skirtcafe.org

I think it's more of an overkilt, if there is such a thing, but interesting to see it marketed as "an essential accessory for the serious outdoor sportsman or lady".
https://www.ardmoor.co.uk/gumleaf-kilt-gum-kilt-l2

More or less the same, but south of the border, is the unisex shooting SKIRT!!!
https://www.fortisclothing.co.uk/shop/f ... ing-skirt/

I like the look of the English one but the Scottish price is better!

... Especially considering they look virtually the same!

I don't see how that bottom opening can possibly be waterproof but I'm willing to learn.

Would say that this one https://www.ardmoor.co.uk/john-field-ra ... t-jf850007
is shown by a man

I find this marketing confusing. The Flared garment looks like a ladies left hand opening wrap over waterproof cover for a skirt or trousers

The right hand opening garments are male orientated. ....I do not consider the two male garments shown have enough give in the design to

to be fully waterproof covers for the wearers Kilt or trousers. .......There was a garment worn by the Kilted Highland Regiments which was

a pleated wrap over garment known as a Kilt Cover. ...The garment I would expect to see advertised here would be a Waterproof Kilt Cover.

I do not consider the sizes are satisfactory for the Three garments offered for sale..... I feel the delivery time for U K delivery are rather long.

I would expect UK Delivery overnight for this type of garment.....Caveat Emptor....Buyer Beware... Check the goods on offer again.

..............weeladdie............

weeladdie18 wrote:I find this marketing confusing. The Flared garment looks like a ladies left hand opening wrap over waterproof cover for a skirt or trousers

The right hand opening garments are male orientated. .........

Aren't you discriminating left handed males?

The traditional handing of Clothes as worn by ladies and gentlemen in the British Isles......

The lady of the household would have a maid to help her dress in her clothes.....

Female Blouses ,Jackets , ..are left hand wrap so that the Maid can face The Body of her Mistress and do up the buttons or fastenings with her right hand.

The gentleman of the household would dress himself and fasten the buttons of his clothes with his right hand..............................

The Highland Gentleman on his Scottish Estate would wear right handed button up clothes and

the outer apron of his Kilt would wrap around his waist left to right.................................

The traditional Kilt Skirt as worn by the females in the family would be worn with the outer Kilt Skirt Apron wrapped around the female , right to left.

The handing of the wrap of the clothes is traditionally relative to the gender of the wearer not the handing of the wearer. ......Weeladdie

weeladdie18 wrote:The traditional handing of Clothes as worn by ladies and gentlemen in the British Isles.....The lady of the household would have a maid to help her dress in her clothes.....

This is oft cited, but from a personal perspective I wonder how accurate the assertion really is. Let's take a look at why. First and foremost, it relies on two simultaneous assertions: that right-hand dominance was prevalent at the time and that most ladies had staff beyond a husband and assorted children. The former is likely true given that the script that most Europeans use is left-to-right and top-to-bottom. The second -- that "staff" was universally available -- is easily debunked by studying the social conditions of the time. The delta to the second assertion is that there has always been a tendency of the lower classes to attempt to emulate the upper classes. There's also the fact that until the mid 1800s clothing was virtually always manufactured in the home by the wife who would have, by necessity, known how to sew from scratch -- and would have made not only her own clothes, but those for her husband and children.

Why, then, would one produce such confusion in a small setting -- or did this happen when mass-production of "ready-made" clothing came upon the scene?

Note that I approach this from a somewhat rare perspective -- that as someone who is too all intents and purposes fully ambidextrous. I work equally well with one hand as with the other, frequently doing different things with one hand than the other. The sight of me working with two screwdrivers on one piece of kit has baffled (and annoyed) co-workers and onlookers in the past, but that's their problem not mine. However, it has also given personal rise to an outright hatred of tools that are specifically "handed" (i.e. explicitly designed for use by a right- or left- hander). This as also caused some real problems in some endeavours as it turns out that I am powerfully left-eye dominant and altogether too many tools are right-hand specific.

