Enough is Enough

[Manu]

I for one would rather society accept me as a guy in a kilt, not the fiend in a kilt.

Adam

I say to heck with society, and Ill tell why...because they dont pay my bills, feed, etc. That and, if they dont like me, I just dislike them back. Like Bear said, life is too short and there are enough problems to be worrying about what my neighbours think about me.

[Raphael]

Encouraging kilt checks in the name of fun, actually leads to the view that all of us kilt wearers are just deviants, wanting to flash. Personally I want to wear a kilt because it is comfortable, practical and I look good. While I realize that it is outside of the cultural norm, I would prefer not to be looked at like I'm a pervert for wearing it. And frankly that is how many people see us.

How can we be the perverts? They are the ones doing the lifting, Not us.

IF some women are already showing what they wear under their pants/jean/skirts, I don't mind to return a favour to the selected few.

[Archangel]

If a woman repeatedly lifted a man's kilt after being told not to, I could see it being considered harrassment and maybe an offense. The woman would more likely be fired from her job where she did the harrassing or get some other lesser punishment before going to court.
One flip of the pleats is not going to court.

I have no employees and I'm not flipping my kilt at customers or exposing myself to anyone.
I refuse to live cautiously, in fear I might do something wrong and get sued.
Life is too short for any of this crap. Some guys need to get all angry because some woman wants to see up their kilt? If that's the worst thing to happen to you in a day, you're a lucky man!
I've got a steady procession of crackheads going by my store right now. Nobody is asking what's in their clothing and I'm sure they would trade lives with anyone of us wearing a kilt right now, even if they had to endure an occasional kilt check.
Any takers?
No?
Of course, if getting attention from women is offensive to you, you could always wear pants.

Please, don't make this a personal thing at me. You made a statement that was wrong in fact. We could spend all day discussing details but you would still be wrong regarding the law in Canada.

[Archangel]

Wooo, sounds like someone need to look under their kilt and get their knickers out of a knot.

Mike

Me?
If so, that's not the case. This is what I do, trained in, for the past maybe four years. The discussion is weird, I'm okay with that, most things are . You don't know me.
For the most part the thread was dealing in attitudes, fine. Bear referred to Canadian Law and was wrong. I corrected him, offering info, that should be fine.
I came down heavier on Raphael (sorry, Raphael) than I meant to. I said so in the last sentence. It's difficult to word that in one short paragraph and I didn't want it to sound harsh. It was for people to think through.
Later posts have hinted at the meanings but we've got to get beyond stereotypes here. Applying the standards of a woman flashing at a concert to a woman on a bus is not a double standard, it's two different standards. Applying standards used when a lap-dancer walks by to a guy in a kilt in a family restaurant is not a double standard, it's two different standards.

I'm thinking this thread is starting to get testy. I'm certainly willing to discuss Canadian Human Rights and Sexual Harassment but we should be able to stay respectful and tasty.

[bear]

Please, don't make this a personal thing at me. You made a statement that was wrong in fact. We could spend all day discussing details but you would still be wrong regarding the law in Canada.

Oh relax, Archangel!
There was nothing personal in that post.
Here's two of the reasons to suspect my post was aimed at more than one person.
"Some guys need ..."
"I'm sure they would trade lives with anyone of us wearing a kilt right now, even if they had to endure an occasional kilt check.
Any takers?"
I may have been answering your post but the bulk of the comments were for all.
And the law in Canada is as malleable as anywhere else. Nothing is black and white.

[Archangel]

Oh relax, Archangel!

And the law in Canada is as malleable as anywhere else. Nothing is black and white.

I'm pretty relaxed about this, this dialogue is nowhere near as bad as I've had it in classes (trained with the Hellmans' Mayo rule: chill, don't freeze.) Tomorrow's the scheduled day for instructing this subject. That can get tense but most people get it by the end of the day. That's actually quite rewarding.

Would you settle for the black and white of the Canadian Constitution's Human Rights is poorly applied and the message and intent are not well communicated to the public? (Before anybody notes the awkward grammatical construct, the "not well communicated" does not apply to myself and my cohorts.)

[bear]

I'm pretty relaxed about this, this dialogue is nowhere near as bad as I've had it in classes (trained with the Hellmans' Mayo rule: chill, don't freeze.) Tomorrow's the scheduled day for instructing this subject. That can get tense but most people get it by the end of the day. That's actually quite rewarding.

Would you settle for the black and white of the Canadian Constitution's Human Rights is poorly applied and the message and intent are not well communicated to the public? (Before anybody notes the awkward grammatical construct, the "not well communicated" does not apply to myself and my cohorts.)

