I revisited the thread that sparked this topic, and I agree the items in question are not gear, but they do seem more casual in a loungewear sort of way than I see Jenn’s style. Loungewear is another category that blends into street style a lot, but many of us don’t feel comfortable integrating that into our looks. Personally, I can work in a cozy hoodie but not track pants unless they have a distinctly non-loungey vibe and some more refined detail. It’s all good, it just depends on each person’s needs and style goals!

Though (sports) gear is a big thing for comfort, it is not the only appropriation of a non-fashion garment for comfort that later becomes a fashion trend with a designer version. I remember:

-ballerina fashion (pink and black, cross over shrug sweaters, leotards as tops, leg warmers, ballerina buns, tulle skirts.
-scrubs as lounge wear - especially scrub pants
- flannel PJ’s and moccasins (I actually saw a 30 something in pink and white gingham flannel with teddy bears and faux shearling moccasins at the grocery store today)
-grunge borrowed flannel work shirts

Other appropriations to fashion that became mainstream:

-carpenter pants
-Carhart work jackets (butterscotch coloured with brown corduroy collar
-Sorel rubber and leather snow boots
-leather climbing boots (DH wore these in the 70’s when he was legit climbing in Switzerland. I’m seeing them in shoe stores as fashion footwear!)
-Hunter rubber boots
-army surplus - just about anything (pea coats, messenger bags, watchmen hats)

I’m sure I’m missing lots of stuff.

Gaylene, this is spot-on: "The fit and appearance of my expensive, but highly functional, ski and hiking gear looked different enough from the fashion interpretations to make me feel odd when my gear items were taken out of their environment."

Oh no, that jumpsuit isn't gear! To me gear is a designated capsule used for athletics. I don't hate it at all, but it's for the gym. Some gear brands like Lululemon and Athleta make hybrid clothes, things comfortable like gear but designed for daily wear. Guessing the difference would be looser fits, less spandex.

May I offer a different take on it? To me it is about whether you feel yourself in certain items or not. I have never ever been sporty. I played tennis and netball for a while from age of 9 or 10- was useless at both. Bottom team of 6 at school, knocked out of tennis games early. I ran from ages say 16-24, first in a “harriers” club which I joined more for its social and exploring side- we drove all over the city for places to run from. Then for a while on my own for fitness. I did a few “tramps”/(hikes) and was always the slowest. I never loved any of these activities, some moderate enjoyment only. I would get blisters from my tramping boots...
Any clothing for these activities was functional only, perhaps only the 1970 tennis dress and frilly bloomers underneath( which was fashionable then!) had a fashion component.
I did yoga type stretches when pregnant to help prepare for labour. I think they helped a bit. Even now when I go walking it is to get steps in to not be a slob and to try to improve my health and keep my weight a bit lower. Also because I don’t want to be a hypocrite as a family doctor with a sedentary lifestyle. But I would much rather have a sedentary lifestyle if it were good for me! So I have sympathy with many patients who are overweight or obese.
If I wear anything gear-looking, I feel like a fraud. Do not try to look sporty, Jenni, when sporty is the complete opposite of what you are!
Not sure if this helps the debate at all, but like to chime in.

But I would much rather have a sedentary lifestyle if it were good for me!“

Hah! Me too, Jenni! I get my steps in, but I’d really rather be curled up next to the fireplace with a book.

Another bookworm, yay Jenn x

Gear, to me, is the stuff I wear specifically for exercise/ outdoor tasks. For me, that includes: ice skating, running (trail or road), biking (indoors or out), weight lifting, gym classes, hiking, snowshoeing, yoga, etc.

In my 20s, 30s, and even 40s, I would have been right there on the couch with Jenni and Jenn as much as possible! I did not enjoy most active pursuits except for urban walking, which required no special clothing. Things have changed. Nowadays, I'm more engaged in sporty or active pursuits.... even though a part of me would still always prefer to be reading the book. (Audio books and great bluetooth earbuds have made me a very, very happy hiker! As has the appropriate gear for the activity. There is no bad weather. There is only inappropriate clothing.)

