• Cid Vicious@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    9·
    11 hours ago

    Probably “yeah sorry the budget was cut this year so we’re only issuing chain mail for your nutsac up, tough economy right now”

  • Zephorah@discuss.onlineEnglish
    11·
    12 hours ago

    Oh, to be a history teacher and watch your class walk away with this image as their dominant takeaway thought instead of your carefully crafted lesson.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      10 hours ago

      It makes sense anatomically. Women store fat on their hips/butts, men store fat on their stomachs. Everyone undergoes swings in weight over time. If you’re wearing tights or trousers, they need to fit your butt and thighs reasonably tightly. Men have to undergo a much greater degree of weight change before their pants size changes than women do. A skirt or dress meanwhile much more easily accommodates changes in hip size. Oh, and this is before you consider changes in hip size that come with pregnancy.

      It was only really with industrialization that it became practical for women of ordinary means to wear pants or trousers. When clothes are so expensive that you can only afford two or three outfits, and each outfit has to last many years? It wasn’t practical for women of ordinary means to afford to wear pants. Men could buy a set of pants and wear them even through ordinary changes in body weight. Men could make it through ordinary swings in body weight with the same set of pants, while women would require many more pairs of pants to cover the same magnitude of weight swing. Skirts and dresses were simply a lot more practical to handle the changes if female hip size that come from ordinary body weight swings.

      But with industrialization, clothes became a lot cheaper. It then became practical for women to actually wear pants. If you can practically afford a large number of pants, then you can simply have an assortment of pants to handle swings in hip size from changes in body weight.