Political Thoughts

[Archangel]

I wrote a long piece and erased it.

Here's what I'm seeing. There's recently been several threads that have limitations expressed, either who can wear what and how that must be worn. At the same time, people are expressing the desire that a kilt movement will catch on. Ironically, sometimes it's the same people.

Musashi refers to the idea of a strategy that first identifies what the objective is. He calls it "remember the cut". The best translation for that is "when you're up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp." Our "cut" is to have more people feel free to wear the kilt if they would like.

Politics here is the science of power and change, who has the power and how is that changed. It's not about parties and ideologies. However, realize that kilt wearing is a left wing action. We are challenging the status quo (right wing defends it). Those who have ever had to work out dress codes know that the frame of reference is a Wall Street suit. Churches don't look to 1st Century Israel, schools want suits or paramilitary uniforms. Those suits are symbols of power and they don't want to see that challenged. It is hard for others to see it challenged.

So why am I blathering on about this? We need to talk about this in a political way. There are two issues, at least, that keep coming up. One is that people who may be having struggles breaking away from the Wall St. model are looking here and seeing more limitations. Why would they take that step?
The second issue discussed in several threads is one of public acceptance. Again, we are challenging a firmly established standard, and there are others doing the same by their fashion choices. How can we expect acceptance when we can be seen mocking other people's baggy pants, and other kilt/skirt concepts? If we ridicule those people, we won't have their support/tolerance. We need that.

[Dreadbelly]

Both very good points.

[Iolaus]

Leave out the Left vs right arguement, or you're going to split your "party". I can tell from the posts that a lot of us are "right wing" in many things; I, for one, do support the status quo in many ways, but support change in other, limited ways. I may feel that things have gone too far right in some ways, but there's no way I could support the center, let alone espouse the rhetoric of the left.

No, I don't want to turn this thread into a political arguement of who is for change or for staying the same; that could get ugly. I'm just pointing out the limitations and pitfalls of using emotion-laden labeling.

[Archangel]

Leave out the Left vs right arguement, or you're going to split your "party". I can tell from the posts that a lot of us are "right wing" in many things; I, for one, do support the status quo in many ways, but support change in other, limited ways. I may feel that things have gone too far right in some ways, but there's no way I could support the center, let alone espouse the rhetoric of the left.

No, I don't want to turn this thread into a political arguement of who is for change or for staying the same; that could get ugly. I'm just pointing out the limitations and pitfalls of using emotion-laden labeling.

Fair enough, it's from a discussion on a thread the other day. There is baggage with those phrases. More so stateside and I have to careful not to offend and to respect that.

Background: part of what I/we do here is to facilitate people talking about politics. It's one of the things "we don't discuss" so we don't know how to share and learn to change power structures. All dialogue becomes rhetoric and stereotype and there's no progress. There are structures that have a vested interest in discouraging discussion.

I know I'm considered left, I don't see myself in that way. I'm more independant which is seen as left. I can tell most here would be "right" and that is what I'm addressing. Not to change that, who am I, but to make the observation that the kilt puts us on that side, in this one area. As a result, we're caught in a position that is awkward politically, within the definition above. Quite a few here are in a good power position where they are not seriously challenged (wealth, age, retired), others are coming in new or questioning. I'd like to see these groups being able to talk to each other productively.

[Dreadbelly]

I, er, I am, uh,

I am ambidexterous!

What's with this left or right nonsense?

One of the reasons I started wearing a kilt you know. So I wouldn't hang to the left or to the right, but right down the middle as God clearly intended, bobbing from side to side when making forward progress. Yeah. Think about that for a while and take it as you will.

[LordDamax]

So I wouldn't hang to the left or to the right, but right down the middle as God clearly intended, bobbing from side to side when making forward progress. Yeah. Think about that for a while and take it as you will.

A very good and thought provoking point... however, I did think about it, and unbidden, a mental image forced its way into my head, and now I feel dirty... eew...

[Big Paul]

Leave out the Left vs right arguement, or you're going to split your "party". I can tell from the posts that a lot of us are "right wing" in many things; I, for one, do support the status quo in many ways, but support change in other, limited ways. I may feel that things have gone too far right in some ways, but there's no way I could support the center, let alone espouse the rhetoric of the left.

No, I don't want to turn this thread into a political arguement of who is for change or for staying the same; that could get ugly. I'm just pointing out the limitations and pitfalls of using emotion-laden labeling.

I agree totaly..

What's with this left or right nonsense?

One of the reasons I started wearing a kilt you know. So I wouldn't hang to the left or to the right, but right down the middle as God clearly intended, bobbing from side to side when making forward progress. Yeah. Think about that for a while and take it as you will.

Too funny!

[M. A. C. Newsome]

"The Highland dress is essentially a 'free' dress -- that is to say, a man's taste and circumstances must alone be permitted to decide when and where and how he should wear it... I presume to dictate to no man what he shall eat or drink or wherewithal he shall be clothed." -- The Hon. Stuart Ruaidri Erskine, The Kilt & How to Wear It, 1901.

The bold-faced emphasis in the above quote is mine.

I wanted to make a couple of points, but the above is a principle that I think we need to all abide by. What someone else chooses to cloth themselves with is their business..... however --

--it is also a very true principle that our clothes project a certain image of ourselves to society. Unlike other physical features, such as skin color, height, stature, etc., we have a choice when it comes to how we shall dress ourselves.

