One entertaining argument that I have seen, which quite frankly baffles me is how men's and women's trousers are sold is an example of sexism.
The argument goes thus: Women's trousers have a single size number which seems to be based on a system which disappears back into antiquity (or where the sun don't shine, I'm not entirely sure which), whereas men's trousers have two measurements (waist, just as long as it's an even number of inches and inside leg, just as long as it's an odd number of inches), therefore sexism.
The problem that I can see with this is that it assumes that having two measurements is much more useful than having one. It isn't. B and myself have opposite problems with this, B has a relatively large waist and small thighs, whereas I have a relatively small waist and thighs like tree trunks. There seems to be no relationship between the size number and the amount of fabric provided for the circumference of the legs they are supposed to cover. For B this results in having lots of spare thigh space in a normally fitting pair, which looks a bit odd but that's it.
For me however in order to find a pair of trousers that fit over my thighs the waist will inevitably be far too large. They're virtually clown pants. If I were to buy trousers that actually were my size then they'd never get more than a few inches above my knees.
