I still think they are best

[aikinut]

"I apologise in advance to those who love the plain, non-tartan kilts, but personally I just could not see myself in them at all. They don't seem to hang, swing or flow like a well made tartan kilt. Without the rich colour and meaning of tartan they seem very bland to me..."

No need to apologize for personal taste. You like the look and feel of tartan, no problem. Personally, I own 12 non-traditional kilts; ten Utilikilts and two I had a seamstress make. I like them, they do the job I want them to do, which is to get me out of pants without anyone thinking I'm cross-dressing.

"...they are a male skirt as far as I see."

Hate to break this to you, but so is a kilt. Get over it. ;) Personally, I have no problem with wearing a male skirt. As long as nobody thinks I'm cross-dressing, I don't care what they call it. But that's because of why I wear a kilt (or male skirt if you prefer, since at this moment I'm wearing a navy blue mocker-style utilikilt with a dress shirt and nary a skian dubh to be found). I was an exchange student to Southeast Asia back in the late 80's, and every evening everybody would take a shower and put on a sarong. It was a revelation of comfort, and I knew that I wanted to wear something so comfortable on a regular basis. The sarongs I wore are impractical in day-day-day life for a few reasons, but kilts seemed to cover those deficiencies nicely. Then I found out how much a tartan kilt costs. I also wondered how comfortable 8 yards of wool would be in the middle of summer, and it seemed that so many accessories were mandatory, driving the price up even further. So much for that idea. Then Utilikilts came along, and it was like someone had said "y'know, you've got a point. Here, have some freedom." For what my 12 kilts cost, I could only have bought 3 traditional tartan kilts, and I'd be so worked up about how much I'd paid for them that I'd never wear them! Instead, I haven't worn pants in close to two years (except on the motorcycle) and I couldn't be happier.


"I know this will upset some, but from the many photos I went through, my perception (maybe wrong) was that wearers had to accessorise with the most macho gear they could fine as if to prove that they are dressed in a masculine way. Whereas with a tartan kilt, no such "explanation" needs to be made."

There may be some of that with some first time kilt-wearers. I certainly remember saying once, early on, "if a man is going to wear a skirt, the rest of his clothing has to scream 'I could kick your ***'". But I felt that way regardless before I'd ever heard of anything like Utilikilts. But if you check out the "Utilikilts at work" page
http://www.utilikilts.com/atwork-photogal.htm
you'll see a different story entirely. From the Utilikilts I've helped to sell (bias alert!), plenty of people walk into the booth already wearing pretty macho gear though. Also, there's the fact that tartan kilts have other traditional accoutrements pre-defined, while modern kilts don't. I've noticed that people wearing tartan kilts who aren't wearing them as part of a costume (i.e. for a celtic festival or formal event) also tend to wear pretty masculine looking clothing. But that's just my perception, and your experience may be different from mine.


"The only positive thing I could say it that they are cheapish and make it more affordable for lads to get out of trousers."

And to me, that's the only positive thing that NEEDS to be said. I mean, that's why I wear them: they're comfortable, affordable, and chicks seriously dig them. I sum it up this way: I at a bar and I spill my beer all over my kilt. If it's a traditional tartan kilt, I worry about staining the wool and ponder the dry cleaning costs. If it's a Utilikilt, I get another beer.

But that's just my outlook. It doesn't have to be yours. Heck, you can wear p@nts for all it affects me

Keith

[Celt]

Heck, you can wear p@nts for all it affects me

Haw! I ever get to PA I'll buy you a beer for that line alone.

[aikinut]

I agree that a Kilt is not a skirt.

Well, as Graham said that comes down to words and their meanings. If the word "skirt" automatically means "feminine garment" then indeed, men's kilts are not skirts. Nor are Utilikilts, nor Mengerocken (sp?). So when you say "it's a kilt, not a skirt," you're really saying "it's a masculine garment, not a feminine one." But if you have to tell somebody that, especially if you're in a tartan kilt, I don't think anything you say is going to sink in. In fact, dictionary.com defines a skirt as:
"A garment hanging from the waist and worn by women and girls."

But Graham called modern casual kilts "male skirts". If the word skirt automatically means "worn by women and girls," then there can be no such thing as a "male skirt". Which does explain the evolution of the extremely ungainly phrase "male unbifurcated garment."