So the idea that you cannot judge someone by the clothes they choose it wear is not true. If someone dresses like a gangster, it may be wrong of me to assume that he actually is a gangster, but I do know that he has chosen to dress himself in a manner that makes him look like one, and that tells me something of his character.

You mention the suit as a symbol of power. Well, in some circumstances it is. It's also a symbol of respect. You mention churches. The reason men wear suit and tie to church is not as a "power" symbol but as a symbol of respect for the duty they are there to perform. Same reason I would wear a suit and tie into a court room -- out of respect for the court.

Clothing has meaning, weather we like it or not. It is obvious that we expect people like police officers and soliders to wear uniforms, as it marks very clearly their place in society. But there are unofficial uniforms that we also sub-conciously recognize. You expect your doctor to be wearing a white coat. You expect your lawyer to wear a tie. You expect your English Lit professor to wear sweater vests and tweed jackets.

Even in places with no dress code, this applies. If you attend a public school with no dress code, the male teachers may feel free to wear kakhi slacks and a polo shirt. If one showed up to class in a Fred Flintstone t-shirt, jogging shorts, and flip flops, he would rightly get some comments both from the students and administration.

I say all of this so that I can comment on this last section:

There are two issues, at least, that keep coming up. One is that people who may be having struggles breaking away from the Wall St. model are looking here and seeing more limitations. Why would they take that step?The second issue discussed in several threads is one of public acceptance. Again, we are challenging a firmly established standard, and there are others doing the same by their fashion choices. How can we expect acceptance when we can be seen mocking other people's baggy pants, and other kilt/skirt concepts? If we ridicule those people, we won't have their support/tolerance. We need that.

I disagree with both of these issues. First, why should the kilt be seen as a limitless garment? Why should we say that anything goes in a kilt? I'm one of those who advocate that much of the "rules" of kilt wearing are fluff and nonsense that you can feel free to ignore. Yet I maintain that basic fashion sense and decorum applies. There are limitations that are proper to any moder of dress, kilted or not.

Second, why should public acceptance of kilt wearing neccesitate the acceptance and approval of every other fashion trend that is out there? Some fashions are simply horrible and deserve to die a natural death. Kilts have been around in their modern form for over 200 years and are still going strong. As a heritage garment, they have a timeless quality that will ensure they are going to be around for a very long time. We don't need to worry about that. And we don't need to tether our kilt wearing to every pop fashion fad that flies by.

Aye,
Matt

[Archangel]

The bold-faced emphasis in the above quote is mine.

I wanted to make a couple of points, but the above is a principle that I think we need to all abide by. What someone else chooses to cloth themselves with is their business..... however --

--it is also a very true principle that our clothes project a certain image of ourselves to society. Unlike other physical features, such as skin color, height, stature, etc., we have a choice when it comes to how we shall dress ourselves.

So the idea that you cannot judge someone by the clothes they choose it wear is not true. If someone dresses like a gangster, it may be wrong of me to assume that he actually is a gangster, but I do know that he has chosen to dress himself in a manner that makes him look like one, and that tells me something of his character.

You mention the suit as a symbol of power. Well, in some circumstances it is. It's also a symbol of respect. You mention churches. The reason men wear suit and tie to church is not as a "power" symbol but as a symbol of respect for the duty they are there to perform. Same reason I would wear a suit and tie into a court room -- out of respect for the court.

Clothing has meaning, weather we like it or not. It is obvious that we expect people like police officers and soliders to wear uniforms, as it marks very clearly their place in society. But there are unofficial uniforms that we also sub-conciously recognize. You expect your doctor to be wearing a white coat. You expect your lawyer to wear a tie. You expect your English Lit professor to wear sweater vests and tweed jackets.

Even in places with no dress code, this applies. If you attend a public school with no dress code, the male teachers may feel free to wear kakhi slacks and a polo shirt. If one showed up to class in a Fred Flintstone t-shirt, jogging shorts, and flip flops, he would rightly get some comments both from the students and administration.

I say all of this so that I can comment on this last section:


I disagree with both of these issues. First, why should the kilt be seen as a limitless garment? Why should we say that anything goes in a kilt? I'm one of those who advocate that much of the "rules" of kilt wearing are fluff and nonsense that you can feel free to ignore. Yet I maintain that basic fashion sense and decorum applies. There are limitations that are proper to any moder of dress, kilted or not.

Second, why should public acceptance of kilt wearing neccesitate the acceptance and approval of every other fashion trend that is out there? Some fashions are simply horrible and deserve to die a natural death. Kilts have been around in their modern form for over 200 years and are still going strong. As a heritage garment, they have a timeless quality that will ensure they are going to be around for a very long time. We don't need to worry about that. And we don't need to tether our kilt wearing to every pop fashion fad that flies by.

Aye,
Matt

Good.
In a hurry, got my citizenship ceremony this morning.
This is the kind of dialogue I'm trying to generate. If we're being iconoclasts what are the community's collective limitations? How do we express those limitations in a way that is still inviting, open and reciprical?

[bubba]

There are a few basic "rules" of dress that apply if you don't want to look like an ascapee from the clown tent at the circus, but beyond that wear what's comfortable for you. I admit I don't, and never have, followed fashion and I've always dressed casually, at times to the point of barbarity, depending on what I'm doing. The simple answer is dress to suit the activity.