Having said that...I like to keep that clothing restricted to the activities it's designed for because my core style is not and never has been sporty. As Gaylene and Carla also said, I like to compartmentalize a bit. I feel better -- in regular life -- not wearing clothing designed as gear.

The items you showed look like loungewear to me, not gear. (Waving to Janet.) I might enjoy wearing those at home on freezing cold nights...cozy wear. Good book reading wear, maybe! But not true gear and not my usual style. But it's all so personal. If someone chose to wear those items out on the street I wouldn't think twice!

I haven't read the other responses yet, FWIW.

I wouldn't consider the jumpsuit you posted to be gear. I would consider it more athleisure, since it's not designed to be worn during a workout.

For me, gear is something that must be worn during some kind of strenuous physical activity, whether it's weightlifting, yoga, or hiking. It's designed to allow freedom of movement without ripping the garment, and it's also designed to soak up sweat if need be.

I take ballroom dancing lessons, and sometimes I wear gear to them, other times not. I think that close-fitting gear (leggings and a tight top) can be very helpful when you are trying to assess your lines in a mirror. Wearing gear also allows me to get more wears out of my regular clothes before washing (if I wear regular clothes during a lesson, I might get them all sweaty and have to wash them right away).

I don't particularly enjoy gear. I will, like you say, try to find something that is as "true" to me as I can, so I look for colors and silhouettes that I like. However, I'm not a sporty person at heart, and so the very concept of gear does not make me feel like me! It's a necessary evil.

I very much identify with Gaylene's response - I like wearing my gear when doing my sporty stuff, wearing my work clothing at work and wearing my fun casuals in my down time. Doing your own thing and having fun with fashion is definitely the name of the game. There is no judgement on those with a more sporty personal style than what feels true to my style.

I do have fashion sneakers and my jacket (in finds) that I wear to and from the gym, I sometimes wear walking my dogs, so there is a little bit of cross over for me.

What a great question and thread. In my experience, gear invokes race and class - hip urban young adults, soccer moms, middle and upper middle class people my age (mostly white) hanging out in fleece and technical jackets. I know all fashion is connected to race and class, but gear implies you have leisure time. I can’t help but think it’s a little different that way.
I agree with so much of what others have said. I think gear, which for me includes yoga tights, tanks, sports bras, long sleeve performance tops and jackets, and running shoes, can be chosen for comfort, fit and fashion just like other clothes. I don’t wear gear outside of exercise- maybe pop in the store on the way home from a class, or meet a friend for coffee beforehand. Even though I generally don’t hang out in my gear, I still want to look cute and feel stylish in it. Might sound obvious but in the last 10 years I realized I wanted to keep my gear limited to exercise AND I wanted to prioritize having stylish gear - I used to have gear that was too big, or in colors I didn’t like, because I thought it only had to be functional. FWIW, I feel pretty privileged and grateful to have the time and money to exercise and have special clothes for it.

Preppy Pear said: in the last 10 years I realized I wanted to keep my gear limited to exercise AND I wanted to prioritize having stylish gear - I used to have gear that was too big, or in colors I didn’t like, because I thought it only had to be functional. FWIW, I feel pretty privileged and grateful to have the time and money to exercise and have special clothes for it.

I could not agree more. Excellent point!

And Bijou, cute jacket!

Also, I wear fashion sneakers...but not my true trail runners...as street clothing....

Slightly off topic: but I love the excellent juxtaposition of leather joggers. I already own two pair! Wasn't this "invented" by Kanye West? Is this athleisure?

I also relate to what PP said and Suz quoted. Gear has gotten much cuter with a lot more variety over the last decade or so!

And count me as another who was never athletic or sporty. But somehow signed up to run a half marathon at the age of 46, having never run in my life. That ended up bringing out a sportier side of myself, and it even bled over into my wardrobe. I don’t feel like so much of a poseur anymore if I wear something that hints at “sporty” and indeed it actually helps me *feel* a bit more strong and capable to wear some of these sportswear-influenced styles. So for me, it’s been fun to embrace a bit of athleisure in my own way, which aims to keep a bit of sophistication in the mix — a sort of grown-up urban athleisure/casual. Hence my embracing of fashion sneakers, side stripes (when I can find them), refined hoodies, etc.

