Question

General discussion of skirt and kilt-based fashion for men, and stuff that goes with skirts and kilts.
ScotL
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:43 am

Re: Question

Post by ScotL »

Faldaguy wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 7:05 am
Yes, I'd mind. I don't like double-speak -- it is a distortion of the truth. To call any skirt a kilt is bull, bunk, balderdash, baloney, doublespeak, drivel, gibberish, hokum, nonsense and unnecessary.

Frankly I rather enjoy the opportunity to enlighten those who complement or inquire about my "kilt" when plainly it is not a kilt but a skirt. I try to make it clear that I'm a man wearing a skirt with a simple: "It is just a skirt" if their comment seems to imply a question; but if they seem to believe it is a kilt (or sometimes I think they are trying to make me feel like a real man) by stating it is a kilt -- then I may get a bit more pedantic!

It is rare man that makes the mention anyway -- usually women. I've mentioned here before about being asked about my 'kilt' by a nurse -- she was a bit speechless when I told her it was just a skirt -- when she closed her mouth again, she said she had to say kilt because she had had men get upset when she named their garment as a skirt, & not a kilt -- even though it clearly was not a kilt.

Nor do I think calling skirts anything but a skirt is going to make two boos of difference in the number of men who take up wearing skirts. If the men are so afraid of wearing a skirt, let them start with a kilt and grow into a skirt when they mature!
You prove my points. You are thinking of this from your perspective. But you already wear skirts. You don’t need convincing. The fact you like to enlighten them is great but again, it’s from your perspective.

The nurse relating the fact men in kilts don’t like it being called a skirt is truth. Do you think it’s because they are true Scotsmen who pronounce it fèileadh or because of the association of skirts as womens wear.

For us to argue kilts are a category of skirts is fine but it’s also the proverbial preaching to the choir. I say let it go. We don’t need to convince anyone on this cafe of the benefits of skirts. We need to make skirt wearing for men palatable for the masses.
ScotL
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:43 am

Re: Question

Post by ScotL »

Ozdelights wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 3:47 am
Like an orange is a fruit but not all fruits are oranges similarly, a kilt is a form of skirt but not all skirts are kilts so call it what it is. I would hope that those who value the tradition of a kilt would not want all skirts for men called kilts. Aren't we trying remove the demarcation line?
To use your analogy, good nutrition means eating more fruit. If you were a nutritionist, would you care which fruit they ate or be glad they were eating fruit instead of Big Macs.
ScotL
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:43 am

Re: Question

Post by ScotL »

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?
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."
When you really want to learn the answer to a question, look where the money goes and that’s your answer.

Of the two options, which one is used by the majority of sellers of male unbifurcated garments? All the kiltmakers versus the Thom Browns.

And spare me the modern kilts are the equivalent to what is called fèileadh.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 13268
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Question

Post by crfriend »

ScotL wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 12:47 pm
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?
Largely, it's attempting to de-gender one of the simplest garments known to man so it becomes acceptable for men in the West to wear such garments.

There are right ways to approach a goal, and there are wrong ways. Redefining existing words and language to further a personal agenda is one of the latter category. Look at the number of words that have been lost to the Political Correctness mob. We don't need to lose any more.

Honesty and integrity are supposed to be hallmarks of masculinity; we do not need to engage in the subterfuge of changing the English language in order to achieve our goals. So, let's leave the language alone. Kilt remains a very specific form of skirt, and skirt remains the general form. The catch is winning hearts and minds that skirts are not inherently "feminine" (which is a quirk of our warped culture). An article of clothing can no more have an inherent "gender" to it any more than a teacup.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
ScotL
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:43 am

Re: Question

Post by ScotL »

crfriend wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:15 pm
ScotL wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 12:47 pm
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?
Largely, it's attempting to de-gender one of the simplest garments known to man so it becomes acceptable for men in the West to wear such garments.

There are right ways to approach a goal, and there are wrong ways. Redefining existing words and language to further a personal agenda is one of the latter category. Look at the number of words that have been lost to the Political Correctness mob. We don't need to lose any more.

