I wouldn’t mind if it got taken to Off Topic? Suspect FI would be likely happy to join in such a topic also?- but not speaking for you FI. Have been wondering about privilege a great deal this past almost 2 weeks of travelling around a poor country which is great for me to travel in with so much so cheap that you wonder how it can possibly provide a living for the person.

Just read the whole thread, very interesting. I’m personally not wearing gear or athleisure in a non gear context. My main reason in the past was that I’m just not a sporty person and that I felt uncomfortable in those kind of clothes (as others have said). Now it’s more the fact that I don’t want to produce any more garbage than necessary.

I saw a very interesting documentary on the TV a while ago about man made fabrics, fast fashion and the German old clothes donation system, which has been established over decades and which is now drowning in clothes that are in the end nothing other than plastic garbage. They have to get rid of it at enormous costs and most of it just gets burned (contributing to climate change). I don’t want to be a part of that.

That said, I would always pick gear when it’s truly necessary. When you’re out in the elements and life and limb depend on your clothing, then I’m all for the modern age. With the caveat that you treat it truly as gear and not as fashion. Which means picking practical styles which last as long as possible and then to truly wear them out. Of course I can’t influence other people’s decisions, but I can make choices for myself. So I do have my gear that I wear when I go hiking, but I’m not going to wear technical fabrics in everyday life if I can help it. Same goes for doing sports inside - if I’m not in danger of pneumonia because of unsuitable gear I see no reason why I shouldn’t exercise in an old ratty cotton tee that would only go into the garbage bin otherwise.

La Ped, you aren't thread-jacking at all. The privilege aspect isn't one I expected, but is certainly part of the topic. That said, you can obviously start any thread you want. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I just figured out that when you say "outside", you don't mean anything done outside, like street ball, or even privileged sports like tennis. I think you are using it to refer to hiking, climbing, and CC skiing. Is that right? I agree with you that the well-worn gear can broadcast privilege and plenty of leisure time, just as ultra-distressed jeans do. But if we broaden beyond those activities to a pair of Champion shorts from Target worn for those BB games and for the rest of life, they can be about not having the privileged office life that requires "dress-up" clothes.

I think I’ve lost track of what I’m supposed to be thinking about... But I suppose outdoor recreation is privileged. My last two summers in the state and national parks has me wondering if I want to go anymore - I feel they’ve become ridiculous. The last place I camped, they were leaf-blowing the camp sites. That is too much privilege for me.

But there are different ways to recreate outdoors and I’ve found there is a difference in where people go, what they do and where their gear comes from. There are cultural differences between the rich and poor, not just financial ones. The outdoorsy poor fish, sleep in the one guy’s truck, and go army surplus for gear. Or the hardware store. National Forest and the local pier v the National Parks. Etc.

Of course, if you’re urban poor, getting out of the inner city is something else, just for groceries. Still, in my ghetto, people went camping, but it was a big group thing with the pooling of resources.

I guess what’s in my mind is... a lot of the privilege is in the how, the specifics. REI rain gear or Ace Hardware rain gear. Skiing or, tbh, deer hunting.

Rachylou, what? A Cali ghetto with no hoops or kids tossing footballs in the streets?

Hmmm, wheels turning. Is it the outside leisure that signifies the privilege, or is it shopping for a specific set of gear to do this the signifies the privilege? If I think about "underprivileged" communities up North in Canada say, or my mom's upbringing, outside leisure was the only option - but they most certainly could not buy "leisure" clothes - they just have their clothes. I may be stereotyping, but I'm thinking of poorer families say in Florida that might be very outdoorsy, fishing, etc., but it's not a matter of privilege really (not economic privilege anyway) and they definitely don't buy Lululemon to do it!

Also, I think with reference to the "whiteness" of outside activity, that is somewhat cultural also - meaning that, some of my friends who are people of colour have a similar socio-economic status to me (or better), but they don't camp, let's say, as a matter of family tradition, because that's not a thing in their community or family traditionally (as an immigrant family, we never did cottages or camping either as kids because it just wasn't a thing for us). Which is not to say that's it's not a barrier to be removed, but it's not the *same* barrier ... if that makes sense.

Thinking this through as I write so I may be way off on all of above; please take it apart at leisure!

Just as a tangent, it is interesting to me that some of the same outdoorsy people who consider themselves environmentalists will look down on someone re-purposing their existing stuff as "gear" - like the time as a student that I wore my docs for some light day hiking research activities. I knew they were sturdy, supported my ankles and had good tread - and they turned out more than fine for what we were doing. But they clearly weren't the "right" thing to be wearing.

Well, LaP, I’d have to agree that while my downhill ski racing outfit was a perfect example of “privilege” gear— high tech, pricey, and definitely not used for any other activity, but applying that label to those poor old hiking pants made me smile. Outdoor “recreation” comes in a different form on a ranch in the foothills—mending miles of fencing, hauling in 35lbs of supplies into a winter cabin on one’s back, tree planting on a mountain side for hours, and other “fun” activities set out by the foreman certainly helped put some wear and tear on those poor hiking pants. But that’s kind of my point—generalizing about “gear” on a fashion forum makes it easy to assume we all have commonalities when, in fact, we can be quite different.

I grew up in a rural environment where “gear” was essentially “workwear”— what you wore when you knew you’d get dirty and/or needed protection from the elements. I suspect that’s why I think of “gear” differently than some of members on this forum.

That's an excellent point, Gaylene. I don't have the time to get deeply involved in this discussion, but I have a small "gear" collection - and a much larger collection of clothes that I can get dirty and sweat through while working outside, in any temperature from 100F to 40F. (No colder than that if I can possibly help it.) Is that set of clothes gear as well? Especially if worn/cheap workout leggings, bras, tops, and skorts are part of it?

