90% of the article is about the scientific advantages. You've chosen to fixate on the "sexism" part which is, as other commenters pointed out, mainly there to explain why things are done this way today at all. I don't think it's the article that's the problem.
No you're right, the subtitle that says "It's all because of a Frenchman who decided it was more convenient – for men" was definitely me reading between the lines, I can't believe I even attributed a gendered slant.
Pardon me for paying attention to the actual article instead of the subtitle likely written by someone else. And it's not as if you can credibly claim it's not relevant, since the first thing we want to know about any stupid practice is why it got started. So unless you have evidence that it's incorrect, you're just getting offended at... actual facts.
Comments
90% of the article is about the scientific advantages. You've chosen to fixate on the "sexism" part which is, as other commenters pointed out, mainly there to explain why things are done this way today at all. I don't think it's the article that's the problem.
No you're right, the subtitle that says "It's all because of a Frenchman who decided it was more convenient – for men" was definitely me reading between the lines, I can't believe I even attributed a gendered slant.
Pardon me for paying attention to the actual article instead of the subtitle likely written by someone else. And it's not as if you can credibly claim it's not relevant, since the first thing we want to know about any stupid practice is why it got started. So unless you have evidence that it's incorrect, you're just getting offended at... actual facts.