On the other hand, dictionary.com defines "kilt" as:
"A knee-length skirt with deep pleats, usually of a tartan wool, worn as part of the dress for men in the Scottish Highlands."
So they call a kilt a skirt, even though they specifically say that kilts are for men and skirts for women.

We could get into a debate on what makes a kilt a kilt, and when it becomes a skirt for men, but ultimately we'd find that we each have our own definition. Since the majority of people who see me in a Utilikilt call it a kilt without being told, I'd say that common usage (which is what most dictionaries try to reflect, and most linguists use as a reference) makes it a kilt.

Hmm, starting to think I should have read the entire thread before writing replies. Ah well...
Keith

[David E]

First time posting on this forum - so firstly "Hi!".

I was interested to read this thread as I recently posted over at Braveheart's suggesting that the dictionary definition (at least the one I looked up) of skirt would include the kilt and got my head well and truly bitten off! Maybe I deserved it for being "controversial", I don't know.

I own 2 kilts (of a traditional, but "economic", nature), one plain blue and one tartan (Modern Douglas) and have a 3rd on order with Bear (plain black which I can't wait to get!!).

I share Graham's concern with the feminine connotations that the word "skirt" conjures. Even though I can't really see the argument that a kilt is not a skirt, I always refer to my kilts as kilts.

Here in the UK, everyone knows what a kilt is and everyone knows a kilt when they see it. So here, if someone says "what's with the skirt?" or something similar, they are just trying to wind me up. If I go off on one about how its a kilt not a skirt then I'm playing right into their hands - so I don't do it. I prefer to either ignore them, chortle sarcastically or, if I'm mentally sharp at the time, respond with an appropriate witty remark!

Cheers
David.

[richardljohnson]

I have 2 traditional Clan kilts, 1 sports, 1 Utilikilt and then 12 non-tradational camo kilts, I made. These are my favorites mainly because I put my time, effort and on everone my blood (damn those sharp needles!) in them.

Being in Texas you can just think of the comments, but for formal occassions I will wear the 'formal' kilt but for my Saturday or Sunday's out I perfer the camo. Because they range from blue, grey, winter, desert and woodland I have a good mix. Many of the comments include the "I've never seen a camo kilt." to my favorite "Do you belong to the Camoflage Clan?" My answer was "Yes, want to join?"

To me the kilt is a symbol on several levels. First a link to my family even though the camo kilts don't represent my Clan. Even though removed by several generations I still feel the link to Scotland. The next level to me is that little rebel that goes against the 'norm'.

As to 'wear' each kilt wears differently and that also will fit my mood BUT if I spill BBQ sauce on a camo kilt I don't really worry!

I love a good tartan kilt and I also love the non-traditional kilt but to each his own. For me I guess I will consider myself a traditional non-traditionalist!

RLJ-

[Robbie]

I am always intrigued by those who, seeking a definition for "kilt", look up "skirt" in a dictionary or encyclopaedia. Why not look up "kilt"?

As one of those from the Braveheart forum who "bit David E's head off" for his claim that a kilt is a skirt, I have taken the liberty of copying over most of my response from there (basically just too lazy to type it in again!).

In the UK, the generally accepted authoritative reference source is the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I have copied the first part of that source's definition for kilt.

"knee-length skirtlike garment that is worn by men as a major element of the traditional national garb of Scotland. (The other main component of Highland dress, as the traditional male garb of Scotland is called, is the plaid, which is a rectangular length of cloth worn over the left shoulder.) The kilt is a length of woven wool that is permanently pleated except for sections…" It continues with the detailed description, and concludes with the comment to the effect that that the kilt is the only national garb in the world that is also worn on a daily basis.

So please, please, please no more of this kilts are skirts rubbish.

In case Blu was not aware of it, a seam in the middle of the back of a kilt is quite normal. The wool comes from the tartan mill in 6ft wide rolls, The kilt maker cuts off a 4yd length, cuts this lengthwise to get 2 pieces 3ftx4yds, then joins them together to get one piece measuring 3ftx8yds to make the kilt with.

[Blu (Ontario)]

Robbie...you're absolutely correct. You most certainly won't get any argument from me or further the mention of the "S" word. The vast number of supportive references against the "S" theory has been overwhelming . As previously posted, I stand corrected. I shouldn't have been posting stuff after a couple of pints anyway...that was stupid:mrgreen:

[David E]

Robbie,
Glad you've toned down your reply - thought the one on Bravehearts was a tad aggressive - at least that's how it came across.

