Horrible article in Washington Post

**chacbalam** · 27th January 06, 11:38 PM

This article is just plain bad. I was expecting outrages either for or against this guys choice to wear a skirt (why would he wear a skirt anyway?) or a kilt to school. Instead it turns out that the artcle critiques his fashion sense.

This artcle is just plain weird. I had no idea that the Queer Eye guys were writing for the post.

**Pleater** · 28th January 06, 12:54 AM

That 'skirt' looks better to me than some stretched out polyester 'school trousers' or denim jeans ever would.

So the lad is chunky - and wears a tee shirt and trainers - shock and surprise!!?!! Hardly.

The writer of the article can't have seen many young men around - maybe his minders keep him away from them in case he has one of his funny turns?

At least by putting on a kilt the lad is showing a good sartorial instinct which might lead on to tucking the tee shirt in, or even better things in future.

**cessna152towser** · 28th January 06, 05:06 AM

Previous thread about Coviello and his "skirt" here:-
http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15369

**Blu (Ontario)** · 28th January 06, 06:48 AM

This is not a bad article. Perhaps painfully honest. It expresses nothing more than what the general population of North America and much of the world thinks with regard this individual wearing skirts (..the kilt in this case is simply a vehicle..) and in particular with dirty running shoes. It does not say anything negative about the kilt specifically. The issue spoken to here is fashion freedom and equality... and the wearer is complimented in this regard.

In the second last paragraph, the author can't resist aiming a jibe at Coviella... which I'm guessing would likely express the sentiment of much of the general public. The author is however exposing his own honest ignorance. (... being bliss?).

However the last paragraph says...

...But Coviello makes a reasonable point. Schools should be fair. If girls can wear skirts, then so should boys. Fashion, however, is not fair. And in matters of style, being right is not the same as winning the argument...

So , whats bad about that? I think we tend to be a bit oversensetive about stories that don't gush with enthusiasm about kilts. Coviella is simply paying the price for stepping outside of the box in our very conformist society.... As do we all from time to time.

**mudd** · 28th January 06, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Blu (Ontario)

Coviella is simply paying the price for stepping outside of the box in our very conformist society.... As do we all from time to time.

That is precisely the the point. “conformist society” is actually an oxymoron. In simplistic terms, society means being like everyone else. And given that Humans are extremely social animals, (That IS what made us a success as a species) anyone that does not conform is singled out for criticism.
Fact is, this is the reason we enjoy this forum so much. It encourages us to wear the Kilt more because it make us feel like we actually do belong to our own social group.
OK, (as my wife would put it) I’ll get down off of my lecture podium now.

**Schultz** · 30th January 06, 08:19 AM

Actually, there is a glaring vocabulary error in the article.

The author writes how the kilt "dissects" Mr. Coviello's body into "unflattering sections".

According to dictionary.com, the definition of "dissect" is:

dis·sect ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skt, d-, dskt)
tr.v. dis·sect·ed, dis·sect·ing, dis·sects
1. To cut apart or separate (tissue), especially for anatomical study.
2. To examine, analyze, or criticize in minute detail: dissected the plan afterward to learn why it had failed.

I do believe the author meant "bisect".

Both he and the editor should be flogged by the EiC for this error.

**Ugly Bear** · 30th January 06, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by mudd

That is precisely the the point. “conformist society” is actually an oxymoron. In simplistic terms, society means being like everyone else.

Speaking of glaring vocabulary errors ...

**flyv65** · 30th January 06, 11:06 AM

Check me if I'm wrong, but isn't Robin Givhans the fashion editor that was on the Colbert Report last week sometime? Of course she's going to be condescending: it's in her job description. High fashion and haute couture aren't about blazing new trails so much as structured conformity and regulated change. You guys can worry about this stuff, but for me it's a non-issue as long as she says its a matter of fashion, not one of freedom.

Bryan...remember the thread that linked to a men's fashion board? It wasn't exactly complementary of kilts, either...

**mudd** · 30th January 06, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Ugly Bear

Speaking of glaring vocabulary errors ...

OK. I meant redundant.

I was watching TV while typing. Give me a break.
What are you, an English teacher?

**cavscout** · 28th January 06, 06:48 AM

In the authors defence he/she is writing for the fashion section not the front page or political section. This is a good example of why I don't take life advise from Joan Rivers or any of the other hollywood suck ups on the red carpet at the grammy's :mrgreen: