The kilt question.

[Aaron]

Gentlemen, I apologize beforehand for bringing up this subject. And what's worse for feeling that my opinion is valuable enough to take up your time.

There have been a few posts that I have read regarding the question of whether or not women should be allowed (or simply accepted depending on your point of view) to wear what most of us consider a kilt. I'm not talking about kilted skirts and the like that were intentionally designed and made for women, but instead a real kilt by the definitions most of us accept regardless of whether it fastens on the right or the left.

My contention is with the semantics game that can be played with anyone that has a pulse and has been outside their own four walls in the past decade concerning the definition of a garment and how it plays against the definition of masculinity. When I read some of the things that were posted regarding masculinity itself I felt I had to look it up for myself. dictionary.com had this to say...

mas·cu·lin·i·ty (msky-ln-t)
n.

The quality or condition of being masculine.
Something traditionally considered to be characteristic of a male.

If we take the first definition, we could be led to beleive that masculinity or manliness hinged solely upon our projections of manliness, or our masculine traits. It says nothing about the conditions under which those masculine projections are displayed.

If we were to take the second definition as true then some may even say that on first glance, a man wearing a kilt (what is perceived by some to be a feminine garment) projects nothing of manliness or masculinity simply by the wearing of it. But even the breifest look into the culture from which it comes negates this on right off the bat, seeing as how it indeed IS a traditional characteristic of the male. But I don't think we even need to rely on this point to be sure of the masculinity we possess when kilted or otherwise. I'm sorry I'm being long winded, but I promise I am getting to the main point here.

And the point of the matter is, it's not the kilt. The kilt, although by definition of a garment made for men (which is proof enough for me), is made masculine by the wearing of it in masculine ways. It cannot be masculine in and of itself, but instead derives it's innate masculinity from us, the wearers. We are what makes it a masculine garment. The proof lies in each one of us. Are we men when kilted? Are we men when we wear pants? If you were stripped naked would you not still consider yourselves men? Just as you cannot derive courage from another, we cannot derive the trait of manliness from another. Those that try only pretend courage, and manliness, and may as well be left naked when faced alone with none to rely on but themselves.

Then there is the worry that women wearing a man's kilt bastardizes and feminizes the garment to such an extent that for a man to merely put one on to some is out of the question. Why? If this is so then I was wrong earlier when I said that our masculinity is an inherent trait in each one of us. If this is true, then our masculinity must be nothing more substantial than a smudge on our face, able to be wiped away at a moments notice with the faintest of feminine touches. Or it is nothing more than an armband on bare limbs for all the world to grasp at at will, and defrock us of our manhood at a whim.

The same could be said of the custom of highland dress, and that the wearing of the kilt under casual circumstances degrades it to the point of meaninglessness. I say that if this were true, the the holders and guardians of such traditions beleive little more in their institutions than most grown men do in Santa Clause.

The real meat of the thing is the question, is it in your hearts and souls that your manliness lies, burning like a bonfire regardess of what weather may come. Or is it instead a candle that needs sheltering from the merest breeze for fear that a whisper of criticism may snuff it out?

The whole question, in my humble opinion, (to which I thank you if you've been patient enough with me to have read this far) is that nothing can take the masculinity away from a garment that derives that same characteristic from the manliness of the wearer. It's a red herring, and nothing more.

Kilt on.

[Galant]

Your point is true sir, that masculinity or gender is not dictated by garments but comes from a person.

However, perhaps what the question comes down to is the outward show of masculinity or femininity. Whilst at first glance it might seem superficial to be concerned over outward shows I think maybe there's something more to it.

In all areas of life we make and enjoy outward shows. It's how we identify ourselves to others and even to ourselves. It's also how we celebrate and enjoy certain aspects. Whether we're talking culture, nationality, music or gender, that which is inside comes out, and rightly so.

It sometimes seems as though it would be good for all people to be totally secure in themselves that they didn't care what anyone else thought, and that they only really needed to understand and be true to themselves, not worrying about other people, but I think that's a false position.

Human beings live together in society. An essential part of being human and living life is interaction with one another. We are able to encourage one another, help, guide, and love, and then of course all the reverse. When we're doing something, often it can be made all the more enjoyable by doing it with someone else. Friend or spouse or whatever - company is good, and it's good to have the support of others.

This community is an example. It exists because we come together to enjoy and celebrate the kilt, to learn, and to share. If all that mattered is that we were true to ourselves then all the others here, and their opinions wouldn't matter. Nor would any conventions of dress. We would just need ourselves and a collection of books or pictures - make up our own mind and then just 'be ourselves'. Instead though, it's the people here that matter. We celebrate the kilt together, and our enjoyment of the kilt is greater because of it.

