mugman wrote:Yesterday I received my first 'modern idiom' kilt from Union Kilts, a pale blue denim one. Beautifully made, and will last for years. [...] I knew it would be strange adopting a 'utility' style after my usual kilts. But the embroidered front I don't know if I can live with.[...]
I find this an interesting development. I can understand being ticked off at not receiving precisely what one ordered (that's a gaffe on the part of the merchant) but I find the level of "shock and horror" at the embroidery interesting. What we have here is a
kilt. It's unmistakable as that form of highly specialised skirt -- it's left-over-right, it fastens with buckles, it has a flat apron, and its pleats are in the rear. The
only thing that sets it apart is the embroidery, and this seems to push the male psyche into some form of overload.
Why should this be the case? Is the embroidered pattern unattractive? I submit not, but that's my opinion. Is it that the pattern is reminiscent of a floral motif and therefore "girly"? What if it was an embroidered logo for, say, "Caterpillar" (just to pick something "macho")? Would it be too much then? How about a vividly rendered Chinese dragon? Could it be the mere
presence of the extra ornamentation that's disturbing? Is it that men aren't supposed to adorn themselves with "extras" that serve no functional purpose? What then, about rings and other jewellery? Neckties? Neckties serve
absolutely no function, and until very recently were virtually
required menswear!
Why do we (as men) seem to recoil from visual adornment? I don't "get it", although I find that I sometimes do the same thing -- "Wow! That's pretty, but I'd never have the guts to wear it."