Originally Posted by
M. A. C. Newsome
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
Bookmarks