So, the notion of a right-handed woman sewing her own clothes to be opposite to her handedness makes precious little sense to me.

However, once industry intervened, and popular tastes may have skewed things to emulating those tiny few who could afford staff (and recall that men had butlers) and who did things that way. I suspect we have the early Victorian era industrialisation of clothing manufacture to blame more than anything else.

On the notion of handedness and script, I have oft wondered whether right-handedness is prevalent worldwide. I've not been able to find much work devoted to it -- likely because I haven't had the time to properly chase it down -- but I seriously wonder if the cultures who write from right-to-left or bottom-to-top may not have a prevalence of left-handedness in their populations.

Maybe this gives you some insights.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/medicine/a ... handedness

Interesting read, I started out using the left hand and then forced to use the right, now know one can understand my writing, even sometimes I can't understand it, abit sad

john62 wrote:Interesting read, I started out using the left hand and then forced to use the right, now know one can understand my writing, even sometimes I can't understand it, abit sad

I think this was quite common to try to 'prevent' people being left handed many years ago, however, sometimes left-handedness was sought after. My father told me that the time when he was growing up left-handed brick layers were paid more that right-handed because they you be paired with right handed to work together on laying a wall as they could work from the opposite sides of the wall, which two right-handed bricklayers could not so easily.

I think that I am with Carl on questioning the notion that clothing buttons the other way round simply because of servants. How many people have ever had servants help them put their jeans on? Why are the buttons on babies clothes often on opposite sides for boys/girls since neither gender with dress themselves? When it comes to the kilt it is perhaps more perplexing.... surely for a right handed person to dress themselves it is easier to hold the buckle with the left hand and thread with the more dextrose hand. This would put the closing on the left side of the body, however a gentleman's kilt closes on the right.

I consider that my previous post needs further clarification. The information regarding the opposite handing of male

and female clothes was given to me personally by a professionally trained clothes maker.

The concept of the handing goes back to an era when the English Nobility could afford to pay a maid to help their wives

dress in the morning. Remember the household staff had many tasks in a large house. This handing still exists in the

Design of traditional clothes. ....This is a tradition which possibly pre-dates the Pilgrim Fathers Voyage from

the Mayflower Steps in Plymouth to the American Colonies.

I would be delighted if any of my friends on the forum could put an exact date on the handing of clothes from

existing English Historical Fashion Records. ........ weeladdie

weeladdie18 wrote:The information regarding the opposite handing of male and female clothes was given to me personally by a professionally trained clothes maker.

It would seem that his "news-feed" is similar to everyone else's which is why we hold the concept as gospel.

The concept of the handing goes back to an era when the English Nobility could afford to pay a maid to help their wives dress in the morning.

Consider that the absolute percentage of the population in the English Nobility was likely akin to the percentage of number of modern-day U.S. oligarchs. In other words, tiny; certainly well less than one percent of the population.

What we don't have preserved in various museums are the sorts of garments that the vast bulk of the population was wearing. History is fickle in what it preserves.

From the perspective of simplicity, I rather suspect that the vast majority of garments were pull-overs for the tops and fastened with belts or sashes for the bottoms. Women likely wore dresses simply because they're easier to make than shirt/trouser combinations and were entirely probably pull-over designs with sashes and ties for embellishment.

My question stands: "Why would a woman who is making an entirely functional garment for everyday wear do so in a way that would (1) increase her level of effort in construction and (2) hamper her if she was right-handed and had no servants?"

This is a tradition which possibly pre-dates the Pilgrim Fathers Voyage from the Mayflower Steps in Plymouth to the American Colonies.

Why couldn't you have sent them to the Antarctic? It would have made modern life in the USA one heck of a lot easier.

crfriend wrote:My question stands: "Why would a woman who is making an entirely functional garment for everyday wear do so in a way that would (1) increase her level of effort in construction and (2) hamper her if she was right-handed and had no servants?"

Fashion.  Trying to copy a rôle model even though it made no sense.