Hacker News Reader

Comment by msla | Hacker News Reader

This is denigrating cargo pants because they're associated with manual labor. It's classist, and, to some extent, racist.

View on HN

So not wanting to wear cargo pants because I think they look like shit makes me classiest and racist?

This kind of behavior where people are labeling anything and everything racist is very much harmful, and makes every sensible people less sensitive to racist claims.

Refusing to wear clothes that's out of style is racist and classist. I've heard it all now.

Yeah, parent is a bit out of touch with reality. Especially funny, considering:

1. In lots of places most manual work is done by white people, who as I've heard can't be targets of racism.

2. Manual labor can be a very well paying job.

No, saying cargo pants are ugly because they look like what a laborer (or a "pretend-laborer" to use the article's wording) wears is classist.

And? Is it not true? Manual labor is not a profession where you're dressing to impress. Their clothes are functional, but are quite ugly.

I did manual labor for a while, and guess what: my clothes sucked too.

No laborer is going to get offended if you tell them that their clothes are not good looking.

Stop getting offended in the name of a random group of people.

Not to detract from your point, but there are plenty of fashion-conscious people that do manual labor for a living too. They just look down on 'fancy' clothes. "How is that guy going to get any work done in those clothes?" And yeah, they will get offended if you tell them their Carhartt / Duluth Trading Company apparel that can potentially cost more than serviceable office wear doesn't look good.

Well, jeans were invented for miners, pretty sure you see everyone who wears them as a manual laborer too, and by that extent, if you are ok with jeans, but not with cargo pants, then issue is not with the wearer.

I disagree, cargo pants were a fashion choice eschewed by most "laborers" at the time because they were made out of materials that wouldn't stand up to heavy use.

I associate cargo pants with middle aged and older men, a holdover from the 90's when they were popular, not manual labor.

Not many "work pants" even have cargo pockets,

They’re too bulky and swingy for most people doing physical work, while also not being able to hold most things they’d really want to, versus typical work pants that might have like one big extra internal pocket on the thigh and a hammer loop maybe but are mostly gonna be about heavy canvas fabric or denim, double-layer knees or fronts, reinforced stitching and rivets in the right places, stuff like that. Your average cargo pants fall apart when subjected to physical labor because they’re not actually built for it, they mostly use low-quality runs of chino-type fabrics of one kind or another, and those damn pockets just get in the way all the time if you actually put stuff in them (and sometimes even if you don’t—they’re very snag-prone).

I think it’s fair to characterize them as faux-workwear, for the most part. Some folks can get away with them and do wear them because they’re cheap and easy to find, but anyone who really wears their work clothes will usually go for something else. Doing handyman stuff around the house, fine. Framing houses, you’ll be shredding a pair every few weeks, and some you’ll probable rip at the seams the first or second wear.

Tradespeople generally don’t wear ‘cargo pants’ that you can buy at Kohl’s. They wear jeans or work pants from Dickies/Carhartt/Duluth Trading.

I manage tradespeople and go to job sites often.

Cargo pants to me are an unfortunate holdover from the 90s fashion worn by people who don’t particularly care about how they look. People wear clothes for various reasons, including utility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com