Honesty and integrity are supposed to be hallmarks of masculinity; we do not need to engage in the subterfuge of changing the English language in order to achieve our goals. So, let's leave the language alone. Kilt remains a very specific form of skirt, and skirt remains the general form. The catch is winning hearts and minds that skirts are not inherently "feminine" (which is a quirk of our warped culture). An article of clothing can no more have an inherent "gender" to it any more than a teacup.
I dont see this as a PC term at all. I see it as we already use the word kilt to define a man’s skirt. Just a certain man’s skirt. And we’ve already bastardized what the kilt is (think utility kilt and hiking kilt from sports kilt and the purple rain kilts). What you fear has already happened.

With time, words change. Gay used to mean happy. Words evolve. We can’t be reactionary to that fact.

I’m asking you to think as a man uninitiated to the world of men wearing skirts.

What would you need to hear to try one on and feel ok about it?

Is telling men to simply get over it really the best way? When has that ever worked?

I’m asking everyone on this cafe to think like the uninitiated.
Last edited by ScotL on Sun Sep 11, 2022 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1369
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am

Re: Question

Post by Coder »

ScotL wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 12:47 pm
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?
Ah - but what is fashion freedom? How can it be freedom if the very definition of things has to change to appease insecure men? Going down this route - by calling skirts a kilt - would we be locked into the typical male drab/masculine colors? While I personally don't wear dresses, those too would never be part of the skirt=kilt vernacular. Now, you say - baby steps. Get men comfortable with a skirtkilt and they will start dabbling in dresses. But no - by bastardizing the word kilt, you set up a precedence that everything else - tights, dresses, floofy tops (again, not my thing) - need to have a special name for men to be able - and comfortable - to wear them.

There are gendered items - underwear - but at the same time there are ungendered items - pants, shirts. There are further classifications that gender these items: capris, palazzo, blouse. But notice how these ALL go one way:

Pants - unisex
Cargos - unisex
Leggings - women's (though athletic leggings for men are becoming a thing)
Jeggings - women's
Capris - women
Palazzo - women

There are no men-only styles. Even within the realm of skirts - even kilts - men have no more claim to a single garment of their own anymore. Sure, a women dressed in a traditional male kilt outfit might get some stares, but it'll only be from purists.

Rather, "we" - someone - should be encouraging men to experiment, try different things that are outside their comfort zone.

I understand the argument - and personally wouldn't care if retailers took that approach (I'll roll my eyes) - and sure it would make them more accessible in men's minds - but it's doing a disservice and won't open things up for us.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 13268
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Question

Post by crfriend »

Coder wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:31 pm
There are gendered items - underwear - but at the same time there are ungendered items - pants, shirts. There are further classifications that gender these items: capris, palazzo, blouse. But notice how these ALL go one way:
The only forms of underwear that are essentially "male" or "female" are jock-straps and brassieres -- and even those have uses in some cases.
Rather, "we" - someone - should be encouraging men to experiment, try different things that are outside their comfort zone.
I see it slightly differently. If "we" wait for "someone" to do the job it'll never get done. We need to start the ball rolling. And warping the language is not going to do the job.

The clock is ticking.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Barleymower
Active Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:28 pm

Re: Question

Post by Barleymower »

I have no issue with skirts being called kilts. A friend of mine said "are you still wearing your kilts?" He said this even though he has seen me in some nice, unmistakable skirts. I think he finds it easier to think of it in that way. So if it makes it easier to swallow then kilts it is!

I dont want to be restricted to tartan kilts. There's some really great skirts out there I don't want to miss out on.

I also understand that for some a kilt is a kilt. I can also imagine the original wearers of the kilt being handed a fine, beautiful skirt with the words "try this.." and their eyes lighting up.
ScotL
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:43 am

Re: Question

Post by ScotL »

Coder wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:31 pm
ScotL wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 12:47 pm
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?
Ah - but what is fashion freedom? How can it be freedom if the very definition of things has to change to appease insecure men? Going down this route - by calling skirts a kilt - would we be locked into the typical male drab/masculine colors? While I personally don't wear dresses, those too would never be part of the skirt=kilt vernacular. Now, you say - baby steps. Get men comfortable with a skirtkilt and they will start dabbling in dresses. But no - by bastardizing the word kilt, you set up a precedence that everything else - tights, dresses, floofy tops (again, not my thing) - need to have a special name for men to be able - and comfortable - to wear them.

