The kilt a man's garment!

**James** · 22nd February 05, 01:21 AM

This is bound to be contentious-so do not read any further!

In the recent series about Austria I noticed a comment about getting a good kilt muddy--oops.

A real kilt is a tough outdoor garment-get it muddy-let it dry and brush off, and as good as new.

Get it wet-you'll be comfortable and it will dry out unharmed.

Sit down on wet grass-you'll be comfortable, and the kilt will dry easily.

I could go on-but enough of that.

The real point is that a kilt is a man's garment for doing man's things in all weathers and for all tasks: that is in fact the difference between it an a skirt: OK by definition a kilt is a skirt, but it is a man's skirt by reason of it's rugged 'all terrain' nature.

It is that rugged nature that defines it, and also suggests that it is necessary to preserve such characteristics. However there is a foe, all too often allied to the kiltmakers--and that is the tendency to girlify the kilt.

Such things as leaving out the skean dhu, wearing white socks which might be fine for little girl dancers, but which overly feminise the kilt, the same could be said of those ghillie shoes-again OK for dancers, but not really suitable for wear with a kilt. [A derivation from the country brogue.]

Always the kilt has been an overtly masculine garment-even in the days when chief's would have their pictures painted adorned with lace and silks-but armed to the teeth, whilst accompanied by their hounds.

I do not deny that the kilt being dynamic will evolve: but it should I'd suggest retain it's truly masculine character, if it is not just to be a man's skirt.

At the one end it means a rugged all action garment with suitable socks and footwear: or at the other the true over the top masculine flamboyance-jabot not bow tie-and doublet not cut down tuxedo: and wear a proper dirk as well as the skean dhu.

There is one last thing before I get lynched-you need to swagger if wearing a kilt-it is a garment with attitude from long before attitude was invented. And it is not possible to swagger with a long droopy kilt-show your kneecaps* and walk tall.

*You'll soon know why if you wear the kilt outdoors in heavy rain.

James

**al' Sporrano** · 22nd February 05, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by James

This is bound to be contentious- the same could be said of those ghillie shoes-again OK for dancers, but not really suitable for wear with a kilt. [A derivation from the country brogue.]

James

James, James, JAMES. Please stop while you can!!

Like everything with the kilt there is a time and place. I love wearing my kilt with boots, black T shirt and fleece for an up to date outdoor look...

but....

there is nothing that beats the look of a formal kilt outfit, be it with Prince Charlie jacket for a formal dinner or the Montrose Doublet, complete with cuffs and jabot for that very special occasion such as a wedding or Clan supper/ceilidh.

As for the brogues, I have a pair which look superb with the kilt...........on the right occasion. They don't make me look like a wus!!!

A time and a place, James, a time and a place!

Al[/img]

**Doc Hudson** · 22nd February 05, 04:59 AM

While I can't help but agree in spirit, I can't help but see Hamish's point of view.

While the kilt is most definitely a mans garment, and was worn during every manly activity, from the most formal to mucking out the stables, that was when it was a home made garment.

If your only garment is a hand spun, hand dyed, handwoven, hand sewn kilt, you wore it to do everything. When it got muddy, you let it dry and knocked off the mud and when it got covered witt road apples, you went for a swim in the loch while wearing it.

Now, rather than being a home made garment your Mum made for you, a fine woolen kilt reflects a significant investment of money. I've often seen kilts priced higher than upper end suits from famous makers. As Hamish mentioned, if dressed in trousers, you'd not choose a $1,000.00 Armani suit to roll around in the mud. Why select a $1,000.00 kilt to do the same thing? Most of us can't afford to do that even if we wish to do so.

It is all about protecting an investment. When Kinloch Anderson kilts are priced competitively with Levi Jeans, then kilts will again be appropriate for rolling in the mud and mucking out the stables. Until then, try to understand why most folk would prefer to roll in the mud wearing a less expensive Utilikilt or SportKilt rather than a fine worsted wool kilt.

**Graham** · 22nd February 05, 05:18 AM

I agree with James for the most part. While I've not mucked out any stables lately, I do like the challenge of seeing how many different jobs/activities I can do well in a kilt. I work in one, I hike in it, I go to the doctor, the beach, out to dinner and mow the lawn in a kilt.