I'll settle for that. As for the "poorly applied",
A cop on the beat isn't likely to haul a woman into jail for sexual harrassment for lifting a kilt, no matter how mad the guy gets. But if a man lifted a woman's skirt, he would get hauled in.
On paper, it's all black and white and one offense is as serious as the other. In reality, they are treated differently.
Why? Men and women are different in the eyes of the law, if not in the letter of the law.

[Graham]

Of course, if getting attention from women is offensive to you, you could always wear pants.

No, that would never do. Bear is right, as long as we choose to wear kilts we will get all kinds of attention, welcomed and unwelcomed.

I've said before that kiltwearing brings some interesting lessons in human behaviour!

I like to see men and women have respect for one another, but those days are long gone. TV shows like Big Brother and the like go to prove that.

Perhaps as people see us wear the kilt with dignity and honour, that will be an answer to much of the folly we get from women (and men). Or am I dreaming??

[Archangel]

I'll settle for that. As for the "poorly applied",
A cop on the beat isn't likely to haul a woman into jail for sexual harrassment for lifting a kilt, no matter how mad the guy gets. But if a man lifted a woman's skirt, he would get hauled in.
On paper, it's all black and white and one offense is as serious as the other. In reality, they are treated differently.
Why? Men and women are different in the eyes of the law, if not in the letter of the law.

So this is one of the specific areas of confusion.
The incident you described would be difficult to claim as sexual harassment in terms of human rights in either gender. Sexual harassment laws, under human rights, do not usually apply in the street. Other laws apply there and this gets more complex.
It would be sexual assault in both cases and you're right, the woman would likely walk. In that case, the police would likely apply the power principle somebody mentioned earlier: quite likely, the police assume, the man can walk away, the woman may not have, or may not feel that she has, the power to do so. And, of course, the reverse could be true and the police made a bad assessment of the situation. Now, if you throw race and gender issues into this illustration, it gets even scarier. So the Human Rights laws are there to make sure the police are trained to make a fairer assessment of the situation.

There are a number of reasons why women/people of colour/pride are treated differently, mainly having to do with a fairer distribution of power and opportunity. So, then the questions becomes why do some people see this as a challenge: was it right/fair before the changes? Who is affected now and why should they be protected?

Thanks, for your illustration. It helped me make the point that the word we use is often misapplied and I hope things are a bit clearer. Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, just trained by the very top people and sent out to do this. There are lawyers to answer stuff, but I can certainly help. There are specific places the law does protect us. Last point, US law philosophy is totally opposite to Canadian law philosophy at a root level: some applications will be different.

[Mike n NC]

Me?
If so, that's not the case. This is what I do, trained in, for the past maybe four years. The discussion is weird, I'm okay with that, most things are . You don't know me.
For the most part the thread was dealing in attitudes, fine. Bear referred to Canadian Law and was wrong. I corrected him, offering info, that should be fine.
I came down heavier on Raphael (sorry, Raphael) than I meant to. I said so in the last sentence. It's difficult to word that in one short paragraph and I didn't want it to sound harsh. It was for people to think through.
Later posts have hinted at the meanings but we've got to get beyond stereotypes here. Applying the standards of a woman flashing at a concert to a woman on a bus is not a double standard, it's two different standards. Applying standards used when a lap-dancer walks by to a guy in a kilt in a family restaurant is not a double standard, it's two different standards.

I'm thinking this thread is starting to get testy. I'm certainly willing to discuss Canadian Human Rights and Sexual Harassment but we should be able to stay respectful and tasty.

Went back and looked just to be sure, didn't see anyone's name on that post other than mine. Knickers in a knot is a reference to attitude and I saw several that were getting a little tight during that time so if the shoe fits...but no it was not "directed" to you.

Now, lets define a coulple of things here. Number one: I don't know beans about the laws of Canada and, since I don't live there, could care less. Its the laws south of the border that I have to stay clear of.

Number two: by those laws, both Fed and most state, a single kilt lift is not sexual harassment. Sexual harassment requires intent and one of two circumstances as I understand it... 1) the harasser is in a position to advance or retard the positon or carreer of the person or 2) it requires multiple (this means more that one) reportable incidents by the same person on the victim.

Number 3: Anything less than the above may constitute physical or sexual assult but is not harassment.

Now, I don't know about some of you out there but I have a serious problem with dialing 911 and report that I was sexually assulted by a 5 foot something, 110 pound woman or any woman for that matter.

But all the above is moot since I really don't give a fuzzy rat's backside if my kilt gets lifted or not. As far as furthering the myth that men in kilts are pervs...ditto...don't care. A man much wiser that I once said this of what people may have thought of him..."if it is a lie then it is beneath notice, if it is true then you have nothing to say in your defense".

Enough of this, y'all er makin my butt itch.

Mike