Kilts anyone? Support postal workers seeking kilts as an option

Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2008-08-07 14:59

This is a rare opportunity to help with expanding the "acceptable dress" opportunities for men. Kilts have long been part of the formal and martial dress tradition of many countries. British troops, especially those from Scotland and Ireland, only stopped wearing kilts when WWI started because it was impractical to get through barbed wire with clothing that was loose. Since that time, few men outside parts of Scotland and Ireland wear kilts regularly despite their being extraordinarily comfortable and also more practical than pants in many circumstances.

A kilt is not a dress, and never has been. Still, any man wearing a kilt outside a particular venue (such as a Celtic heritage festival of some kind) is thought of by those who have little or no concept of them as a dress. Try walking down most city or town streets here in the US wearing a kilt and see what it gets you! While women can wear pantsuits, dresses, shorts, jeans, and pretty much anything else they want to, men are stuck with just a few options in terms of style and form, many of which are not very comfortable.

If postal workers here in the US get the uniform code changed to allow them to wear kilts, it would be a huge breakthrough. So please, contact the American Postal Workers Union and voice your support (note that based on this document (.pdf file), it seems these four members of the union management: Rob Strunk, Idowu Balogun, Mike Foster, and Bill Manley are the people to contact regarding Art. 26, "Uniforms and Work Clothes". Their phone and fax numebrs can be found here). You may also want the USPS to hear from you. Their email form is here and other ways to contact them are listed here.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of for the men's movement. Let's move on to a more substantive political battle, such as promotion of the male pill or due process for those unjustly served with restraining orders.

John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
"Stopping False Allegations with Surveillance Technology"

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by johndias on Thu, 2008-08-07 18:15

... stop beating around the bush and be out with it! =)

Sorry you feel that way. I just thought that there is a lot bound up in terms of one's personal freedoms with what is considered "acceptable dress". People in detention and in rank-stratified positions (jail, the armed forces, etc.) have their range of dress style opportunities very limited. In the case of convicts, they must wear the prison-mandated uniform or be subject to severe punishment. Soldiers found out of uniform at a time they are supposed to be in uniform can face all manner of punishments ranging from mere reprimands to canceled leaves or worse, if it's bad enough. The higher the rank of soldier however, the less-enforced are these rules. Soldiers of high enough rank often need not wear their uniforms at all, but may do so as a means of showing an example to their subordinates or for morale purposes. But failing to do so won't see them in any trouble. People in low-end service jobs also have to wear uniforms or else they get in trouble. School kids in some places, likewise. These people all have one thing in common: they are part of a system that is tiered and they exist on the lower ends of the tier.

It just seems to me that from a day to day point of view, men being "allowed" to dress in less-restrictive ways makes life more pleasant for us. Recent example is the necktie. All over the world (or the US at least), men no longer wear neckties to work. A mere 30 years ago (or less), a man going into the office without a necktie would be in trouble for it. It's still like this in Japan, and believe me, many men there wish it were otherwise. While it's true that in some places, high-powered law firms or in finance, it's still the case that men are expected to wear neckties even if they are paid very well. But the average man working in an office is now blissfully relieved of the whole necktie ordeal. It'd just be nice to see that kind of ball keep rolling along.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2008-08-07 19:09

My company still has ties compulsory*. The 'victory' a couple of years ago was overturned by the high court, it just didnt get as much press.

*Luckily my boss is so incompetent he doesnt even notice when he comes to visit the out station that Im not wearing one. Nach :)

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by empirical on Fri, 2008-08-08 02:13

To be quite frank I have not worn underware since I was in my twenties, I thought that it was an expense that I didn't need, and it caused me to have rashes, due to my body heat. I have actually considered a Kilt, and in the Eugene area of OR there are a few men that wear them, the type is called a utilitie kilt, many pockets, and quite functional. You know, we have way to much societal control in our lives, period! Not only should we wear kilts, but we should take over our government, at least if we did, we would know what was behind the kilts. Yeah, I know, I'm a radical, but you know, I haven't met anyone yet that has a better idea.

David A. DeLong

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by David A. DeLong on Sat, 2008-08-09 05:15

that in that Wallace movie the kilted army wore no underwear.

i'm all for getting control of what should be "fair" apparel for men at work.
threw away all my ties years ago.
and women wear whatever they want when they want at work.

however, i propose this sort of thing be added:

amendment 1- ... and the worker will wear an undergarment bla bla bla...

please

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Sat, 2008-08-09 18:06