The Problem with the Word “Pants”

A unique point of view on what our society wrongfully calls “pants”


Eight out of every ten Americans is in debt. That means that 80% of citizens belonging to one of the richest countries in the world owe money, and most of these people will likely die owing that money. Where does this debt come from, you may ask? Some simple answers might be taxes, student loans, or bills, but facing the facts: these answers are simply wrong.

The only logical response to the utter poverty in our nation is the ridiculous, and quite frankly, embarrassing deceit we have been thrown into by retailers through the pants industry. We have funneled money into a broken industry that continues to produce an improperly named product.

Let me begin by stating my case: “pants” (as they are wrongfully called) are ONE article of clothing, not TWO, so why is this word a plural? The true wordage would indeed be pant, which makes it much clearer to the average consumer that they are only buying one thing. It is this exact trickery that has placed such a hole in our economy. Jeans (or jean, as it should be) are extremely overpriced because they can overcharge you for buying two. However, if it is just one article of clothing, how is it that you are paying for two? You might be saying this is ridiculous and that clearly everyone knows it is just one article of clothing, but by labeling it as “pants” it implies, that yes, you are buying two, which means you are paying for two when you are only getting one, which eventually leaves you with HALF of your money gone. Disappeared. Escaped into the black hole of the cash register.

Pants are the only thing this applies to. For example, shoes. This word is a plural, but this does imply that you are buying two because you are! You probably could buy one single shoe, perhaps if you were an amputee, and could be saving money on this product. However, if you were still an amputee, and needed to purchase a pant, this is not an option for you because it is only one item of clothing, and you would probably still have hips so you could just cut off the other leg of the pant and go on with your life — your genitals happily covered by this singular piece of clothing.

You might be saying to yourself, this is a silly argument, it’s called “pants” because we have two legs. Wrong again, my friend! The legs are adjoined at the waist, and the waist is also a part of the pant, therefore connecting this together into one item. We do not call a shirt a “shirts” simply because we have two arms! It may be hard to at first accept the lies put forth by this government. It may be difficult to understand how we are paying for two when we are only buying one, because truly, the fact of the matter is that “pants” is not “pants” at all, it is “pant.” If the government would sell to us this item of clothing as it should be, singular, then we might begin to repair this economic hole. We Americans could escape dept, earn back our livelihoods, and start new beginnings. This is all available to us with “pant.”