> I dunno, "fashion-as-pretend-occupation" feels like a negative connotation, sort of a "stolen valor" for professions the supposed person imagines as more prestigious or moral than what they actually do, adventurer or craftsman vs, say, insurance claims adjuster.

I mean, the OG "fashion as pretend occupation" are just pants in general. The purpose of pants is a piece of clothing that lets you ride horses comfortably. Everywhere people started riding horses (and hence wearing pants), it became fashionable for non-horse-riders to wear pants as well.

The world is full of people who own objects that help them project an image, essentially the essence of jewelry.

IMO, that's not really a bad thing (unless your highest value is authenticity) it's just what people do.

This isn't to say that there aren't people who actually use the objects for their intended purpose. But what percent of people who drive trucks regularly haul stuff or drive off-road?

What were the non-horse riders wearing prior to pants? Tunics?

> What were the non-horse riders wearing prior to pants? Tunics?

I'm not an expert on clothing history, so I don't want to give bad info. I'm sure there are good resources out there if you're curious enough.

I'd assume, though, that it varied by latitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hose_(clothing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunic

Yeah, when I have a moment I'll rewrite that section. I clearly missed the mark tonally.

At least I know folks read all the way to the end, I suppose.

Yeah, it’s a bit intense. I’m a licensed professional engineer who works what is traditional described as a white collar job yet wear cargo pants about every day as I’m regularly in the field supervising and inspecting work. My wife is The winemaker at a small but well know boutique biodynamic winery overlooking the ocean here which is a job many people glamorize, yet likewise she wears cargo pants for work everyday (except for events of course).

By all means cargo pants for a pure coder who doesn’t tinker is sensible, but when I’m hacking away on electronics projects at home they come in handy to hold tools and parts.

In your defense I’ve found the recent trend of wealthy, highly fashionable Women wearing skin tight ancient camo patterns from the mid 20th century equally as deplorable as you speak about cargo pants here, and for all I know there is someone who can disagree with my opinion quite reasonably as well.

EDIT: The little runway video on this link about perfectly sums up everything I feel is wrong. I do not understand anything going on here - all stars with loose camo pants and a denim carhartt jacket? SMH

https://www.mrporter.com/en-us/mens/product/carhartt-wip/clo...

I don't think you missed the mark. Some people just like military cosplay a lot and get offended when you call out what they're doing.

Perhaps, but there are also a lot of people with not-pretend jobs that can and do wear cargo pants (and shorts!). The implication as originally written was that if you can or do wear such clothing at work, you don’t have a ‘real’ job.

That’s patently ridiculous. Heck, some of my highest earning years of late had me working with customers where I’d be more likely to see flip-flops than a collared shirt.

I'll agree cargo pants are military cosplay if you'll agree that denim jeans are cowboy cosplay.

Blue denim jeans pretty much are cowboy cosplay. That’s why they got popular and why they remain popular. The close association with Marlboro Man rugged outdoorsy “masculinity” is an enduring part of their appeal. Even if people aren’t consciously aware of that association driving them when they appreciate a pair of blue denim jeans decades of advertising has undoubtedly inserted that stereotype firmly into the commmon (sub) conscious. Even the premium Japanese denim brands play with the semiotics of denim as “honest” or “rugged” or “no nonsense” or “not fancy” all of which are tropes drawn from the mid-century American ideal of cowboys as a picture of perfect masculine achievement.

Better comparison: trousers are how middle (and upper middle) class Americans cosplay as their millionaire (and billionaire) CEOs.

Yeah, okay. That was easy.

And some people just like having lots of pockets and don't care how it looks.

And some people don't think tight pants look good.

For the people who want a ton of pockets on their pants, cargo pants are pretty much the only option. Do you earnestly believe that all of these people "just like military cosplay"?

Edit: Or maybe I'm wrong, and there are other kinds of pants with many pockets.

How are you defining cargo pants?

These have ten pockets. https://shop.bluffworks.com/products/ascender-chino-regular-...

"Some X are Y" does not imply "all X is Y"; I held the former while you infer I hold the latter.

Fair enough, but I inferred the "all X is Y" bit from the first sentence, in which you said "I don't think you missed the mark" regarding a paragraph which, IIRC, did essentially imply that cargo shorts are by nature deceitful.

I'm not sure cargo pants themselves are "cosplay". A lot of male fashion comes from military - peacoats, bomber jackets, parkas, trench coats, pretty much any boots, etc. And a lot of it comes from jobs - trucker jackets, denim, engineer coats, boiler coats, etc etc.

It becomes kinda cosplay when you have guy in desert camo cargo pants with huge belt with multitool on it, in desert combat boots and beige t-shirt ... in an office, coding Java.

But I'm the guy who goes there wearing M65, jeans and Doc Martens so who am I to talk.

Also you can get slim and stretch cargo pants, which removes the biggest complaint fashion people ususlly have with cargo pants (OMG HUGE BAGGY) and are more techwear/streetwear than military. Unless you get them in camo.

Thinking cargo pants are "lesser" for being associated with manual labor is just disgustingly classist.

The article says that people who like cargo pants are unemployed idiots.