The most positive news for a while!

[geegee]

Please see this "Scotsman" article.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=125672007

Three cheer for Anthea Greirson and for Councillor Andrew Burns!!!!!!!!!!!

[Departed Member]

Interesting! It's really great to find kids being allowed to play such a proactive part in the running of their school! Shame about the picture showing the laddie wearing what's obviously a lassie's kilted skirt, but they probably haven't made any for the lads - yet! I was intrigued by the quote:

"The pupil council went to Clanhouse to choose a design and found one which belongs to a school in England whose colours are similar to ours."

"English" tartan - and chosen by Scots? D*mn right, too! If truth be known, most tartans were 'English' in conception, anyway.

There were some 'scutty' comments in the section that followed, though. Hope they don't put the lads off. The more young 'uns that take to Kilts augers well for the future.

[cessna152towser]

Great news but some of the scruffy comments confirm there's still a lot of ignorance to be overcome.

[Sashi]

Interesting article, and sadly some ignorant sounding comments as well. Now if only more schools that have a uniform would give children the option to wear a skirted garment or not, all over the world, things would be much nicer. From what I've seen of Male vs Female school uniforms around the world, the male uniform is usually quite plain while the female one is far more interesting to look upon. Doing something like the school in the article would help alleviate that kind of problem. Had I been in a uniformed school, and been given the choice, I'd so go for the more extravagant of the two. Then again, I seem to really prefer more complicated and colorful outfits, rather than a typical male outfit of a solid color or two and if you are lucky some strips or something.

[AMM]

... Shame about the picture showing the laddie wearing what's obviously a lassie's kilted skirt, ...

Interesting that making a kilt longer makes it "obviously a lassie's ... skirt".

In the USA, at least, schoolgirls' uniform skirts (and "kilts") were and still are short enough to fully expose the knee, whereas all the boys' kilts that I've seen were like men's kilts -- they go down to the bottom of the kneecap. That is, boys' "skirts" are shorter than girls'.

It just goes to show that there's no logic in how people classify things as "girls'" vs. "boys'".

--

To digress a little, when I was a schoolboy, dress codes were gasping their last in the public schools [USA usage, not UK] and girls were required to wear skirts. Since the miniskirt had recently come into fashion and were still seen by many as indecent, at least in the Ante-Bellum South where I lived, you would think that school principals would have been trying to get girls to wear longer skirts, such as the "maxi". But, no, they spent as much effort banning skirts that went below the knees as they did battling excessively transparent blouses and micro-minis.

It was said that the test was that a girl had to get down on her knees. If the skirt touched the floor, it was too long.

The only sense I could make of it was that longer skirts, like high heels, make-up, and pierced ears, were reserved for adult women, much as a century earlier, boys wore shorts and long pants ("trousers" for you Brits) were reserved for men. By requiring the girls to wear the more child-like short skirts, they were perhaps hoping to get them to stay in a child-like subservient position. The prospect of a school full of children considering themselves to be adults is even today enough to give any school administrator nightmares.

-- AMM

[Charlie]

... much as a century earlier, boys wore shorts and long pants ("trousers" for you Brits) were reserved for men.

It wasn't until I was 12 and in my 2nd year of secondary school in 1959 that I made it into long trousers. I felt so grown up. Nowadays, even kids (male and female) at primary school are in long trousers - poor little mites, the start of a lifetime of long trouser wearing for most of the boys

Charlie

[cessna152towser]

It wasn't until I was 12 and in my 2nd year of secondary school in 1959 that I made it into long trousers.

Likewise, I was 12 years and six months when I got my first long trousers.
Grey shorts for school and navy shorts for dressing up or going to the Lifeboys, khaki shorts for play in summer.
Being in mid-winter when I first received them, I then wanted to wear longs every day and had my second pair within a week or so but when the summer came again I soon regretted being cooked up in trousers.

[Departed Member]

Interesting that making a kilt longer makes it "obviously a lassie's ... skirt".

In the USA, at least, schoolgirls' uniform skirts (and "kilts") were and still are short enough to fully expose the knee, whereas all the boys' kilts that I've seen were like men's kilts -- they go down to the bottom of the kneecap. That is, boys' "skirts" are shorter than girls'.

