Skirts, the wearing of.

[Midas]

It was (probably still is) a familiar term used in Sheffield by men and women alike. It could be either a friendly form of address or something more threatening, depending upon intonation.

[pelmut]

..she referred to him looking 'ducky' in it . Pretty sure this was an old complimentary term . I believe it was set in the 1920's or 30's .. Does anybody else recall it ?

I have a record from the late 1920s where the radio comedienne Mabel Constanduros calls her baby "Ducky" whilst trying to pacify it (the sex of the baby isn't mentioned).  Her programme was based around a ficticious London family, I've never heard the word used in the South-West of England.

[mishawakaskirt]

They really are just too comfortable not to wear them. That’s the thing that’s getting me. If it was anything else, it’d be tied up in too much emotional baggage. But damn, they’re just so weirdly perfect as a bottom. I really hate pants. Like with a passion. Pants bunch and pinch and I never knew there was an alternative option until one night in covid isolation when I tried on my wife’s skirt after lounging around after a shower in a towel.

I've picked and picked my brain as to how the man's skirt totally fell out of use in western society.
When they are so absolutely comfortable. And can be worn by anyone. One measurement Is all you have to get right and it fits.

No answer obviously.

But yes why something so comfortable was completely totally abandoned? I get trousers And warfare or for industrial revolution and safety, or cold wet or snowy weather, there are times where skirts are not as practical as trousers.
But the skirt could have become a leasure garment for men.
Or as sleep wear, or formal wear. (The kilt is largely the only skirt that has survived so to speak, and didn't end up in the rag bin) and it's mostly just seen as wedding , funeral, parade, ceremony wear.)

We don't work or fight in warfare 100 percent of the Time so why do we wear trousers 100 percent of the time?

Why did it get completely removed from the western male wardrobe completely?

Obviously there probably isn't a answer.

In my corner of the world it's getting colder and with that it's peach season. Not the fruit.
The yoga and leggings peaches and the denim blight.

What's ironic yoga pants are technically for exercise and athletics and now they get worn as casual wear. And yet America has a high population over weight men and women.
Me included I have the " man keg"

[ScotL]

Somewhat technically I wore my first skirt based on leisure wear. Lounging around I figured hmmmm, the towel wrapped around me is very similar to a skirt. Rest is history.

Reportedly some guy have taken to skirts and leggings during lockdown because why not.

[STEVIE]

I've picked and picked my brain as to how the man's skirt totally fell out of use in western society.
When they are so absolutely comfortable. And can be worn by anyone. One measurement Is all you have to get right and it fits.

No answer obviously.

The answer is really very simple, and it lies in the definition of "skirt".
From the Cambridge Dictionary
"a piece of clothing for women and girls that hangs from the waist and does not have legs:"
Now we know that it can be worn by anyone but that is certainly not true of everyone.
The historical "manskirts" just do not sit within the definition quoted and that is fact whether we like it or not.
Modern men just have to learn that they have a choice, wear a skirt or don't.
Simple, but wittering on about what men wore long, long ago will not change a damn thing.
Steve.

[new2skirts]

I've picked and picked my brain as to how the man's skirt totally fell out of use in western society.
When they are so absolutely comfortable. And can be worn by anyone. One measurement Is all you have to get right and it fits.

No answer obviously.

The answer is really very simple, and it lies in the definition of "skirt".
From the Cambridge Dictionary
"a piece of clothing for women and girls that hangs from the waist and does not have legs:"
Now we know that it can be worn by anyone but that is certainly not true of everyone.
The historical "manskirts" just do not sit within the definition quoted and that is fact whether we like it or not.
Modern men just have to learn that they have a choice, wear a skirt or don't.
Simple, but wittering on about what men wore long, long ago will not change a damn thing.
Steve.

The closest most blokes will get to skirts are the side skirts of their car we've seen how triggered kilt wearers are if you mention the S word, years ago when men wore long raincoats (macs), the bottom half was the skirt of your coat... but it's good to see the likes of Adidas selling a reasonable men's skirt, even if it looks kilt-ish.
Even Tesco are calling trousers "bottoms" when it goes through the self service till, so perhaps wording isn't such a big deal as it was

[rode_kater]

The answer is really very simple, and it lies in the definition of "skirt".
From the Cambridge Dictionary
"a piece of clothing for women and girls that hangs from the waist and does not have legs:"

That's the wrong way round obviously. Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. It's not like men opened up the dictionary, read the definition and decided to stop wearing skirts. The dictionary is merely describing the current situation.

Once the dictionary definition changes you know you're making progress.

[Coder]

The answer is really very simple, and it lies in the definition of "skirt".
From the Cambridge Dictionary
"a piece of clothing for women and girls that hangs from the waist and does not have legs:"

That's the wrong way round obviously. Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. It's not like men opened up the dictionary, read the definition and decided to stop wearing skirts. The dictionary is merely describing the current situation.

Once the dictionary definition changes you know you're making progress.

Last night I did a bit of googling on this because I was curious. I couldn't find a really old one - and the two oldest known "dictionaries" (one in some weird form of english) didn't list "skirt" or "firt". I'm guessing to understand the skirt's context through the ages, one would need to find contemporary advertising or written stories describing them in an offhand manner. I suppose there is an accurate book of clothing history out there.

