Another Manufacturer Offering Unisex Skirts

[Grok]

I have wondered if..."unisex" skirts may be almost the only (other than kilts) commercially viable option during hard times. Almost the only way around the chicken or egg problem. The only male customers I can imagine would be dedicated Skirtonians, who seem to be a rather small minority. With some women added, perhaps there would be sufficient demand for a particular design.

[crfriend]

I have wondered if..."unisex" skirts may be almost the only (other than kilts) commercially viable option during hard times. Almost the only way around the chicken or egg problem.

Interestingly, your basic "skirt" really doesn't make for a whole lot of specificity to the womanly frame, and since the "womanly frame" of today is not what it was in your grandmother's time we've got a lot of latitude in what's actually available in practice if only the average bloke can screw up the nerve to give skirting a go in the first place -- that's the problem: How can the average bloke on the street be gently encouraged to give it a go?

Over the years we've seen a number of entrepreneurial types give the idea of marketing skirts directly to blokes a go, and some have done reasonably well with it. I'm hoping the latest entrants meet with success as well.

I don't think the current trendy look of the pencil-skirt would work well on the typical male frame -- and certainly given the larger general stature and its longer stride would likely be considerably restricting. However, lots of A-line and otherwise fairly full skirts are commonly available, so I do not necessarily think that specifically tailoring a garment to a man's shape is particularly useful from a functional perspective, however it would be useful from a marketing perspective in some way (assuming that the market can get its collective head around the notion of "one tube instead of two").

[Grok]

When I was looking on line for a caftan, there seemed to be a dearth of caftans for men. Eventually I tried "unisex" in my search, and finally came across one listed for men and large women. (In general, larger women seem to be outside mainstream fashion). I figure that the product was originally intended for women, but that demand was insufficient. The garment is loose enough to work for men.

[crfriend]

When I was looking on line for a caftan, there seemed to be a dearth of caftans for men. Eventually I tried "unisex" in my search, and finally came across one listed for men and large women.

I'd be tempted to drop the search-term "men' (and its plural and plural-possessive terms) and just search for "caftan" -- and then pick a style that appeals to you in a size that'll work for you. Items like caftans tend to be inherently "unisex" in that there's not a lot of "tailoring to curves" involved. Pick something that appeals to you and order it; the worst thing that can possibly happen is that it doesn't fit at all and most places have pretty reasonable return policies.

(In general, larger women seem to be outside mainstream fashion).

Don't get me going on that topic. Sapphire has a classical woman's shape and can't find stuff to fit her in the modern world. To say that she's infuriated that she can't find "timely" stuff that looks good on her is an understatement.

[Grok]

It has occurred to me that a unisex design might appeal to men if it includes good pockets. This has been a feature of nontraditional kilts. I recall an analysis (I believe it was Bravehearts Kilt Forum) that commented that most womens' skirts are lacking in this regard. What other features could appeal to men?

[Caultron]

I'd say pockets are a must, and the skirt would have to be easy to sit in.

[Grok]

I recall a post to a forum (though I don't remember which one) which described how some women reacted to Utilikilts-they envied the pockets! Could there be an untapped market? Perhaps some sort of cargo skirt, or travel skirt, might appeal to some members of both genders. Besides pockets, another consideration is some means-belt? elastic?-to hold the thing up.

[Caultron]

Yeah, belts. Belt loops are good.

As to pockets for women, they usually opt for a slim smooth fit instead.

[GerdG]

Pockets – but built-in, not cargo pockets for my taste – belt loops, zipper front, if not a wrap skirt.

[Grok]

I recall the web site for the Chameleon multi-purpose/multi-functional "garment of the future." Apparently it can form skirts/dresses (modeled by a female figure) as well as trousers (modeled by a male figure). If the garment is so versatile, could it be converted into a skirt for a male? I'm thinking of something truly unisex, while being so versatile that it need not be marketed as a skirt. The nearest thing I can think of is the sarong.

[Big and Bashful]

I saw a video on Youtube introducing the chameleon, you could use it as a top, a bottom, a bag or even a roof (If I remember rightly!), (Short intermission)

Aha! here it is:

http://cameleonclothes.webs.com/apps/vi ... ar-garment

I am very tempted, it makes a Macabi look very limited.

[Grok]

I think I should explain something. There is something of a precedent in the Macabi skirt. It was originally designed for women. But some men expressed an interest in the design. And men appear on the Macabi web site. Actually, this seems to be a tiny group of men; other than on line images, I have never seen anybody, male or female, wearing the Macabi. This seems to be very much a niche thing; there may be just enough customers to support one small company. One exception I have seen is men wearing skirts during square dancing; definitely a niche thing too. These examples may be commercially viable because women were the original customers.

Other than kilting-a special case-I think male skirtonians are at a stage simillar to women during the early 19th century. There may by a substantial number of males on the cusp, individuals who might occasionally wear a skirt if it was socially acceptable. At present I think only Skirtonians will defy convention. We have a long way to go.

[Grok]

History of women going the other way: mid 19th century; late 19th century; and 20th century. Other than Bloomers, the only option seems to have been to borrow mens' trousers, initially for work. Another idea expressed in another thread-men wearing skirts with some sort of leggings-would be comparable to girls wearing skirts and pantalettes (the stage before the early Bloomer stage).

[Grok]

Been looking at online dictionaries, for the word "unisex." The prefix "uni-" may mean "one" in some contexts, but in this case it means shared by the genders. Another concept listed is that "unisex" results in an androgynous appearance. Now, how would "unisex" differ from Free Styling?" Probably in becoming a convention for a particular design, as understood by customers at least. Conceivably, some skirts originally designed for women might eventually come to be deemed unisex.

[crfriend]

Been looking at online dictionaries, for the word "unisex." The prefix "uni-" may mean "one" in some contexts, but in this case it means shared by the genders. Another concept listed is that "unisex" results in an androgynous appearance. Now, how would "unisex" differ from Free Styling?"

The answer here is not in the proper decomposition of the word from its Latin roots, but rather in the way it was used when the term was first coined. Now, all I can speak to is the use of the term in the Northeast United States, but in the 1960s the term was exclusively used as a vehicle to get "masculine" fashions (hairstyles, trousers, mannerisms, &c.) accepted on women. It had precisely nothing to do with men -- not one whit.

When we use the term nowadays -- and I think we're actually misusing it based on the above observation, or at least are "bending" it somewhat -- it's in the pure lexical form where there is no "sex" assigned to a particular article (e.g. a skirt). Whilst technically "correct" I tend to believe it incorrect in the context of history.

It is a double-standard, I know, but what is "good for the goose" is not necessarily accepted as "good for the gander". In light of this, I personally tend to eschew the use of such overloaded terms as "unisex" unless I make it very plain that I am using the term in a very specific manner that may contravene the local colloquial use.

Conceivably, some skirts originally designed for women might eventually come to be deemed unisex.

Ultimately, logically, and even lexically, "skirt" has no connotation of sex or gender. Desks have them and rockets (try getting much more phallic than that!) have them. It's only in one small sphere that the word "skirt" picks up "extra meaning"; the challenge, therefore, is to redefine the language subtly to remove that "extra meaning" instead of trying to embrace something else.

My $0.02 worth.