There are gendered items - underwear - but at the same time there are ungendered items - pants, shirts. There are further classifications that gender these items: capris, palazzo, blouse. But notice how these ALL go one way:

Pants - unisex
Cargos - unisex
Leggings - women's (though athletic leggings for men are becoming a thing)
Jeggings - women's
Capris - women
Palazzo - women

There are no men-only styles. Even within the realm of skirts - even kilts - men have no more claim to a single garment of their own anymore. Sure, a women dressed in a traditional male kilt outfit might get some stares, but it'll only be from purists.

Rather, "we" - someone - should be encouraging men to experiment, try different things that are outside their comfort zone.

I understand the argument - and personally wouldn't care if retailers took that approach (I'll roll my eyes) - and sure it would make them more accessible in men's minds - but it's doing a disservice and won't open things up for us.
Great arguments. But I ask again, what are we fighting for?

Yes, we should be arguing men should be more open to additional fashion items. Not disagreeing but how do you suggest we encourage men to experiment? Invent a new plan (honestly, I’m all ears) or use a system that’s already being used now? Kilts are marketed to men as mens skirts. They just fail to mention that a kilt is a type of skirt. Brilliant marketing. This is what’s currently happening whether we admit it or not.

Calling mens skirts “kilts” no where indicates they need to be boring. In fact, I’d argue it would do the opposite. Compare the colorful tartans used by Scottish clans compared to drab mens stuff. Tartans are the opposite of male drab clothing. (And no, no one has to wear a tartan but they set a precedence for men wearing colors other than black/brown/blue. And yes, some tartans do have those colors, but I see a lot of green, red and yellows also)

I’m also gonna argue that skirts and dresses are two different garments. Suggesting that calling mens skirts by the moniker kilts damns all clothing into needing two terms for mens and womens is not worrisome cause it already happened. Womens blouses and mens oxfords. Women wear dresses and male clergy wear a cassock. That people will want terms to describe clothing has been happening since the dawn of language. This is not a new thing. Bastardizing a term to keep up with modern advancements is as old as language. Not a new concept and is already being done.

You argue there are no men-only garments. Some would argue the jock is but who cares. I’m arguing that opening the definition of kilt to encompass all mens skirts will increase mens acceptance. Companies selling kilts are already doing this. Coming up with a new name or fighting the current gendered standard that skirts are for women are uphill battles. Why make it harder???

When we realize that kilts have already been marketed as mens skirts and run with it (swallowing our pedantic pride at knowing the difference), we are inclusive, not exclusive.

And I quote you: “sure it would make them more accessible in men's minds - but it's doing a disservice and won't open things up for us.”. Making skirts more accessible in mens minds is exactly what we want. We want men (and women who this would also work on) to see you wearing a skirt and saying/thinking nothings amiss. How is making skirts “more accessible in mens minds” a disservice? This is the very definition of encouraging men to explore new fashion.
User avatar
Uncle Al
Moderator
Posts: 3295
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:07 pm
Location: Duncanville, TX USA

Re: Question

Post by Uncle Al »

WARNING

This type of conversation occurred around 2002 - 2003 resulting in this group
changing from Tom's Cafe' into 2 different groups. This was because of WORDS!

Semantics and unrelenting, degrading comments of WHO was right caused that
original forum to collapse. Now we have X Marks the Scot and Skirt Cafe'.

Read and learn from Skirt Cafe history - - - -
We don't need any more flame wars...
...DON'T START THIS AGAIN :!:



Uncle Al

:mrgreen: :ugeek: :mrgreen:
Kilted Organist/Musician
Grand Musician of the Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. of Texas 2008-2009, 2015-2016,
2018-2022(and the beat goes on ;) )
When asked 'Why the Kilt?'
I respond-The why is F.T.H.O.I. (For The H--- Of It)
ScotL
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:43 am

Re: Question

Post by ScotL »

crfriend wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 2:10 pm
Coder wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:31 pm
There are gendered items - underwear - but at the same time there are ungendered items - pants, shirts. There are further classifications that gender these items: capris, palazzo, blouse. But notice how these ALL go one way:
The only forms of underwear that are essentially "male" or "female" are jock-straps and brassieres -- and even those have uses in some cases.
Rather, "we" - someone - should be encouraging men to experiment, try different things that are outside their comfort zone.
I see it slightly differently. If "we" wait for "someone" to do the job it'll never get done. We need to start the ball rolling. And warping the language is not going to do the job.