The kilt indeed CAN be for pretty much most occasions, as I am finding out, with the appropriate protection where needed (aprons were mentioned in another post to be historically used).

I'm not sure if James is referring to a $1000 kilt (never heard of one that expensive) and I can buy an acceptable kilt from USAK for the price of a pair of jeans.

I'm sure we would all agree with James' point that the kilt is a male and very masculine garment. We won't stop the fashion industry from trying to feminise the kilt, as we have seen in the media of recent times, but I for one will not be part of it.

I don't think the post is too controversial at all.

**mcnice** · 22nd February 05, 05:58 AM

some men seem not to get the manliness from the kilt from itself.
but have to show it in physical power action.

maybe only by then, when they showed to the public how manly they are, they dare wearing it without mud.

i see the highland games outside of scotland mainly as an opportunity to wear the kilt publically and without having to fear any comments.

because we had in austria for exemple before similar games, but without conections to scotland and kilt. so may be a show for a beginning movement.

**GMan** · 22nd February 05, 09:59 AM

To me the kilt is a very manly garmet, in fact it makes me feel more masculine, even though I never had a problem before.

Granted I would NOT do some things in a "tank" I do mow my lawn, shovel snow and do yard work kilted and have had nothing but comments like "way to go Bro" from every guy that comes by.

Yes a kilt is manly in all that we do.

**Hamish** · 22nd February 05, 10:26 AM

James,

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting your words, but I get the feeling that you wish to see the kilt remain a National Costume, rather than evolve and return to being an item of everyday menswear. It's been evolving since men first wrapped lengths of homespun about themselves - why should the process stop where it is now?

By all means, let us retain the formal, evening dress styles which include the lace and the silver accessories - next month, I take delivery of a new doublet, which will once again give me a choice : Prince Charlie or something a little more 'romantic' for those special occasions. Let us also retain the option of wearing a tweed Argyll jacket with sgian dubh, brown day-sporran, belt and shoes for formal day-wear, when the wearer thinks it appropriate or circumstances dictate.

Please, however, do not sneer or refer to the "feminization" of the kilt simply because numerous versions of the casual kilt are now emerging from the dust of well-established kiltmakers' workrooms, and from the new and refreshing makers of alternative kilts. These casual kilts, because they can be worn very informally with or without all the traditional trimmings, are opening up a whole new world for many men and, very importantly, young men. A large proportion of whom would not otherwise dream of donning a kilt.

I will very happily wear a sgian dubh in my hose top if I am dressed formally for an evening or day event, but I see no reason at all, nor am I under any obligation, to wear one at other times. To do so makes me neither look nor feel more masculine, or manly. It is just a part of the 'costume' and by wearing it I am not showing increased respect to The Kilt in any way, shape or form.

I will agree with you on the matter of the "real" kilt being a "tough outdoor garment", but I have a great deal more respect for those in my wardrobe than to purposely give any of them a filthy mud-bath. Accidental is one thing, but planned is something else altogether.

Also, I would agree about Ghillie-shoes, apart from the fact that I, as a lifelong dancer, would not attempt to do much dancing in them! Ghillie pumps yes, but not the shoes with all that ghastly lacing up the legs!

Having been a kilt-wearer for over 50 years, there is much more I could say in response to your post, but I'll save it for another occasion

**Doc Hudson** · 22nd February 05, 01:08 PM

[quote="Graham"] I can buy an acceptable kilt from USAK for the price of a pair of jeans.
quote]

All I can say is that you pay a derned sight more for jeans than I do. I generally get jeans under $40.00 US per pair. Cheapest USA Kilt I saw was $80.00 US, if you are skinny enough to wear a 36" or less waist.

I didn't think it that controversial a subject either.

**philibeg** · 22nd February 05, 03:13 PM

STOP THE MADNESS!!
STOP THE GHILLIE BASHING!!
I LOVE MY GHILLIES AND WEAR THEM ALL THE TIME AND DO NOT FEEL FEMININE WHEN I HAVE THEM ON!!

Tolerance gentleman....

From whence this obsession with masculinity?

Soon you'll be having us carrying clubs over our shoulders and uttering no word more complex than "ugh" as we drag virgins to our lairs by the hair!

I suggest we all just return to sabretooth tiger skins wrapped round our waists and...very swollen, dirty, masculine BARE FEET!!