Women in Kilts?

[Barry]

Instead of just saying she shouldn't because it's a man's garment or saying she should because it's a free world, I'm trying to reason. Because to tell the truth, she really hasn't given me a real reason why.

Women don't need to give a reason.

This thread has been quite enlightening; logic, opinion, "facts". fors and againsts. But no-one seems to have mentioned the real arbiter here: Society's current view of male/female clothing. IMHO the situation in the West is that women can and do wear any garment, wether intended for them or no. Men, on the other hand are expected to wear, and generally do, clothes of a fairly narrow range which other men are also wearing i.e blokes stuff. Whereas the females are applauded or ignored when they wear man's clothes, any man daring to wear anything remotly "feminine" is immediately branded as gay or a cross dresser or a pervert.
Now I'm not saying that any of this is right or wrong. The British Prime Minister is on record as saying that no-one should tell another how to dress. I'm just trying to explain what I see as the status quo.

So, our good lady that started this little ball rolling may, can, and will wear a man's kilt and we chaps will still face unenlightened comment from "real men" when we are in our kilts and cilts. A "free world"? Not is this England it isn't.

I think this thread has run it course and should now be put to bed. It really has been great to read all the input and with such gentlemanly retraint present.

Lang may yer lum reek!

[McClef]

I just got the DVD of Yentl, in my view Streisand's best film.

At the end when she reveals her true gender she gets the "not wearing that which appertaineth to a man" bit. This quote has been bandied around in many contexts (and usually without reference to the original one) and still exists in the unconcious mind of some.

It's even been used against men in kilts!

There is also a lot of snobbery about what is "correct" and about "entitlements" which members of this forum do their best to dispel. This discussion shows that there are variances in views which have been given with restraint and respect.

Fashions and ideas of dress evolve all the time, I don't think we can claim an exemption from that for the kilt. If it evolves into a "unisex" garment then sobeit if it increases its popularity, toleration and use. That doesn't mean that all the accessories would automatically be unisex although I did see a lesbian at a ceilidh in full Highland fig and she looked better than some of the men did!

[mddock58]

As far as any of this goes, I really don't care!

But I would rather see a lady wear ANY skirt, kilt or otherwise, than jeans.

But that's just my preference!

[Mike1]

That doesn't mean that all the accessories would automatically be unisex although I did see a lesbian at a ceilidh in full Highland fig and she looked better than some of the men did!

Let's not start discussing lifestyle choices of those wearing kilts, that is not in the spirit of this thread or in the spirit of the forum policies.

[McClef]

I apologise if I have offended, it was not meant in that way, only to be illustrative.

[cavscout]

To compare women wearing kilts to having a "right" to wear a kilt is going a bit overboard. If you want to wear one, wear one. There's no need to make a civil liberty's case out of this topic. And absolutely, I don't want to see the kilt caught up in a civic or social revolution that would compromise the heritage that most of us value (heritage of Scottish revolution aside).

Also, women wearing kilts does nothing to further the cause of men wearing kilts. Thanks anyway Maddona.

We all have our own reasons for wanting to wear the kilt. The fact that we ourselves can hardly define what is and isn't a kilt by any standard is proof enough that it is a futile debate.

Most people, including those among us, will see a person wearing a tartan skirt and look at it in appreciation. It will be the overall appearance that tells us initially if it is a kilt or kilted skirt. Whether the person is dressing to give a feminine appearance or a masculine appearance will be our first impression of if it is a kilt or kilted skirt.

It's not accurate to think women will choose a kilt because of the comfort it provides because the comfort a kilt provides men is irrelevant to women. Women currently have unlimited options for loose fitting skirts that look fantastic on them, many of them in plaids. Kilt or not, Women will still squat and kneel with their legs together, men will not. They will still wear clothes that accentuate their figures, kilt or not.

The choice for a women to wear a kilt(ed-skirt) is beyond the realm of the things I control in my domain But I know the impression the wearer presents to the viewer is what will make the final determination as to whether it is a kilt or kilted skirt.

[Nanook]

At the end when she reveals her true gender she gets the "not wearing that which appertaineth to a man" bit. This quote has been bandied around in many contexts (and usually without reference to the original one) and still exists in the unconcious mind of some.

The Halacha (or commandents) is question is the prohibition of not wearing gender specific clothing of the corresponding type.

“A man’s clothes should not be on a woman, and a man should not wear the apparel of a woman; for anyone who does these things, it is an abomination before G-d.”