You're clearly very passionate about this issue, I'm afraid I can't get quite so worked up about it. However, the gauntlet has been thrown down and I can't resist.

Blu, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with 'The vast number of supportive references against the "S" theory has been overwhelming'. I don't believe a compelling case has been made at all.

Saying a kilt is not a type of skirt is like saying ghillie brogues are not a type of shoe or a sgian dubh is not a type of knife!! Give me a break! Those who insist on this argument that a kilt is not a type of skirt clearly have an issue with the feminine connotations that the word "skirt" conjures up.

None of us (I hope) don a kilt with the motive of looking feminine. My belief is that all men who are happy to wear a kilt in public are very confident and secure in their masculinity - I certainly am - as the saying goes.. "it takes a real man to wear a kilt". A man who ridicules the idea of wearing a kilt because he feels that it compromises a man's masculinity clearly does not have the same level of confidence and security in that masculinity that a kilt-wearer does (IMHO).

Considering that all of us kilt-wearers are confident and secure in our masculinity whilst wearing a kilt, I do find it strange that we can get so upset with the kilt being classed as a type of skirt! When women started to wear trousers/pants, to my knowledge, no woman looked to rename the trouser/pant because it had "masculine connotations". They just expressed their freedom to wear trousers/pants and, over time, the garment has lost its purely masculine nature.

Why is it that we men are so afraid of taking terms that have come to have a predominantly feminine connotation and "unisexing" them (I think I've just made up a new word!) whereas women clearly aren't? Bear in mind that men have been wearing "types of skirt" for at least as long if not longer than women have.

My own view is that there is an inherent chauvinism in most men (even though many won't admit it - or even see it) that sees a woman wearing trousers as somehow increasing her stature by wearing a "masculine" garment, but a man who wears a "type of skirt" is demeaning himself by wearing a garment with "feminine connotations", hence the intended ridicule when someone says something like "look - a man in a skirt!". Therefore we bang on with this illogical argument that a kilt is not a type of skirt for fear of being or feeling "demeaned". A kilt IS a type of skirt - just accept it! I refuse to feel "demeaned" because I choose to wear a "type of skirt designed to be worn by a man", more commonly known as a kilt.

I always refer to my kilts as kilts, because first and foremost, that's what they are. I call an apple an apple, but I won't argue that its not a type of fruit! And, if I owned a Sgian Dubh I would refer to it as a Sgian Dubh, not a knife. But I wouldn't try and argue that it wasn't a type of knife!!

So please, please, please... no more of this kilts are NOT types of skirt rubbish!

Cheers
David.

[aikinut]

To be honest, I lean towards the "yes it's a skirt, a men's skirt" side of things because of experiences I've had dealing with people. Too many conversations like the following:
"Why are you wearing a skirt?"
"It's not a skirt, it's a kilt."
"It's a skirt."
"It's a kilt. Women wear skirts. Do I look like I'm cross dressing?"
"No, but it's still a skirt."

What am I going to do, beat them over the head with an Encyclopaedia Britannica? Now I just tell them it's a kilt, and if they still want to call it a skirt, I say "okay, I'm a guy in a skirt. Deal with it." Hence my "get over it" earlier, to which I hope nobody took offense. And I have to give credit where it's due, I got the phrase from a post by Steven Villegas on the Utilikilts yahoo group.

I've also found that not everyone who calls it a skirt means it as an insult to my masculinity. Walking into work one morning, a roofer working on a house next door to my workplace yelled "Nice skirt!" I replied "Thanks! Actually, it's a 'kilt'." To my surprise, he then said "Yeah, whatever, I still think it's cool!"

Just thought I'd share.
Keith

[Jimmy Carbomb]

Say Jimmy...Could you elaborate on this point a bit. I have a Lochcarron kilt made from two pieces of wool sewn end to end. The "joint" was made at the inside edge of a pleat so that it would not show even if the garment were fanned out on the floor. Does this technically make it a "multiple piece kilt and hence a s***t?

Nope. That's someone that didn't have enough of one stretch to make the kilt, and decided to splice two pieces in the pleat. Been there. Done that. Once the "frame" or "body" is rectangular... then you hit the hem (if applicable), the placards, the pleats, and your edgings.

The one-piece construction comes straight from the Scottish and Irish teachers... including a long line of my family.