The clock is ticking.
And I’m arguing it’s already being done by the sellers of mens kilts. They are selling mens kilts without telling the consumer that a kilt is a specialized skirt. We should embrace this and just keep quiet that we know all skirts are not what was traditionally called a kilt. But most modern kilts dont look like the traditional kilt. Modern day kilts are more like womens skirts (wrap skirts) than old time traditional kilts. The language has already been warped. We just don’t see it cause the marketing is truly brilliant.
ScotL
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:43 am

Re: Question

Post by ScotL »

Uncle Al wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 5:16 pm
WARNING

This type of conversation occurred around 2002 - 2003 resulting in this group
changing from Tom's Cafe' into 2 different groups. This was because of WORDS!

Semantics and unrelenting, degrading comments of WHO was right caused that
original forum to collapse. Now we have X Marks the Scot and Skirt Cafe'.

Read and learn from Skirt Cafe history - - - -
We don't need any more flame wars...
...DON'T START THIS AGAIN :!:



Uncle Al

:mrgreen: :ugeek: :mrgreen:


If you are suggesting that my comments are degrading or trying to start a flame war, I apologize. This is absolutely NOT my intention.

Yes semantics are problematic. But I am not calling anyone wrong or even attempting to negate their opinion. I am welcoming all thoughts on the matter to have a discussion and not yell at each other. I respect all of the opinions on here.

I also feel allowing a discussion to occur is exactly what I think this cafe is for. If I am wrong and everyone here just wants it as a place where people will post their pictures and never disagree, ok. Guess I misjudged this place. I’ve been honestly impressed at the ability for everyone on here to have a discussion and not fall into yelling matches.

The written word does not convey tone. If my comments are being received as aggressive or argumentative, please understand that’s not my intention. I feel like we are just having a good discussion. But again, I sincerely apologize if this was not the way they were interpreted.
ScotL
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:43 am

Re: Question

Post by ScotL »

Barleymower wrote:
Sun Sep 11, 2022 4:43 pm

I can also imagine the original wearers of the kilt being handed a fine, beautiful skirt with the words "try this.." and their eyes lighting up.
This is one way I see this working. Cause it happened to me. And from what I’ve read, worked for others here.

Once the wearer has accepted wearing something unbifurcated, their world is opened. But it takes that first step. And I see the steps from wearing pants to a kilt and from a kilt to a skirt are smaller steps than the leap from pants to a skirt.

Just my two cents.
Midas
Active Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:52 pm

Re: Question

Post by Midas »

ScotL wrote:
Sat Sep 10, 2022 6:55 pm


Because you’re thinking about this as someone who has accepted wearing a skirt and reject the fact that skirts are only for women.

Walk a mile in the shoes of men and women who have not accepted men wearing skirts. The easier it is for them to accept it, the better.

You are completely correct. We should call skirts skirts and kilts kilts.

But do you really care what they are called? Isn’t getting more people to accept men in skirts more important? Why worry about semantics.

This isn’t a semantic argument. A kilt is a very specific garment and I would wear trousers in preference to one.

Kilts are made for men and like all male garments are over-engineered, making them far too heavy and cumbersome.
Faldaguy
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:09 am
Location: Costa Rica

Re: Question

Post by Faldaguy »

by ScotL » Sat Sep 10, 2022 1:04 pm

Would people on this cafe mind if all skirts for men were called kilts?
Scott, may I direct you back to your original question -- above. I think you've had a clear answer -- many on this cafe would mind.

I get that you are trying to find ways to ease the anxiety many men (in this era) have about wearing garments outside of the ones they've been "told" they should, or are expected to wear. This is admirable, and most of us go about doing just that in various ways.

But as you moved from the original question to the asking "what are we fighting for" and continue to contend that mislabeling a skirt is going to be useful has added confusion and a logic shift into this that is not consistent. I think the topic is ready to be dropped; you are to the point of flogging a dead horse -- it just isn't productive. Ask your new question "what are we fighting for" again and perhaps that may elicit some new ways of viewing fashion freedom that will help everybody get out of the regimented ruts most of us are in. The "how" we might do it is no doubt as varied as skirts themselves! And a few here will dismiss the idea of "fighting for...". Me, I'm not 'fighting' for it -- I'm just doing it -- join me!
Post Reply