Interesting discussion!

I love my gear for actual athletic activities. And, my natural style *does* include sporty elements, so dressing in "gear" doesn't feel incongruous with my personality, the way it does for some. When I'm playing at the park with my kids or being active on the weekends, I have zero qualms with wearing gear because at that point, it feels as functional as wearing it for yoga, or running, or whatever. I don't like wearing my "nice" clothes for certain mom-on-the-go activities. (To be clear, gear is a big part of the mom uniform in my city.) But, that said, you won't find me wearing gear to a restaurant or even a casual social event. That's when I start to feel weird and underdressed, and I want to wear an actual outfit. In my late 20s/early 30s, I wore quite a few hybrid gear/fashion items; in fact I'm still drawn to them -- but I don't feel particularly great or fashionable in them.

So many good comments, so little time. I will try to get back to this conversation—you all have made it so interesting. But it is once again too late.

One thing I have picked up from a quick read that is very helpful is the (should’ve been obvious) point that not everyone likes to look athletic, because sports don’t feel good to everyone. That latter part was a big aha moment to me a few years ago, when my mom mentioned that she doesn’t enjoy feeling her body work. That possibility had never entered my head before.

Also interesting comments on what it means to have the leisure time for sports. To me, as I mentioned before, “gear” has always indicated more urban sports, so not necessarily privileged. More like street ball, by players who might have a job, or might not. I think looking “privileged” is something I actively avoid.

But it’s 11:00 and kiddo’s got school in the morning.

For me “gear” is about functionality: I.e. shoes I can actually run in or hike in vs. shoes that are styled similarly but not intended for that purpose.

I primarily dress in a dressy, modern-classic style that’s been leaning more artsy and fluid and casual with a dressy edge over the past couple years. But I spend a LOT of time in gear. I run a lot, and walk a lot, and for the purposes of preventing chafing and blisters alone, if I’m walking 7+ miles to get somewhere, heck yeah I’ll do it in gear even if I’m going to appointments or meeting up with folks at the destination. Or if I’m leaving the house just to go to the grocery store or vet, gear is often more comfortable and easy to toss on When I’m rushed.

Even before running, I frequently wore gear as my “dog park capsule” when we got our dog Lucy and were walking, going to parks, doing tricks and agility and small dog play classes several times a week. Tech fabrics meant more durability, less prone to staining and snagging, easier to clean!

A while back Jia Tolentino wrote a great piece on athleisure, gear and privilege: https://www.newyorker.com/maga.....thing-else

Wow! La Pedestrienne, that’s a great article.
Funny thing is the first ads for Outdoor Voices showed women hiking in pale leggings, which I thought was ridiculous given the inevitable dirt and/or mud

I think that article by Jia Tolentino is in her collection "Trick Mirror" - highly recommeneded. Sorry for the tangent. The only gear I wear is black Blundstones when we go on (easy but slippery) hikes. I work out at home is a tank top and yoga pants and they are dedicated for that purpose !

Just read that article La P, thank you. The woman founder is about the age of my daughters. As a non-sporty person the whole thing left me cold. I feel grumpy and old reading it!

Yeah, the link between athleisure, privilege, and virtue signaling is pretty clear. Do those concerns relate to the dislike of gear? Most people here do seem to be talking about the kind of clothes in the article, if not that brand, so I should realign my understanding of what people are talking about when they say “gear”. But it seems to me that a dislike of feeling “physical” or a desire to keep activities separate is what most people here are saying is behind not wanting gear in their wardrobes, rather than a rejection of those values and the system they’re connected with.

I have to ponder going to the gym, leisure time, privilege and athleisure. Because I wonder... lots of folks have sedentary jobs now. Traditionally those are cushy jobs, but lots barely make rent these days doing them and working out is nonetheless a necessity because they are sedentary. Also, after my 15 years in the ghetto... got to say athleisure is prime ghetto fabness. I’d go as far as to say athleisure is stolen from the ghetto...

RL, just like the Blues.

