culture; for example, The Empire of Japan compared to the United Kingdom. Both are inhabited by an island race of people, somewhat removed from the social development of their continental neighbors. Both developed cultural traditions some what similar to, but broadly different from, those of their continental neighbors. And, compared side by side, these two island races of people are totally different, except for the fact that in both cases the people conform to their local societal norms, and are generally uneasy with anything that does not appear to conform with their social or tribal beliefs.

This is a universal human condition, not a uniquely "American" problem.

As far as blaming latent "puritanism" is concerned, one might as well blame latent "Catholicism" as it is the single largest Christian denomination in the United States; I'm sorry, but I can not accept that deeply held spiritual convictions-- and those of the early Puritan settlers are totally in line with the core theological tenets of all mainstream Christian denominations in so far as they relate to the individual faith of the believer and the workings of the church-- in some way impede universal social acceptance of wearing the kilt. What impedes universal acceptance of the kilt is the fact than most people don't want to wear the kilt, just as most people don't want to wear ear muffs in summer. It's that simple.

What I do get from your post isn't so much an argument concerning why more men don't wear kilts, but rather your general unhappiness that there are social standards of behavior with which you personally do not agree. And that's fine.

Undoubtedly "community standards" in France regarding topless models on e-bay are different than the community standards in the United States. France also has laws which permit all sorts of draconian police measures that would not be tolerated by American "community standards". I don't mean to imply one set of standards are better than another; on the contrary, I believe that community standards have to be taken in their entirety to be judged if they are, or are not, beneficial to the community as a whole. Inevitably this means that some members of that community will chafe at some of the standards-- as you have regarding the Janice Jackson incident-- while the vast majority will either embrace them, or shrug them off as really not important.

You said, "We can't be executed in this country now [emphasis added] for being a little but (sic) different, but we can sure be persecuted for it." Staying on the topic of kilt wearing, this seems to be a wildly hyperbolic statement as I don't know of a single instance in the United States or Canada where someone was executed because they were wearing what others considered to be "funny" clothes. And that would include the judicial acts of the Puritans.

As far as persecution is concerned, just who is it that has been continually harassed or ill treated by society as a whole because he wore a kilt? Or white socks with sandals? I say continually harassed and ill-treated by society as a whole because there is a world of difference between the coarse comment made by an ill-mannered person, and the sort of institutional persecution meted out to Jews forced to wear a yellow star stitched to their clothing in Nazi Germany.

The bottom line is that the kilt is, and undoubtedly always will be, "minority" clothing. Those of us who have regularly worn the kilt regard it as ordinary clothing. We do not think of it in terms of social defiance-- or social acceptance. Those who do regard the kilt as some sort of counter-cultural, socially defiant statement would probably be the first to abandon it if it gained wide-spread social acceptance.

[Mipi]

Common western opinion that "sk..ts" are not for MEN, maybe?

[Bugbear]

Thanks for the reply.

First, let me say that I think your characterizing Americans as "homophobic" is not only off-base, but way out of line. Pole, after pole, has shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of civil unions for everyone; that they are in favor of spousal privilege being extended to same sex couples. What they do object to is what they perceive to be an attempt by the government to regulate the ability of the churches to define what is, and what is not, a sacrament of the church. Clearly, what the government needs to do is get completely out of the marriage business, and leave that to the churches.

Using the existing body of civil rights law the president should instruct the justice department to draft model legislation for all the states to use in creating uniform "civil union" legislation. This legislation would then replace the present "marriage license" laws of the several states, and would give same-sex couples the same legal standing as mixed-sex couples. Once a couple had gone to the court house, paid their five dollars, and signed the "Decree of Civil Union" that would be it. In the eyes of the law they would be legally joined together. Marriages, and the ceremonies attendant there on, would then be the sole realm of the church, and would be conducted at their discretion and in conformity with the laws of their specific denomination. My personal belief is that if the church is going to baptize someone, then they ought to marry them as well. I'm sure other members of the vestry probably don't share my views. But at the end of the day it should be the priest who decides who he will baptize, marry, or bury. Not the Government. ...

Exactly.

And you should be able to wear kilts to the court house when getting your Decree of Civil Union.