Women in Utilikilts

[Jimmy Carbomb]

This subject has come up in various forms in the last year, and inevitably it comes down to the arguement that the kilt is a men's garment and women are invading on our turf. This has applied whether it was about kilts, sporrans or even playing the Highland bagpipes.

Kilt wearers feel like they're being trampled on. Kilt makers are ecstatic.

I LOVE the look of a woman in a kilt... even a UtiliKilt. It's sexy, strong and supportive.

They're just collectively proving that they have impeccable taste.

[Oldpagan]

I like a number of folks have been looking for an inexpensive way to break in kilt ownership. Last June while on vacation in Seattle We stopped by the Utilikilts shop and looked over the goods. I bought a kaki original for myself, and an olive for her. We both loved them, and she ordered me an olive for our anniversary.
This past weekend at the Scottish games here in Tulsa, she bought a black workman’s from the Utilikilts booth. Yesterday I ordered us both an Amerikilt in marpat! When she wears one it’s a kilt, and not a skirt. She also comments that kilts are much better than a skirt. Do I feel threatened by her kilt wear? No, why should I? It takes nothing from me, and in fact it adds to my kilt wearing experience.
Do I take issue with a woman in the mens room? Hell yes, but I fail to see the correlation. And yes, my wife believes when in Rome do as the Romans! She wears hers regimental too!

Geary

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

... And yes, my wife believes when in Rome do as the Romans! She wears hers regimental too!
Geary

The fun you must have in the car (and other places!).
RJI

[Tim Walker]

I like a number of folks have been looking for an inexpensive way to break in kilt ownership. Last June while on vacation in Seattle We stopped by the Utilikilts shop and looked over the goods. I bought a kaki original for myself, and an olive for her. We both loved them, and she ordered me an olive for our anniversary.
This past weekend at the Scottish games here in Tulsa, she bought a black workman’s from the Utilikilts booth. Yesterday I ordered us both an Amerikilt in marpat! When she wears one it’s a kilt, and not a skirt. She also comments that kilts are much better than a skirt. Do I feel threatened by her kilt wear? No, why should I? It takes nothing from me, and in fact it adds to my kilt wearing experience.
Do I take issue with a woman in the mens room? Hell yes, but I fail to see the correlation. And yes, my wife believes when in Rome do as the Romans! She wears hers regimental too!

Geary

That web site includes an analysis which states that womens' skirts are designed to be sexy rather than practical. Just the opposite of a Utilikilt. If a woman wants to wear a practical unbifurcated garment what are her options?

[Shay]

That web site includes an analysis which states that womens' skirts are designed to be sexy rather than practical. Just the opposite of a Utilikilt. If a woman wants to wear a practical unbifurcated garment what are her options?

(The Macabi skirt? I've been wearing the hell outta mine.)

The problem is not finding things that are unsexy, (in the sense of- not wearing it for that reason) anyone can find that at S-mart* on the clearance rack- it's finding stuff that men will think are not worth mentioning or ogling or what have you- an entirely different kettle of fish. Let's face it, for every guy that wolf whistles at a mini skirt and thigh-highs, there's a guy who thinks a gal in combat boots and a unisex uniform like BDUs** is the sexiest thing alive. Sometimes, they're the same person.

On the one hand- yes, it is a male garment. On the other- it is a practical garment. One that in the (semi-traditional) women's world of high heels, tight pants, short skirts, and low-cut tops... not exactly a bad thing.

I certainly feel like I'm crossdressing a bit if I put on an Amirkilt, but no more than if I were to wear a tailored business suit or button-down shirt- but the reality is that women can wear these things because our wardrobes have been sadly lacking in practicality for a while, and the road is still being gained.

There's another way of looking at it I don't think y'all are considering- I've seen a couple wedding pictures and dates on this website- and usually the male in full Scottish dress is much more colorful than the female, what with the jacket, accessories, flashes, and hat... bascially, a lot more fussing than I do on an everyday basis. Or heck, even a formal basis.

Could it be that femininity and masculinity are not defined by what we wear, but who we are? If you're a guy, you're gonna be a guy in a prom dress. If you're a woman, you're gonna be a woman in a piper's uniform. (BTW- is piping/drumming/etc only supposed to be allowed for men? Or is there a female uniform I'm unaware of?)

