Women in kilts

[thanmuwa]

Welcome to our world!
To the limited extent that society lets men get away with something other than trousers we are beset with yet more rules.
........
I suppose we are our own worst enemies. I admit to a sense of horror at the thought of wearing anything that would be labelled as female clothing.

You said it yourself, these are actually your rules for yourself, based on some nebulous perception of society. You already wear a kilt, which is outside the norm, why cling to other "rules" without examining them to see if they make sense to YOU?
There are no kilt police who will arrest you for having a kilt longer or shorter, just look at some of those ren fair pictures!

Because of the fact that many credit the Highland regiments of the British Army for saving Highland attire after the Act of Proscription.
That is why you should care. It's a matter of simple respect.
Todd

Although it may look silly, how would having a different length of kilt be disrespectful, unless you were actually in the army at the time?
If changing the length of a civilian kilt is disrespectful, then what about changing other aspects? Are pockets in a kilt, or reverse kingussie pleating, or narrow aprons or contemporary sporrans disrespectful? Is wearing anything that doesn't exactly meet mess uniform standards disrespectful? Because if we are talking of breaking the dress code of the British Army as being a disrespectful thing for a civilian to do, that probably makes all contemporary kilts, all the beautiful Ferguson Britt Sporrans etc etc disrespectful...

[macwilkin]

Although it may look silly, how would having a different length of kilt be disrespectful, unless you were actually in the army at the time?
If changing the length of a civilian kilt is disrespectful, then what about changing other aspects? Are pockets in a kilt, or reverse kingussie pleating, or narrow aprons or contemporary sporrans disrespectful? Is wearing anything that doesn't exactly meet mess uniform standards disrespectful? Because if we are talking of breaking the dress code of the British Army as being a disrespectful thing for a civilian to do, that probably makes all contemporary kilts, all the beautiful Ferguson Britt Sporrans etc etc disrespectful...

My response was to this statement:

The only explanation seems to come from the uniform regulations of the highland regiments. Newflash! I've never been in anybody's army, and my celtic ancestry is not even Scottish, but Irish! So why should I care?

It appears that there was some statement made earlier about the length of kilts in reference to the Highland Regiments; my comments were intended to be a more general statement about the important role the regiments played in preserving Highland attire.

But, you are also putting words in my mouth by implying that I believe civilian variations are somehow "disrespectful", which is simply not the case. Civilian attire is not governed by military regulations, but civilian Highland attire has been greatly influenced by military fashion related to the Highland Regiments.

T.

[DWFII]

You said it yourself, these are actually your rules for yourself, based on some nebulous perception of society. You already wear a kilt, which is outside the norm, why cling to other "rules" without examining them to see if they make sense to YOU?

I'm not so sure. I tend to agree with O'Callaghan, and I don't think it is simply because we are imposing spurious rules on ourselves. The Creator...or evolution (choose whatever religion you feel most comfortable with)...made sure that men and women were different. Made sure that we look different, think different, and react to situations differently. There is a purpose there...either a "higher purpose" or an evolutionary one. What? Well, survival comes to mind.

If a reluctance to blur those distinctions makes sense to a person it is probably because we are hard-wired to be most comfortable with them.

Conversely, the desire to obscure such differences implies a discomfort or, just as likely, a dissatisfaction, with oneself. Maybe it isn't true, but to those who are a little more hard-wired than others the implication is there and stark.

It also implies a certain discomfort with the whole concept of "otherness." That which is not like ourselves. Ying yang. Etc..

What makes me uncomfortable, is the notion that we cannot tolerate sexual dimorphism in our social vision...that we have to, or that it is desirable to, suppress it at every turn. Because in the end, one thing leads to another and soon all individuality, all idiosyncrasy, all eccentricity, becomes suspect.

I'd hate like the devil to think that what was once a male garment with a glorious history and overtly masculine associations should, because of a rather misguided (in my opinion) impulse to proselytize the kilt to anyone and everyone, become the foundation for a unisex garment that further blurs the distinctions between individuals and brings us closer to a society of faceless (and sexless) drones. It would be ironic.

But then it has already happened with trousers...now that is ironic.