i totally agrre with jimmy. could not explain better.

on the one hand from the postings here i see the trend keeping the kilt as a menīs garment in order to preserve something of true "manliness".

i m not proud about what manliness meant the last centuries. for my part am thinking that we should treat women in another way as we did the last 2000 years. for that reason the kilt for me personaly is also a way for breaking with conservative and traditional understandings of manliness. i m not orienting my vision of manhood anymore on trouser-wearing guys.
i think not only women needed their freedom movement (emancipation) but in fact also men would need one.
what sense does it make if only the women are questioning the past, but not the other relevant half?

to be honest, just spoken from the comfort aspect:
there is nothing more comfortable than a kilt. and that does not depend on gender. even trousers are much more comfortable for lassies than for us.
so i don t understand the discussion that the girls took everything from us?
it s just a question of comfort and btw freedom. cause horsing or working in long lassie skirts isnīt as practical as doing that stuff in shorter garments...
i beleive social construction, hierarchy and the way we shall feel and behave in society is strongly relied to clothing.
what other reason could there be, when women were terrorised when they started wearing trousers?