Hey, you know what? No. Kids didn’t play in the street like that. It was the traffic coming on and off the freeway - because of course the freeway was plunked smack dab in the middle of it!

... well actually, there’s too much traffic everywhere nowadays...

I tend to think of the way gear is used here to mean leisure gear - rather then work gear ( gardening clothes or farming, or gear you use for paid or unpaid work). Growing up on a farm meant we all had farm clothes which were a mix of purpose bought boots and old clothes.

My wardrobe all melds together but broadly I have
- my general wardrobe
- gym and running gear
- sports gear eg swimming togs, ski gear
- gardening and hard work clothes (painting, shifting furniture and in the past helping Dad on the farm)

Ok, there is a lot going on in this thread, and the piece on OV is interesting, and yeah I appreciate the privilege aspect of gear and athleisure, but... I’m going to play devils advocate and ask, what does that mean to you? Why is this important in a society where there are countless other signifiers of privilege? Do you actively avoid certain gear because it signifies privilege? If you do that, do you eschew other trappings of privileg? I see a lot of fretting about privilege but to what end?

What if someone wears their Lululemon to work out and then goes to do some volunteer work to help others who are not so fortunate? Does that make them a hypocrite or a bad person? Why obsess on this particular aspect of gear? I see lots of people in underprivileged communities wearing leggings and tee shirts and sneakers in ensembles that look very much like workout outfits. They don’t have fancy logos and price tags but the functionality is the same.

Good point, Janet. My goal is not to look like a putz and an easy mark...

Hm, as one who said I don’t want to give off a privileged vibe, I will say that yes, I try to avoid that in general. I want to be dressed appropriately, in clean, undamaged clothing without lookin gun ostentatious or drawing attention because of my attire. I’m not sure what other markers you are thinking of, but I don’t get the point of expensive cars, and my idea of pricey jewelry is a $100 necklace. My gear is also not the expensive kind, but sure, having it does say that I have the money and time for whatever activity.

RL, that’s still hard to believe. What did the 15-25 year old guys do then?

The thread certainly has broadened! But in an interesting way.

There is an element of which tribe you identify with . There was a slightly satirical book about Tribes of Auckland.

I am currently wearing gear after a yoga class and dropping my son and his billet off at an interschool tennis day. I bought some fruit and bread at the supermarket in my gear. I cleaned my bathroom In it and am about to do work and personal and volunteering errands after a shower and change of clothes. Definitely some privilege there. But that is whom I am- like most of us we have many facets, and as long as I don’t judge others too much for what they wear then I think that’s okay. As long as we are aware of it.

I think it comes down to, once again, refraining from judging others for what they wear.

FI - kids sit around at home a lot. I will say that my building was of beneficial design: It was designed with a central courtyard and the very young played in it. It also yielded a sense of community, that courtyard. That’s how I got two of my god children, from that building. They and their building friends were in and out of my apartment all day long. Did Martha Stewart Kid Craft parties, lol. There were after school sports for kids, mainly b-ball and football. Football was a pretty serious thing, people really put out for it... football dreams. The local professional football and b-ball teams gave their support for programs like that. Luck of geography.

I’m glad someone mentioned workwear because I think it’s funny that clothing worn for physical jobs is not the same as clothing worn for exercise. There are some practical reasons for that but some is just customs and class signaling. As someone whose last couple jobs have required me to able to move, lift, and get sweaty I have learned that there’s a real lack of appropriate choices for women especially. But that’s another post.

‘Gear’ as used on the forum is an Angie-ism; I’d never heard it used that way before. In my head I replace the word with “workout clothes.” And I do wear workout clothes, but not usually all day long, and I don’t mix them with my other clothes categories that often. Not because I dislike them or feel unauthentic (I’m a horrible athlete and overweight but I hike, run, and do yoga and could care less what other people think about it) but mainly because they’re expensive and I don’t want to ‘waste’ them on couch potatoing. I’m much more likely to go for a walk in smart casual than I am to go out to eat in running shorts. After I work out I want to go home and take a shower!

Then again I’m not much of a juxtaposition person for myself - blingy jewelry with ripped jeans, heels with joggers, summer dress worn with a heavy sweater - ick. All of it makes my teeth itch.

"Privileged office life"? Hardly. As I fight massive traffic to sit in a back-killing ill-fitting chair hunched over a computer until I can barely stand or turn my neck for barely over my state's low min wage, I don't feel "privledged" in my polyester dress clothes. Privledge looks to me like the leggings brigade out for leisurely walks in the morning. Workout wear says clearly "I am not heading to work."

RL, that's what I'm talking about! Took us a few go-rounds, lol. So back to the clothing they wore for this....

Lol. Well *I* literally played in the street as a youth. And so did my mum. Softball, Red Rover, etc. I mean, when I was five, my mum gave me two nickels for the bus and a dime for the phone and I was outta there. That is a thing of the past. But anyways, seems to me kids wore basketball shorts for it all... but that can’t be true, not for football.

Waaay off topic now, but RL, one of my greatest joys as a parent is telling my kids in summer to go outside and come back when the streetlights come on! Granted it doesn't work in winter when the streetlights come on before 5 p.m. *sigh*

Last thing, there is a short but FAB episode of Netflix's Explained about Athleisure that addresses many of these issues in a smart and nuanced way (if you can stomach listening to Chip Wilson, who does get called out at the end).

Lol, torontogirl! I’m gonna check out FAB