Oh, hell no! That's just having to try on more clothes. I HATE trying on clothes.

Or women could just be getting fatter.

That's why they had to invent Viagra.

That was rude.

Why did she pay money for jeans in a state where I would throw mine out?

OK, that explains "why" one size number meant to cover multiple dimensions worked worse for women than men, why it has become meaningless now, and why it wasn't even particularly accurate when it was implemented.

But it doesn't explain why they don't simply switch to multiple dimensions that actually correspond to measurable values. For example, as a male, I can go into the shop and buy 34/32 pants, because I know that my waist is 34" and my inseam is 32". There is little to no variation between multiple brands, because those numbers mean something concrete and measurable.

If women were annoyed with the current system and wanted to know precisely what they were getting in that same way, why not petition companies to label things with multiple meaningful measurements (as many as necessary to get a precise fit for a particular garment)? Maybe this is sexist, but I tend to think the answer is that they don't because they *like* shopping and having to try on multiple things, whereas I feel confident that I can speak for most men and say that we just want to buy something that we know will fit to replace whatever we've gotten too fat for or worn out by wearing until it literally disintegrated...

I think that was covered by the bit about vanity sizing. If a store can make more money by lying to women, they have no incentive to use a system based on physical measurement.

Honestly, I think men fall victim to the same trick when our clothing sizes are based on an arbitrary scale not clearly linked to physical measurements. I bet what was sold as a "medium" men's t-shirt 50 years ago doesn't resemble what Walmart labels a medium today.

It's an issue where only government regulation could give us truth in advertising.