FI -- for me, yes, the projection of privilege does play a factor. And I suspect it does for you too? It was your comment about not wanting to look privileged that brought the Tolentino essay to mind. I consciously choose not to wear leggings on the weekends, when I take my kid to birthday parties, etc. because I don't really want to align myself with that cohort.

RL -- I agree, athleisure styles can feel like appropriation.

Shevia -- I think that essay is in the book, and yes, the whole collection is great!!

I never even used the term “ gear” before YLF and also never though specifically about banning “ it” from “ non- exercise “ activities except just base on what seemed appropriate.
So it was new to me that so many people made a big point that this separation was very important to their style.
My biggest overlap would be shoes. I agree with fashiontern that “ fashion sneakers” often are not as comfortable as running or hiking shoes for long- day wear. Or that by the time I get that comfort, the appearance ( to my eye) is compromised so that I’d rather just wear athletic shoes that looked better to me. And I have, and anticipate more, days where I have multiple activities and would never be able to change outfits. So I think there just a lot of overlap for some people between “ active lifestyle “ and “ exercise “.
I personally love juxtaposition of more technical or sportswear items with possibly tailored or luxe items and see that as a great non- workday style direction for me. What I look for unabashedly is something in the item that has BETTER fit and flattery plus comfort & washable- think being with grandchildren here. If I find such items I care not whether are for “ exercise “. Jeans or ponte pants are not always “ the best” for all of that, so I’m willing to dress outside the box.

Interesting discussion, to be sure. because I suspect the term “gear” isn’t a very accurate term to describe the wide variety of items being talked about here. Talking about a $100 yoga top or a pair of cashmere sweatpants as if they were in the same category as a dollar store plastic rain poncho makes no sense to me. Throwing in the concepts of image management, the reality of economic class distinction, and designer “athleisure” muddies the question even more.

To understand why I choose to not include “gear” in my street wardrobe, I feel I need to explain that I’m not talking about $$$ designer jacket made of fleece or a cashmere hoodie worn with a pair of on-trend jeans. Far from it, as I’d happily wear both out and about in public.

As for “privilege”, it seems almost funny to think of my “gear” in that way. As a product of an era which sneered at the “pinkification” of woman’s sports gear (the marketing of a technically inferior products at inflated prices to women), I’ve always been skeptical of companies like Lululemon whose mission, it seems, is to convince women that their appearance is always critical even when sweating and that spending enormous sums of money for “active” clothing is somehow an indicator of “serious” intent. If a woman wants to spend thousands of dollars on clothing to wear to the gym, that’s a choice, not a necessity. And, if said woman wants to maximize the use of those items by wearing them to a restaurant that’s also her right. But lumping my well-used, canvas MEC hiking pants with their reinforced seat, articulated knees, and myriad zippered pockets in the same category as designer “athleisure” and a $$$ crop top just seems very odd. Maybe, as women, we are both calling it “gear”, but that’s about the only similarity.

Yes a lot of relevant points......and yes is my ratty polyprop the same as Lululemon skulpting tights.

The article about Outdoor Voices was fascinating. I checked out their Instagram and did think they represent a range of body shapes positively.

I do want to add that there is reverse snobbiness as well - that people take pride in their older well worn hiking gear and look down on those hiking in yoga pants. It is not a one way street!

Gaylene, I do think our grubby old hiking pants are still an indicator of privilege. They mean that one has the disposable income to build a capsule of clothing specific to a leisure activity and (because they are old and well-worn) the time and resources to spend in the mountains and actually use that gear. Outdoor recreation is a privileged world, and still very predominantly white. And as Sal says, those with "real hiking gear" can look down on those wearing street clothes such as leggings and Nikes. I've worked in outdoor education for several years; for more than a few families whose children I teach it is a real struggle to make sure their child is outfitted appropriately: a fully waterproof rain-suit, non-cotton socks (and base-layers in the winter), sturdy shoes/boots, and on and on. Even if we aren't dressing to look IG-trendy, we're still wearing our privilege every time we go into the wilderness. (This is a subject near and dear to me, and I'm happy to take this discussion elsewhere if FI feels I'm threadjacking .)