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

[Phil]

One local lady in an Inverness shop commented “Nice Kilt” and we got talking, she said “I would love to see more Scots wearing kilts and indeed many do posses them but only wear them for wedding etc” We went on to discuss that it could be the cost of a kilt is used to as an excuse?

And, of course, Inverness is the capital of the Highlands, so what hope for the less enlightened Lowlands you might ask? Cheapo kilts have not really taken off here amongst the locals and unless they can afford the genuine article will usually just hire one when necessary. This probably explains the reluctance to risk £3-400 worth when a £20 pair of p@nts covers ones modesty quite adequately.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Exactly.

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

Totally agree, Ted! Totally agree...

[Martyn]

Goodness what a responce, can't comment on all the religious stuff you have in the USA but here in the UK no problem nobody gets uptight. Yes agree about the skirt being stolen by females, the Romans called trousers femenare and skirts were only male attire. The original great kilt is of course the ultimate item of clothing perfect for sleaping in staying dry warm and good camaflage, banned by the British government in 1745 after bing unable to capture Prince Charles and his friends.

My son has been asked to dress for school as a Tudor, they have been asked to wear a smock with hose, peasents at that time had no trousers.

[McClef]

In many parts of the world Marriage is purely a civil contract and any religious arrangements people wish to make in addition is down to them but the state will not recognise the marriage simply because a religious ceremony has taken place without the civil ceremony usually preceding it.

[St. Amish]

It's interesting to me that the only negative comments I have ever received while kilted were from other Scots, with the only exception being a very drunk, very ugly, very masculine woman at a bar once.

I started out with an "off the rack" 4 yard MacKinnon kilt because it was what I could afford at the time. We are harder on each other about proper kilt wear than are outsiders. I am more at ease out in my own town kilted than I am at Scottish Gatherings. Heaven forbid I should wear the wrong color hose because I could only afford the white ones, have my sgian on the wrong leg because it covers up one of my favorite tattoos on the right leg, or wear an extremely comfortable flat cap.

[Nighthawk]

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.

I agree. I agree completely. I wasn't referring to government control- at least, not entirely. The fact of the matter, however, is that the government is involved. The fact of the matter is that the only poll that is important to me is the on that makes laws, and the fact of the matter that in most states- my beloved Colorado included- proposals allowing equal rights for civil unions/marriages/what-have-you for same sex couples have been repeatedly voted down. As a civil minister myself, I can not marry a same sex couple, weather I want to or not. I can, of course, officiate other ceremonies that are not legally binding, and am happy to do it, but every time there is a vote- here in Colorado- where same sex marriage is involved, there are numerous church groups arguing against it and people with bumper stickers making fun of Adam and Steve, and stickers stating 1 Man 1 Woman The Way God Intended It. Maybe it's just Colorado...

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.

First off, I want to point out that I was talking about the US in particular because I have no experience outside of this country. I have not been out of US borders- ever. I was sticking to my own personal experience.

As to your pack instinct- I have a hard time with that. You’re talking about a polar extreme here- pure nature. We are not pure nature- we are not pure nurture. Yes, there is a lot of instinct there. However, there is also a lot of social conditioning. Watch a TV show on any kids network. The jokes are often made at the expense of the characters stepping outside of the norm. This is the biggest reason I love Cartoon Network shows- they avoid that kind of simple humor (mainly I think because they’re all stoned at that network! Watch an episode of Chowder… Man, I wish I could get hired there!!) My point here is that even from early childhood, we’re bombarded with the message that to conform is good, while to be different is cause for ridicule.

[Nighthawk]

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.

You’re misunderstanding me. It’s not pinpointed at the kilt. It’s a general refusal to accept anything deviating from the norm. The kilt is simply one example, and was the specific subject in the question.

And I didn’t mean literal Puritans whispering in our ears- it was a metaphor. Can you literally hear the ocean in a conch shell? Of course not! It’s literary imagery meant to get a point across.

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.

OK… “ … with which you personally do not agree.” It’s not weather or not I personally agree with those standards- it’s that people seem think that their standards are the ones that should be followed by everyone, and they go to lengths to force those standards on people. One group of people don’t smoke, for example. So instead of just leaving the smokers alone, they have to make laws making it harder and harder for people to smoke. And then these laws start to infringe on the rights of private business owners! If you don’t like the fact that I have a smoking section in my bar, then go somewhere else! But don’t tell me what I can and can’t do in my own private place of business! The sane goes for prostitution. Why can’t I hire a hooker? She’s a grown up, I’m a grown up- we’re 2 consenting adults. If she has chosen that lifestyle, what right does the government have to disallow it? I want to personally point out here that I find the idea utterly revolting- and I will therefore not hire a prostitute. And that is my point. I don’t like it, so I won’t participate in it. But those who do, it’s their own moral issue.

As to the persecution- again, I wasn’t talking specifically about kilt wearing. I was talking about not conforming to the norms in general. The fear that a lot of men have about wearing the kilt is the same as the rear that people have about tattooing their faces. They’re afraid they’re going to be treated differently, treated badly. People who are different are most certainly persecuted. And again, I want to emphasize that I am not referring only to kilt wearing. I am talking about being different in general. Kilt wearing for anything other than special occasions is most certainly something outside of the norm, and therefore qualifies as “generally different.” This fear of persecution, weather it is something that actually happens or not to kilt wearers, is still a real fear. And that is my whole point- weather or not the prejudice is real, the fear is there, and there is a good foundation for it. (Again, I’m talking about here in the US because I have to experience anywhere else, and I have little experience with any state other than Colorado, so it may just be a Colorado thing!)

Dear gods!! I had to make this into two posts! I think we need to agree to disagree... My eyes hurt from typing this!

[Nighthawk]

Goodness what a responce, can't comment on all the religious stuff you have in the USA but here in the UK no problem nobody gets uptight. Yes agree about the skirt being stolen by females, the Romans called trousers femenare and skirts were only male attire. The original great kilt is of course the ultimate item of clothing perfect for sleaping in staying dry warm and good camaflage, banned by the British government in 1745 after bing unable to capture Prince Charles and his friends.

My son has been asked to dress for school as a Tudor, they have been asked to wear a smock with hose, peasents at that time had no trousers.

I want to point out- I'm not talking about religeon! I'm talking about attitudes.

[BEEDEE]

Gentlemen - unfortunately this thread has gone well off topic and into religion and alternative life styles that are not acceptable. So reluctantly



Brian and the Moderators of XMTS