James wrote:

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.
A kilt is not defined as a man's garment because of its "all terrain" nature, but simply because it is a man's kilt. It was designed for men, the cloth cut and sewn to fit men, and marketed for men. When men purchase and wear a kilt, they tend to do the same things as a man that they would do in pants as a man. I do housework in mine just like I do in pants, only more comfortably. No more manly, no less. I don't go mud bogging in pants, so I can see no plausable reason why I'd ever do it in a kilt. And to think that we would need to project some rugged outdoorsman persona in order to not "girlify" the kilt is nonsense.

Whether I'm kilted or wearing pants on any given day, I rarely if ever have the need to cut anything. So I seriously doubt I'll ever wear a sgian dubh (let alone a dirk!) unless I happen to be all gussied up for a formal event. And even then I'll probably have one of the fake sgian dubhs stuck in my hose. I just see no reason why I'd need to carry anything of the sort, especially if its sole purpose was to announce to the world that somehow my being "armed to the teeth" were a sign of my masculinity. I'm either masculine all by my lonesome, or I'm not. I'm a man wearing a kilt, or I'm not. I'm a man wearing pants, or I'm not. I'm a man standing naked to the world, or I'm not. A meek and effeminate man loaded up with 100 lbs of weaponry is still a meek and effeminate man, (only now, he's probably suffering from a hernia). No outwardly worn symbols, no matter how closely associated with being "manly" can change the true nature of the individual.

Have you ever noticed that T-shirts never say "Wear a kilt, be a man"? They alway say "Be a man, wear a kilt." Being a man has to come first.

No clothing can make anyone anything, and anyone who thinks different is only fooling themselves. No kilt wearer on this board became a man because he put on a kilt. They were men first. They are men because they choose to stand up and be men. The kilt just happened to be the next step in the natural progression of things.