Style, Fashion Rules, traditions, Flat caps, and the missing element...

[DWFII]

Even though I believe some of what DFWII says above is likely directed at my comments I agree with a lot of what he says.

Well, yes and no...I wasn't really trying to respond directly to you--just following a train of thought that your remarks prompted.

And I agree with much of what you say.

This issue...in this thread and several others that I have looked in on recently...comes down to this for me: freedom is about choice. And choice always, always, brings certain constraints and responsibilities along with it. Sometimes we call those "rules," sometimes "conventions," sometimes even "duty."

We all make a choice about how we present ourselves...on a daily basis. And no one has the right to gainsay those choices. But once you have made a choice, isn't it disrespectful to...yourself and your ability to act with, what? "integrity?"...to disavow those choices?

For instance, I'm not a Catholic (and have nothing against Catholics--my Ulster Scot grandmother was a Catholic) but if I was...and especially if I had deliberately chosen to become a member...I would feel honour bound to abide by the "rules" of the Catholic faith and church.

Similarly, if I say I wear a kilt to honour my Scots ancestry, or the traditions of the Highlands...or even because I like highland attire...I, personally, would feel honour bound to abide by the "rules," "conventions," "customs," 'traditions," (whatever way you want to express it) of highland dress. The choice I have made is a deliberate and purposeful association with a specific culture and its traditions.

If I were the kind of person who wore the kilt because I liked the freedom and...perhaps (hard for me to get into that mind-set)...avant-garde look of it, I think I would try to downplay the Scots connection as much as I could. If only because if I couldn't feel pride in wearing a "man skirt" for its own sake...couldn't find sufficient justification without calling up a somewhat spurious connection to which I didn't really owe any allegiance, it would make me defensive.

Now maybe that's why I am what Panache calls a "staunch traditionalist'--maybe I feel more comfortable with a raison d'etre for acting in a way that other, more judgmental folks might consider slightly anti-social. And maybe that's a character flaw, I don't know. But its also a survival mechanism and I never question survival traits no matter how obscure.

Now that's just me, just my opinion...but I'm the only one I can speak for with certainty.

[I just think the rubber chicken is silly...and I think that's what it's meant to be.]

[ForresterModern]

Well, yes and no...I wasn't really trying to respond directly to you--just following a train of thought that your remarks prompted.

And I agree with much of what you say.

This issue...in this thread and several others that I have looked in on recently...comes down to this for me: freedom is about choice. And choice always, always, brings certain constraints and responsibilities along with it. Sometimes we call those "rules," sometimes "conventions," sometimes even "duty."

We all make a choice about how we present ourselves...on a daily basis. And no one has the right to gainsay those choices. But once you have made a choice, isn't it disrespectful to...yourself and your ability to act with, what? "integrity?"...to disavow those choices?

For instance, I'm not a Catholic (and have nothing against Catholics--my Ulster Scot grandmother was a Catholic) but if I was...and especially if I had deliberately chosen to become a member...I would feel honour bound to abide by the "rules" of the Catholic faith and church.

Similarly, if I say I wear a kilt to honour my Scots ancestry, or the traditions of the Highlands...or even because I like highland attire...I, personally, would feel honour bound to abide by the "rules," "conventions," "customs," 'traditions," (whatever way you want to express it) of highland dress. The choice I have made is a deliberate and purposeful association with a specific culture and its traditions.

If I were the kind of person who wore the kilt because I liked the freedom and...perhaps (hard for me to get into that mind-set)...avant-garde look of it, I think I would try to downplay the Scots connection as much as I could. If only because if I couldn't feel pride in wearing a "man skirt" for its own sake...couldn't find sufficient justification without calling up a somewhat spurious connection to which I didn't really owe any allegiance, it would make me defensive.

Now maybe that's why I am what Panache calls a "staunch traditionalist'--maybe I feel more comfortable with a raison d'etre for acting in a way that other, more judgmental folks might consider slightly anti-social. And maybe that's a character flaw, I don't know. But its also a survival mechanism and I never question survival traits no matter how obscure.

Now that's just me, just my opinion...but I'm the only one I can speak for with certainty.

[I just think the rubber chicken is silly...and I think that's what it's meant to be.]

Well thought out and spoken, DFWII. Again, for the most part we agree, just to different degrees. I think your description of a staunch traditionalist puts you somewhere to the a-political right of me on the spectrum of "full freedom of kilt wearing without guilt or association"-----------"extreme proper only one right way to do it historically correct nationalist and traditionalist" (I do not use these words as typecasting or stereotyping, just as examples of exhibited behavior and opinions). As such I remain interested and eager to learn more about my heritage, to be proper and correct, but to do so within my own definition of those constraints in todays modern world instead of the purely historical one.

Example: I do not use a sporran strap (heaven forbid, gasp)---rather, due to my particular anatomic build I find that a pair of sporran hangers work better for me, and feel that falls within my parameter of maintaining the spirit of highland attire without strictly following theletter of the law. I also wear a belt pouch to one side under my jacket or sweater, something not strictly seen in the books of highland dress, but it works for me as I need to be able to get at pagers, etc... quickly sometimes when I am kilted, but do not wish to wear them overtly on my kilt belt. I wear suspenders and a belt with some kilts as they no longer fit me as well as I would like but do not feel a need to spend the extra money to have them altered a inch or two, especially knowing that my weight fluctuates enough that I will liekly get back into them sometime in the not too distant future. My choice of ties. tops, shoes, and , yes, hats, also is my own but based on my style and how I can get that style to jibe with my desires to demonstrate my Scot heritage. It may not fit convention or be historically accurate but it still falls within my personal sense of style and choice. Now we are not talking about wearing a Utilikilt with a PC and Fly plaid and army boots and cowboy hat to a proper scottish funeral or wedding. Then again, I am not a historical re-enactor either, so I feel some personalization of the package is my perogative. I mean no disrespect by making the choice of those changes to the "uniform" code, merely personalized stylistic adjustments. In other words, I wear the kilt, and associated highland attire, my own way, while still trying to maintain the integrity of the overall look and effect. I guess sometimes I do okay and others maybe not. But I have yet to see my picture on the "kilt don'ts" thread yet (this is not an invitation for somebody to go now and do it just for spite) so I think so far I am in general doing okay.

As Jamie has said, I learn the rules (and will continue to), and understand why and when it is okay to break them, and I think we can all maintain our respect for each other and the heritage we so desperately all, in our own ways, seek to maintain. Just remember that some of us are a little over to your left on the spectrum, but still on the same team overall.