It just goes to show that there's no logic in how people classify things as "girls'" vs. "boys'".-- AMM

Sorry? What's the length got to do with it? :shake: The garment in question wraps right over left, same as most ladies/girls wear. It appears to be a couple of sizes too large (obviously borrowed for the photo), but it's still a girl's kilted skirt , not a lad's Kilt! I've still yet to see a bloke, or lad for that matter, whose Kilt fell below mid-knee. I'd feel extremely ill at ease being seen in a Kilt that length (below the knee) and certainly far more embarrassing (at my size!) than being seen wearing a 12" denim mini!

[cessna152towser]

I'd feel extremely ill at ease being seen in a Kilt that length (below the knee) and certainly far more embarrassing (at my size!) than being seen wearing a 12" denim mini!

Each to our own. I have a longish navy blue acrylic kilt which comes to just below the knee, the hem just touching to the top of matching hose and I feel confident and invisible out and about in it. In fact I'm wearing it at the moment having worn it into town earlier and will be out in it again this evening. I feel that some of my "correct" length kilts which leave a gap at the knees are kind of costumey and a bit too short for a winter's day.

[AMM]

... :shake: The garment in question wraps right over left, same as most ladies/girls wear. ... it's still a girl's kilted skirt , not a lad's Kilt!

And here I've gone my entire life never being aware of this critical distinction.

But my original point still applies: the bases for classifying clothing as "boys'" versus "girls'" clothing is often arbitrary and often only recognized by some people. After all, where would such a distinction come from, aside from a compulsion to avoid any possible confusion between "boys' stuff" and "girls' stuff?"

I've still yet to see a bloke, or lad for that matter, whose Kilt ...

Well, I haven't seen all that many blokes or lads in kilts of any length or any overlap direction, and the existence of this and other sites supporting kilt-wearing is testimony to just how unusual it still is. I suspect that the survival of such rules has more to do with the fact that kilts are worn by few people and mostly as a kind of costume (or, at best, formal wear), rather than as clothing that could be worn every day. If men wore kilts on anywhere near regular a basis as trousers, you would see a lot more variability in how they were made and how they were worn.

I recall that 40 years ago, when large numbers of women were just beginning to wear trousers, clothing manufacturers went to some trouble to make sure that women's trousers were visibly and unambiguously not for men, so that women couldn't be accused of wearing "men's pants". In particular, the zipper was put on the side.

Now that trouser-wearing is the norm for women, women's trousers have the fly in the "male" position -- in front.



-- AMM

[Departed Member]

But my original point still applies: the bases for classifying clothing as "boys'" versus "girls'" clothing is often arbitrary and often only recognized by some people. After all, where would such a distinction come from, aside from a compulsion to avoid any possible confusion between "boys' stuff" and "girls' stuff?"

I think most folk in the UK would quickly 'pick up' on a lad wearing a 'girl's skirt' (purely by virtue of the right-over-left 'rule') and probably some would (sadly) resort to making some derogatory comment. Yet no-one 'gives-a-d*mn' about which 'way' a girl dresses! Double standards still prevail... :shake:

Well, I haven't seen all that many blokes or lads in kilts of any length or any overlap direction, and the existence of this and other sites supporting kilt-wearing is testimony to just how unusual it still is. I suspect that the survival of such rules has more to do with the fact that kilts are worn by few people and mostly as a kind of costume (or, at best, formal wear), rather than as clothing that could be worn every day. If men wore kilts on anywhere near regular a basis as trousers, you would see a lot more variability in how they were made and how they were worn.

Yes! Very, very true! Cessna152towser is certainly proving that 'it can be done', and you're both right about the 'costumey' effect that 'trad' Kilts engender. My wife's best friend invariably says my 'outfit' looks smart, when she sees me Kilted, however informal (I would never do 'formal'. Other than as part of a 'uniform', I cannot stand the 'fussy' look! )

I recall that 40 years ago, when large numbers of women were just beginning to wear trousers, clothing manufacturers went to some trouble to make sure that women's trousers were visibly and unambiguously not for men, so that women couldn't be accused of wearing "men's pants". In particular, the zipper was put on the side.