לא־יִהְיֶה כְלִי־גֶבֶר עַל־אִשָּה וְלא־יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּה כִּי תועֲבַת ה׳ אֱלהֶיךָ
כָּל־עשֵׂה אֵלֶּה

The men's items are not pants but tsitsit and tefillin. Yentl was clearly guilty on all counts.

The question is why? There is a relatively large literature on this passage. The general consensus of commentary is that the prohibition is about the will to deception (Yentl again) to commit sin (the sparing moment for Yentl). Rashi, for example, saw the deception as the will to adultery (" this is only for the purpose of adultery." and "So he can go and be among the women.").

Alone the observation that someone might suggest that a man in kilt is a man in a skirt is an exclusion to this prohibition since it is hardly a deception. A big hairy guy with a beard is a dress (such as a late "Coco Vega" who was a fixture of the late 1970s and early 1980s San Francisco party scene) might look like a wack but hardly a gender deceiver. It only crosses the line when there is an intent (conscious will or desire) to misrepresent gender to violate other laws.

What is "gender specific" is defined by local custom. Its application among Charedi (conservative Orthodox in contrast to "Modern Orthodox" Jews) is to forbid women from wearing pants or only (under specific conditions) under a skirt that is clearly identifiable as and accepted in the local area as a women's skirt.

[Mike1]

OK, now we're taking a religious slant and that dog ain't gonna hunt. Maybe we've run the gamut with this one, I don't know.

Let's move things back to safe ground and see how it progresses.

[cloves]

I've asked a couple kiltmakers on the board here about kilts with a reverse apron (not just cause I'm female, but also because I'm a leftie) and both of them said they couldn't.

who makes a knee length kilted skirt? I've only seen the "too long" and "too short" variety offered.

[KiltedKnight]

When I first found this site I was pleased at what it was then and I tried to follow the rules that the site is run by but it seems that as time goes by political correctness outweighs the rules in a lot of places.

Now I understand that the mods allow many things to pass to see how they'll fly and if a post doesn't raise too many peoples ire they allow it to stand, no problem, but after reading some posts where some here have made it perfectly clear that they are homosexual there was no mention of stepping out of bounds or "not discussing lifestyle choices" and when someone protested that the government hadn't approved a certain bill giving marriage 'rights' to individuals who practice alternative lifestyles there was no mention of discussing politics from the mods when there was no reason to bring politics up on the board in any discussion that didn't have to do with laws pertaining to the kilt.

In truth I don't want anyone discussing my lifestyle and I don't want to hear about anyone elses either.

I have always stood on my own two feet and have worn the kilt with pride and not "casual" with sweatshirts or tee shirts or the like, if someone does that's entirely up to them but I don't have to be happy knowing that they "don't care" about how it affects tradition, and yes, I know all about 'back in the day' when the Scots wore the kilt in any way they chose but today the kilt is Highland Attire and not "casual" unless at the games.

I see many here that are very excited about wearing the kilt with the same fervor as someone who just discovered religion and wants to share it with everyone else but as we all know, until that new convert gets used to the idea and calms down they can be quite a pain to have around. There's nothing at all wrong with having that kind of passion but most think that they have to get everyone into kilts to be accepted themselves but I have not found that to be so. I have never had a problem that I couldn't handle being at a function kilted.

I have worn the kilt for many years and yes, we all know that there are some that aren't very sure of their sexuality and will try and poke fun at us for wearing the kilt but they only make fools of themselves in front of the other folks around us and we compound their foolishness by ignoring them or shutting them down with a great comeback that fits the moment.

That being said, I don't want everyone in kilts, I want to stand out as a man among men and be the only one at a banquet or on an ocean cruise wearing a kilt. If there are others there I will be happy to have them as long as they are not embarrassing the tradition.

Lately, Xmarks has been populated by many who "don't care" and have no use for tradition and those of us who want to learn what's proper and not what someone else is doing only to 'get in the face' of society are supposed to sit back and not protest because it's not PC. I doubt the mods want Xmarks to be known on the net as a site where you have to watch what you say or your post will be removed if it isn't considered politically correct.

I hate to say this but I'm afraid that in a year or two Xmarks will be indiscernible from sites like Tom's Cafe if this goes on with anyone wearing anything that they want to wear.

If you follow this to it's logical conclusion once women are accepted as wearing mens kilts then someone will proest because they should be allowed to discuss wearing women's skirts and so on. And it will happen.

Intelligent disagreement should not be shut down because it goes against political correctness or might hurt someone's self esteem because they don't agree with the way things have been for hundereds of years before they were born.

Chris.