Being British, or Scottish is not dictated by one's clothing, nor any outward thing - it is something internal, based on intangibles. Yet we celebrate heritage through things like dress and food. It might seem a nice idea to able to be Scottish within oneself without any outward show, but I think that to remove the outer things, and the other people actually lessens the experience.

Of course, these things run beyond celebration but also into identification and communication and we teach others through those things. They are simply a part of society, of living with others.

Regarding gender, or masculinity. I think it is important that masculinity and femininity are identified and celebrated. Enjoyed. I think this is best and most easily accomplished with other people. I think the idea of both genders having things with are unique to them and are used as tools to help celebrate those differences and those natures is a good thing.

Basically, I don't believe in an androgenous society, I don't live in one. I enjoy the diversity and and beauty of two distinct genders forming the two halves of humanity and I think it's a good thing. I don't want to hide from it but enjoy it, learn about it, and grow in it.

I'm not saying we have to force anything by law, but I think it's good when a society can set somethings apart to enjoy and to celebrate and to teach. They may not be much in themselves, but they are useful and good when put to use. As someone once said, a river wouldn't be a river without banks. The banks restrict the river, they help define it - though one could technically argue that the river could exist in itself as a body of water without those banks. Such never exist in reality though, and all you would have is a big puddle. It nice to have the idea of gender without walls, but in reality I think it just works better to have them in place.

I think I may not have expressed myself perfectly, and have said some things that can be taken two ways, but I hope I've made some sense.

I think it's a good thing to have somethings (items, institutions, events) that are distinctly male and that are distinctly female and that are protected as such. Just because it gives people environments where it is easier to learn, celebrate and enjoy the different parts of life, and removes some of the risk of losing some of that in the blur that would ensue without them. I think society benefits when it exercises some societal self-discipline and sets itself some standards for it's own betterment.

One last thing - it occurs to me that masculinity and femininity are things that, in behaviour at least, are learned. Whilst the physical is important and definitely plays a big part, there are things about being a man and being a woman that need to be taught and learned. Cultural conventions and practises help with that. We don't place all gender into those things, but we may choose to maintain those things as helpful tools and practises.

[James]

Neither kilt nor skirt, or for that matter trousers creates a state of masculinity or femininity: it is the wearer.

Does a massive Fijian in his 'skirt-? Sulu' appear feminine-I'd suggest not.

By the same token the Tamil in his sarong - a garment also worn by women, does not appear feminine.

Yet I have seen some kilt wearers who do not project a masculine image despite all the right accoutrements.

So I'd suuggest that it is the wearer not the garment, which projects a masculine or feminine being.

James

[dana]

Very well said Galant. Thanks for your insite.

[Aaron]

Galant, forgive me if I made the impression that I think that people should go about their day relying solely on their convictions, and that they shouldn't take into consideration the feelings of others. I meant nothing of the sort. Surely no one here would think that to do wrong in general would be a good idea. I don't think anyone would think it a good policy to take up a cause with the sole intent on causing trouble and unrest.

Instead, my point was that truth is truth. Even if out of a thousand people, 999 said that the sky was green, we couldn't, as the one thousandth, agree with them even to appease the masses. The same goes for the masculinity of kilts. If the mass of the population declares them feminine, does that contradict what we know to be the truth of the matter? Should we go along and care about the popular opinion of a subject when we know that the popular opinion is wrong? Or would we instead stick to our guns about the subject?

In short, I didn't mean that all things are androgenous, and dependant on their gender from those that make use of them even though I didn't explain it very well. But instead I mean that since we produce the masculinity ourselves that no one can take it from us, no matter how many may disagree. And all we need to do to keep the things we know to be masculine intact, is to not let ourselves be flummoxed into thinking otherwise by those that would want to take it from us. And it was those questions about what makes something what it is that I was trying to address.

I'm sorry for the confusion.

[Galant]

Understood.

My apologies if my response seemed aggressive, it wasn't supposed to. I just see it as important and powerful that small communinties of people can choose to work together to maintain things, and raising awarenss and discussing issues can work to motivate and encourage those communities.

Glad we can bring all of this up.

[Alan H]

Well written, both Aaron and Galant. I see both of your points,a nd I'm enjoying the give-and-take that's going 'round the board right now.

Besides Aaron, anyone who uses the word "flummoxed" has GOT to be all right in my book!

[Aaron]

Thanks Alan. But you know I'm not really sure how that one snuck in there. It must be because my vocabulary stretches a bit when wet.

[Doc Hudson]

Thanks Alan. But you know I'm not really sure how that one snuck in there. It must be because my vocabulary stretches a bit when wet.

At least your typing didn't suffer.

My typing is bad enough, but after several jolts of Who Hit John, it really sucks.

They don't call me King of the Typoists for nothing.