And often, the ladies (& girls) tr*users had stirrups added, just to emphasise the fact they were 'not mens' apparel. I well remember the stir that was caused by our (Male) Sports Master wearing jogging tr*users with (gasp! shock! horror!) stirrups! And at a 'Boys Only' Grammar School, too! Questions were even asked at School Governor level!

Now that trouser-wearing is the norm for women, women's trousers have the fly in the "male" position -- in front.

And, yet again, they have the 'option' of l/r or r/l, as opposed to the 'puir laddies' who must have l/r flies!

[Departed Member]

But my original point still applies: the bases for classifying clothing as "boys'" versus "girls'" clothing is often arbitrary and often only recognized by some people. After all, where would such a distinction come from, aside from a compulsion to avoid any possible confusion between "boys' stuff" and "girls' stuff?"

I think most folk in the UK would quickly 'pick up' on a lad wearing a 'girl's skirt' (purely by virtue of the right-over-left 'rule') and probably some would (sadly) resort to making some derogatory comment. Yet no-one 'gives-a-d*mn' about which 'way' a girl dresses! Double standards still prevail... :shake:

Well, I haven't seen all that many blokes or lads in kilts of any length or any overlap direction, and the existence of this and other sites supporting kilt-wearing is testimony to just how unusual it still is. I suspect that the survival of such rules has more to do with the fact that kilts are worn by few people and mostly as a kind of costume (or, at best, formal wear), rather than as clothing that could be worn every day. If men wore kilts on anywhere near regular a basis as trousers, you would see a lot more variability in how they were made and how they were worn.

Yes! Very, very true! Cessna152towser is certainly proving that 'it can be done', and you're both right about the 'costumey' effect that 'trad' Kilts engender. My wife's best friend invariably says my 'outfit' looks smart, when she sees me Kilted, however informal (I would never do 'formal'. Other than as part of a 'uniform', I cannot stand the 'fussy' look! )

I recall that 40 years ago, when large numbers of women were just beginning to wear trousers, clothing manufacturers went to some trouble to make sure that women's trousers were visibly and unambiguously not for men, so that women couldn't be accused of wearing "men's pants". In particular, the zipper was put on the side.

And often, the ladies (& girls) tr*users had stirrups added, just to emphasise the fact they were 'not mens' apparel. I well remember the stir that was caused by our (Male) Sports Master wearing jogging tr*users with (gasp! shock! horror!) stirrups! And at a 'Boys Only' Grammar School, too! Questions were even asked at School Governor level!

Now that trouser-wearing is the norm for women, women's trousers have the fly in the "male" position -- in front.

And, yet again, they have the 'option' of l/r or r/l, as opposed to the 'puir laddies' who must have l/r flies!

[isobar]

I think most folk in the UK would quickly 'pick up' on a lad wearing a 'girl's skirt' (purely by virtue of the right-over-left 'rule')

Are you serious? How many people do you suppose are even aware of this 'rule', and how significant do you imagine the distinction is next to the shock of seeing a male in a skirt?!

[Departed Member]

Are you serious? How many people do you suppose are even aware of this 'rule', and how significant do you imagine the distinction is next to the shock of seeing a male in a skirt?!

Bear in mind, we are in the 'Kilt' section of this forum. And the discussion is about kids wearing Kilts to school, in an essentially 'formal uniform' manner? And in an area of the UK where Kilt-wearing is certainly not rare by any stretch of the imagination? I would say that it rated, 'highly significant'!

It's great to see the (by present day standards) large numbers of (relative) youngsters wearing Kilts to football matches. Whether they be in 'team colours' or not, I've still yet to see any bloke/lad (anywhere) wearing a 'kilted skirt' (as opposed to a Kilt), or worn at any length that differs from top o' kneecap to midway! Either way, we are talking 'trad', not 'fashion'. As for the feminine gender wearing Kilts (not 'kilted skirts'!) - to date, only as part of a pipe band 'uniform' or highland dancing scene, and even then, conforming to the 'knee-line limitation'!

And yes, I have to say, I was initially somewhat "shocked at seeing the 'lad in a skirt'"!

[binx]

Hopefully they'll be a followup with proper-fitting kilts featured...

binx