crfriend wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:39 am
ScotL wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:14 am
But if calling all mens skirts by the name “kilt” helps other men get over themselves and try one, is it worth standing on ceremony? Is it really that important to pedantically classify the individual skirts versus humor others to fight a stupid gendered stereotype?
I believe it is worth standing on ceremony. Ceremony preserves history. Now, much of the modern notion of kilt history only dates back to fanciful notions in Queen Victoria's age, but it stands in the modern mind nonetheless, and I believe we cheapen that at our peril. Bluntly, the Kilt is pretty much the only Proper Choice for Men in the West. (We'll leave the Fustanella out as that's Mediterranean and not really "Western".) If that brand name gets damaged it risks more than we hope to gain by compromising it. Thus I support the notion of flatly stating, "It's a skirt. Get over it."
Really, sometimes the direct method will get more traction than creative "renaming". Not to mention that the astute value directness in action vastly more than deflection. Which of the two statements below counts for more when facing down a potential opponent?
1) "It's a skirt. So what. It's comfortable and covers what needs to be covered. Try one, and trust me, your balls will not fall off."
2) "It's a skirt-like thing that the marketer called a kilt. So I'm going to go with the notion that it's a kilt."
Semantics, yes, but sometimes those are important. None of the rigs I sport are anywhere near the "Kilt" look, and I'm proud of that.
To crib the line of, "Call a spade a spade." for a moment, it's important to recognise different objects. Calling a spade a shovel merely makes one look stupid. Yes, a spade is a form of shovel, but when one has the right term it should be used.
What is this cafe fighting for? Are we fighting for the purity of the words “kilt” and “skirt” or are we fighting for fashion freedom?
Tell a man who hasn’t felt the comfort of a skirt to “get over it” and you’re gonna lose that battle. Attacking his sense of fashion/reality will place him on the defensive and he will dig in staunchly against it.
Tell a man who who already wears and enjoys skirts that what they are wearing is a kilt and you’re gonna get an eye roll and maybe a discussion but that man will still wear a skirt.
In our own world, we can afford to be pedantic and hold to the kilts definition (which honestly, my kilts are nothing like the Scottish great kilts, but a “kilt” nonetheless). But that’s because we’ve already taken the plunge. Things look differently from where we are at.
We need to see it through the lens of how most of the population sees a skirt as womens clothing. It’s the art of compromise. Utility kilts have that imbued in their very construction. Is a utility kilt really a kilt? Why, because it has pleats on the back? Because the name says it is? Or because it looks like a masculine garment with enough similarity to a kilt to not be entirely named wrong but appeases manly mens desire to wear something unbifurcated as long as it’s not a skirt. Marketing brilliance.
People are remarkable at their ability to rationalize.
Which do you think a man who isn’t a member of this cafe will more easily tell themselves if they wear an unbifurcated garment?
1) I’m wearing a kilt which is for men
2) I’m wearing a skirt and just need to get over it, risk the possible ridicule from my friends, have no worry that people will question my sexual orientation or gender identity and quiet my inner demons who have for my entire life stated skirts are for women.
Option two is a tall order.
We need to make it easier, not harder for men to accept that a skirt is just an article of clothing. The best way to do that is by allowing them to tell themselves whatever they need to hear to accept it.