I don't think women should wear kilts unless they 'have' to, like in a uniform or for historical purposes. (If a Polish guy can play a Scottish soldier in a reeanactment, why is a woman wrong?) I just don't see why all the fuss about women wearing something that's not even traditional.

*Shop smart... shop S-Mart
**The camoflage uniform you see on soldiers, for those not in the know.

[macwilkin]

I don't think women should wear kilts unless they 'have' to, like in a uniform or for historical purposes. (If a Polish guy can play a Scottish soldier in a reeanactment, why is a woman wrong?)

As someone who has been a reenactor (mostly American Civil War, Spanish-American War and other assorted periods), I have no problem with women in the ranks, as long as their is a lot of documentation for their presence. If there was a woman that served in a particular regiment disguised as a man, and it can be documented, then fine. Otherwise, it's an inaccurate portrayal of history.

As far as Scottish regiments go, I'm not sure if there were any women who ever served disguised as a man (Sav, any thoughts?), but it is correct to have other nationalities in the ranks. Many "Highlanders" were actually Glaswegians and other Lowlanders, English, Irish, and one story comes to mind from Mr. Kipling's Army by Bryon Farwell of a Gordon Highlander seen praying in a synagogue in Aberdeen!

Even today, there are a number of "Scottish" soldiers from Fiji, other Commonwealth nations and last but not least Nepal, as a detachment of Gurkhas were seconded to the Royal Scots.

Pipe Bands are a different story...

Regards,

Todd

[Shay]

As someone who has been a reenactor (mostly American Civil War, Spanish-American War and other assorted periods), I have no problem with women in the ranks, as long as their is a lot of documentation for their presence. If there was a woman that served in a particular regiment disguised as a man, and it can be documented, then fine. Otherwise, it's an inaccurate portrayal of history.

To be fair, so are all of you being in fairly good health and having all your teeth, arms and legs or wearing wigs. I don't see a problem with a woman portraying a man on a stage or in a reenactment, or vice versa, that's just me.

BMackay- I was thinking of that, too!

which to attract the female of the species, and to discourage other males from invading his territory....

Hmmm... whenever I see a guy in kilts, he's at the bar talking to the women...

[macwilkin]

To be fair, so are all of you being in fairly good health and having all your teeth, arms and legs or wearing wigs. I don't see a problem with a woman portraying a man on a stage or in a reenactment, or vice versa, that's just me.

Shay, that's a bit of a "roast chesnut", I'm afraid. I will freely admit that there are a lot of reenactors out there, especially in the Civil War era, that are not historically accurate. But there are many of us who try -- naturally, were not going to run out and get lice, dystentery, etc., but anyone portraying a historical time period for educational purposes (like myself as a park ranger at a Civil War battlefield) should be as accurate as possible, with appropriate & reliable documentation. Yes, there are reenactors who don't take it so seriously, but they are misleading the general public (most unintentionally). As someone who makes their living in the field of history, I have a big problem with that. A reenactment or a living history program is not the same thing as a stage play, although there are similar elements.

I have no problem with women portraying men at reenactments, I just want to see the documentation that it is appropriate for a particular unit and/or battle, just as I would want to see for a "atypical" musket, uniform, etc.

Regards,

T.

[MACKAY]

There's another way of looking at it I don't think y'all are considering- I've seen a couple wedding pictures and dates on this website- and usually the male in full Scottish dress is much more colorful than the female, what with the jacket, accessories, flashes, and hat... bascially, a lot more fussing than I do on an everyday basis. Or heck, even a formal basis..

Remember this from Sixth Grade Science class?

Okay class ... lights out, lets roll the movie…shhhhh (Film Starts) .... on the screen we see a male peacock displaying his colorful tail as he tries to impress the nearby hen, then we cut to a wild Turkey doing the same thing, and other cuts to various other colorful males of the animal kingdom impressing the females with acts of bravado or displays of colorful features and impressive plumage.

Narrator: "...We see through out the animal kingdom that nature has often provided the male brilliant colors and various physical attributes (antlers and such) by which to attract the female of the species, and to discourage other males from invading his territory...."

Perhaps we are just doing what comes naturally :-)


Brian Mackay