Why are men's trousers unfit for purpose?

One factor is that the hips of women are a lot wider, that makes it far easier to have trousers that sit on them. Another factor is the tasks you are describing usually require fairly thick and hard wearing fabrics and often a tool belt too. That extra weight, on thinner hips will make things harder. But it is certainly possible for men to use a belt to ensure their trousers don't slide, the problem is that if you've got a bit of a belly then that will be very uncomfrotable if you are quickly bending over, laying down of reaching and stretching at difficult angles. The choice is do things far slower (and lose money), be very uncomfortable, buy expensive custom clothing or just accept a bit of a builders butt. >Why are men not demanding better trousers? As a rule men don't demand things for comfort or modesty, they prefer them but if it is very expensive or inconvinient they'll make do. > Why are suppliers not providing them? Because what you are suggesting is far better fitting clothing, such industrial style clothing is already fairly niche, offering it at every combination of sizes likely isn't profitable. >Is this the perfect storm of the failings of capitalism and sexism? Frankly its a fairly minor issue, men usually can't even get basic things like trousers at more than one leg length without paying through the nose or shirts that don't cramp your back muscles or choke your throat if you aren't the "average proportions". Its sexism in the sense that men are expected to tolerate such things and often aren't even aware of the underlying issues (they just know they hate shirts) but it isn't a "perfect storm". A perfect storm would be things like society placing virtually no value on men who can earn a decent wage, the vast majority of school kids who are failing by a large margin being male and most of the additional effort to help disadvantaged people going towards getting girls and women into the few careers they don't already dominate.