Private organizations, and private clubs.

First off, Mike1, I hope this isn't transgressive.

It breaks my heart to see clubs excluding people, but as a believer in autonomy, "that's their right." I hang out with some odd people, some of them wouldn't get along with others I also hang out with. I believe in the rights of free association, very strongly. I will choose the people whose company I enjoy---and I cannot raise too much fuss if other people exercise the same rights.

In the very same way that I reject the authority of "society at large" to dictate how I dress, I must similarly respect the authority of any society to reject my company. It can be foolish, it can be misguided (and certainly, anyone who rejects ME must be foolish or misguided, right?), but it is ultimately the decision of the people in that society/community/organization.

If I may transgress (and I beg indulgence from the moderators!) it is something like the dating service that rejects homosexuals. HOW DARE THEY! (some say). Freely and equitably, says I. On various political weblogs, I've seen comment about one of these dating sites. One approach has been to say "they can't do that! They must admit/accept/validate ME!" Frequently this leads to appeals to authority, to FORCE the malefactors to reform their behavior. A more appropriate approach (to my mind) is to open a competing site, to serve an underserved community.

I write this post with some trepidation, as I am aware of how close to the wind I am sailing. This is Highland Tide's site, and we have to play by his rules if we want to play in his sandbox. (I hope that doesn't sound resentful, or arrogant, or displeased.)

Sometimes it's hard to remember that our particular passion is just one of many, many particular passions floating around out there. If there's an exclusive club that doesn't think I, or you, or whoever, deserves membership, for whatever reason---well, so be it. I suppose that there are sarong fans out there who might be upset that Xmarksthescot is dedicated to kilts, and not MUGs in general.

If the St Andrews Society of Philadelphia chooses to pursue an exclusionist policy, well, that is simply a reason to seek out, or found, new societies that are more in tune with our preferences.

And heck, I'd be proud to be associated with a "Scottish Society of Philadelphia" that was ramrodded by that crazy Rocky Roeger! What I'm saying, lads, is that we can look at anything as a problem or an opportunity. If "they" are doing it wrong, let's us "do it right."

And also, let's bear in mind that there might be someone out there who thinks, "How dare those X-marks fellows exclude the sarong!" Well, thinks I, them's the rules we play by---and my participation at X-marks, and my playing by the rules at X-marks, in no way prohibits me from being a member of, say, "Smarksthesarong.com".

Mods, if this is a transgression, please accept that it was meant with the best of intentions. Associational rights can be considered politics, and I know political discussions are frowned upon. We're here to talk about kilts, and to a lesser degree Scottish history and culture. Our choice to talk about kilts, and not sarongs, or skirts, or the price of tea in China, is as valid as any private organization's choice of focus. Personally, I love having X-marks here, and the limitations on discussion of certain topics is a small price to pay for the benefits I glean.

The five second version? "Hey, man, they've got their thing."