Kilted Postman...

**pipesndrumsnun** · 19th December 08, 09:17 AM

I say, "Yes! Absolutely!" and they should design a special Official U.S. Postal Service Tartan while they're at it!

OOOOOPS!! Sorry I didn't read the last post!!

**Howard Clark** · 13th December 08, 04:30 PM

Pretty obvious how this poll will turn out...

Ya think ?

I go to the post office kilted all the time. I get good natured grief from the Postmaster, and all the staff. I just smile and joke right back at them, and explain all the benefits of kilt wearing to them. I know three Postmasters personally, in all three of the small towns near where I live, and they are fine folks. I do not know if either of the men who are Postmaster near me have any interest in wearing the kilt, but I do try to put forth a positive image. The other is a woman I have known since we were in elementary school, and our parents were friends. She has never made any comment at all regarding my kilt wearing when I go to her Post Office.

I am regarded as "unusual" anyway. There are not all that many knife makers around, let alone full time sword smiths.

I think that Postal Service employees should be able to wear a kilt if they want to, absolutely. But I am biased.

**Spartan** · 13th December 08, 04:37 PM

I think that it's great that the whole issue received publicity on national TV! The more publicity the better. It's simply a matter of choice. Just imagine if people occasionally saw letter carriers in kilts. The more frequently people see kilts the better for all of us, and especially if they are worn by people at work as part of their uniform.

The USPO helped put me through college many moons ago. I used to wear the uniform. If I had the opportunity today, you know that I would go for it. The Utilikilt version is sharp.

**Tattoo Bradley** · 13th December 08, 04:46 PM

I voted a resounding no. I just don't see a real reason for the USPS personnel to wear a kilt. I feel a uniform is a uniform; period. I have spent some years wearing military as well as civilian uniforms. So, I certainly have a different view than some. I don't feel the kilt should be added to the options just because one guy (or at best, a vast minority) thinks it looks cool or more comfortable or neat to be different. It would be a novelty. What then? Mail carriers in superman capes? (don't get too upset, it's an intentional exageration... a hyperbole of sorts) I also personally feel the prototypes proposed look a bit silly.

My opinion is no doubt due, at least in part, to the fact that I wear the kilt primarily because of my heritage. But, also in no small part the fact that I simply like the way it looks. I do wear the kilt as I would any other garment, by which I mean I wear it when I feel like it, not just special occasions. But, my reason for wearing it has absolutely zero to do with comfort. I happen to find the kilt no more or no less comfortable that a pair of pants/jeans/trousers.

Finally, I've gotta say: this issue is not a "cause." It's a matter of choice, something we all have and must do at some point. (something I am FAR from a stranger to in the work place and life choices.) If this guy wants to wear a kilt at work, he needs to accept that it's not going to happen with the USPS. To turn it into a gender issue is absurd. The issue here is not gender, but simply the fact that the kilt has no reason to be a part of the uniform. Should togas or sarongs also be allowed, so long as they're postal blue? Of course not. We're also talking about the US Govt. here, no Circuit City or Podunk High School. To think the general public would have much bearing is a bit wishful.

**Rex_Tremende** · 14th December 08, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Tattoo Bradley

I feel a uniform is a uniform; period. [...] We're also talking about the US Govt. here, ...

Hm... I think that reasoning is just a little too circular, Bradley. Just because a uniform is a uniform does not mean that it cannot be subject to periodic updating. And the US government does so often enough. To wit:

US Navy 1899

US Army 1899

Regards,
Rex.

**macwilkin** · 14th December 08, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Rex_Tremende

Hm... I think that reasoning is just a little too circular, Bradley. Just because a uniform is a uniform does not mean that it cannot be subject to periodic updating. And the US government does so often enough. To wit:

US Navy 1899

US Army 1899

Regards,
Rex.

It's funny you should bring that up, Rex, but the US Army is returning to the "blues":

http://www.army.mil/asu/index.html

Regards,

Todd

**Tattoo Bradley** · 14th December 08, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Rex_Tremende

Hm... I think that reasoning is just a little too circular, Bradley. Just because a uniform is a uniform does not mean that it cannot be subject to periodic updating. And the US government does so often enough. To wit:

US Navy 1899

US Army 1899

Regards,
Rex.

Good points Rex. However, I think it's important to note that the dress uniforms, as Todd somewhat referred to, still hold some of the traditional aspects of those shown. As far as battle dress uniforms or utility uniforms etc, those updates are in the most part to adapt and evolve with changing needs and function as technology and warfare move on. So, I think comparing the updating of military uniforms to whether USPS uniforms should take on a new take of the kilt is a bit apples and oranges. I'm sure there are a few who think OD Green UKs should be instituted for the US Army. But, I somehow see that as even less likely than the USPS adapting these. Also, it should be noted that the USPS uniform has certainly been updated over the years.

Here is a good comparison to go with your 1899 Army and Navy uniform pictures: The USPS uniform as worn in 1894:

Several pictures of the evolving USPS uniforms can be seen on the USPS site, here.

**Jack Daw** · 14th December 08, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Tattoo Bradley

I voted a resounding no. I just don't see a real reason for the USPS personnel to wear a kilt. I feel a uniform is a uniform; period. I have spent some years wearing military as well as civilian uniforms. So, I certainly have a different view than some. I don't feel the kilt should be added to the options just because one guy (or at best, a vast minority) thinks it looks cool or more comfortable or neat to be different. It would be a novelty. What then? Mail carriers in superman capes? (don't get too upset, it's an intentional exageration... a hyperbole of sorts) I also personally feel the prototypes proposed look a bit silly.

Brad, I'm afraid that I will have to disagree with you, respectfully, my friend. Not only am I in favor of mail-carriers wearing the kilt; I also think it should be mandatory.

Also, you shouldn't be disrespectful of cape-wearers. They have a right to be different like kilt-wearers (I just don't want to be seen with any of them). They even have a club, of sorts.

http://forums.latenightcomputing.com...oard=13.0;wap2

Respecfully

**GDub** · 13th December 08, 05:12 PM

I respectfully disagree with Mr Bradley on several points he makes, but on one in particular I'll take a stand. Being able to choose what one wears to work, if it is in no way a safety issue or in any way impacting performance, no matter what the agency or organization and whether uniformed or not, is perfectly reasonable. USPS mail carriers here in California are in shorts 90% of the year. So, IMHO, there is ZERO reason why a UK style kilt made in regulation colors, fabric, whatever, would be any different from wearing shorts.

**Tattoo Bradley** · 13th December 08, 05:17 PM

And I'll stand by my main focal point, in that, even with your opinion, there is still ZERO reason is should be part of the uniform. If you want to make a change to an established uniform, there should be a reason. While it may not present a safety issue, that is still not a reason that it should be added. Good point about the shorts. So, with that logic, if trousers are too hot in 90F weather, why not wear the approved shorts? Again, no real reason presented for the kilt.