[ScotL]

The answer is really very simple, and it lies in the definition of "skirt".
From the Cambridge Dictionary
"a piece of clothing for women and girls that hangs from the waist and does not have legs:"

That's the wrong way round obviously. Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. It's not like men opened up the dictionary, read the definition and decided to stop wearing skirts. The dictionary is merely describing the current situation.

Once the dictionary definition changes you know you're making progress.

That’s a brilliant point I never thought of before. Dictionaries are truly definitions for previously used words and not words that will be used at sometime in the future.

[STEVIE]

Brilliant, so we are in agreement.
The "definition" is wrong!
That means that we are free to go out and about wearing whatever we choose.
We can just go for it safe in the knowledge that skirts are for everyone and not just women.
Just one little proviso, in this context kilts do not count as skirts.
No more baby steps or hiding away for any one then.
Steve.

[rode_kater]

Last night I did a bit of googling on this because I was curious. I couldn't find a really old one - and the two oldest known "dictionaries" (one in some weird form of english) didn't list "skirt" or "firt". I'm guessing to understand the skirt's context through the ages, one would need to find contemporary advertising or written stories describing them in an offhand manner. I suppose there is an accurate book of clothing history out there.

It's interesting to look into the etymology of the words. I checked both Dutch and English and interestingly there both derive from a similar place. In English the Old Norse word "skyrta", meaning "garment for the upper body worn next to the skin". In English this gives both the words for "skirt" and "short". In Dutch this became "schort" which is an apron. In Dutch the habit that monks wore, the "frock" became "rok" which is a skirt.

Interestingly, the word "rok" in Dutch is still applied to a men's garment, but for something else entirely. It's apparently called a morning dress in English.

So in both cases there was no word for a garment that started at the waist. Since belt buckles weren't available for the general population until the 15th century this isn't surprising. At some point when lower half garments were being constructed they created the word based on the word for a full length garment.

Apparently though for many of these words the precise meaning unclear since it's not a topic many people wrote about at the time. A dictionaries were for rich people.

[Myopic Bookworm]

So in both cases there was no word for a garment that started at the waist. Since belt buckles weren't available for the general population until the 15th century this isn't surprising. At some point when lower half garments were being constructed they created the word based on the word for a full length garment.

The complete Oxford English Dictionary entry for "skirt" (which was published in 1911, so not very up-to-date) distinguishes:

1. The lower part of a woman's dress or gown, covering the person from the waist downwards; also, esp. in modern use, a separate outer garment serving this purpose.
First example: 14th century; first example clearly referring to a separate lower garment: 1845.

2. a. The lower part of a man's gown or robe. Now chiefly Historical or with reference to Eastern countries. First example: 14th century.

b. The bottom, lower portion, or tail of a coat or similar garment. First example: early 17th century.

As for the etymology, from the Germanic ancestor of "shirt" via Old English "scyrte", OED comments: "The development of the English sense is obscure, but the corresponding Low German schört has in some districts the sense of ‘woman's gown’."

[Coder]

Feels like this topic should be changed to "Skirts, the meaning of."

[ScotL]

Last night I did a bit of googling on this because I was curious. I couldn't find a really old one - and the two oldest known "dictionaries" (one in some weird form of english) didn't list "skirt" or "firt". I'm guessing to understand the skirt's context through the ages, one would need to find contemporary advertising or written stories describing them in an offhand manner. I suppose there is an accurate book of clothing history out there.

It's interesting to look into the etymology of the words. I checked both Dutch and English and interestingly there both derive from a similar place. In English the Old Norse word "skyrta", meaning "garment for the upper body worn next to the skin". In English this gives both the words for "skirt" and "short". In Dutch this became "schort" which is an apron. In Dutch the habit that monks wore, the "frock" became "rok" which is a skirt.

Interestingly, the word "rok" in Dutch is still applied to a men's garment, but for something else entirely. It's apparently called a morning dress in English.

So in both cases there was no word for a garment that started at the waist. Since belt buckles weren't available for the general population until the 15th century this isn't surprising. At some point when lower half garments were being constructed they created the word based on the word for a full length garment.

Apparently though for many of these words the precise meaning unclear since it's not a topic many people wrote about at the time. A dictionaries were for rich people.

In German, a skirt is der Rock. Interesting it is a masculine word (hence the der word for the”. Wonder if that association with the monks is the reason

[STEVIE]

Feels like this topic should be changed to "Skirts, the meaning of."

Pity really that I started it with what I thought was a positive story that gave us some hope for the future.
Sorry Coder but your words prove just how wrong I was.
Can anyone actually tell me how the high blown crap that has developed changes one little thing for that kid or fashion freedom for men in general.
As far as I am concerned, the status quo is perfectly unchallenged if this is all we can come up with.
Until we prove otherwise skirts and dresses will continue to be the exclusive territory of women and girls.
I do that by wearing one every day, actually being in view of anyone or everyone.
Not empty theory, philosophy or history just direct action.
Sadly, I must conclude that I really don't care what other members of the Cafe think or do.
Not a nice feeling at all!
Steve.