While I think your point is highly valid, and interesting, it doesn't necessarily invalidate the OP or render the piece "crap".
You yourself acknowledge that male European dress shifted to trousers due to the influence of horses. It's also fairly reasonable to assert that many modern dress conventions are heavily influenced by European culture.
The OP may not have extensively covered the history of trousers, but it does a reasonable (albeit, short) job of describing why trousers are commonplace in modern society.
Great example of why I hate this usage "we" though. Whenever I read an article about something "we" do I often wonder who this "we" is, especially when I don't really think I'm personally part of "we".
Consider the question, "Why do we ritualize procreative marriages so universally?" Here we is pretty clearly all of humanity and there are probably some good functional explanations. For example, modern technology, reproduction is pretty heavily tied to sex, and men and women are biologically situated differently relative to parenthood. Everywhere, mothers are mothers because they give birth. Everywhere fathers are fathers because they are recognized as such by society (and this is only loosely tied to biological parenthood even in the most strict cultures like our own).
At the same time, what message does this send to folks who are GLBT? Is it saying "you aren't human?"
I think at some point you just have to come to terms with the fact that "we" will always have some exclusions and not worry too much about it.
I find this interesting. I mean, personally, I agree that the word 'we' quite often makes it sound like the speaker is (to me, offensively) including people they oughtn't in the group they are speaking of. Especially when talking about my company, I feel like I'm weaselling when I say 'we' - like saying "Mistakes were made" (I mean, sometimes I say that, but when I do, I'm saying it, you know, for effect. Making fun of the idea of trying to dodge responsibility for a mistake. I mean, after Reagan said it in all seriousness, I don't think the phrase could be used non-ironically.)
But, I often find that people that are better 'team players' than I am? they prefer the 'we' - one of the people I work with gets irritated when I try to break 'we' down into him or me.
"We're in it together!" is what he says. All our company activities are supported by both of us. And, while that's not completely true, it's mostly true of most things. His 'we' I think, is just as valid as my 'there is only you and me' - it's just a different way of looking at cooperation.
He just has a much more communal way of thinking, while I (I say in part because I have more experience with communal decision making, but I don't know how true that is) prefer to think in a more structured hierarchical way, where a person has responsibility for a task and they delegate off parts of that task.
While this is slightly off topic, using "we" instead of "I" when representing your company is a very important concept that goes beyond being a team player. The use of we vs I is a liability issue, and knowing when to use which is critical to not getting sued (e.g. - "I believe that the design is adequate" vs "We believe that the design is adequate" or "I would never hire a redhead" vs "We would never hire a redhead").
Internally, I agree with you that one should always take full credit for their work, good or bad (at least verbally...). Externally, one should always remember what context your statement may be taken in, especially the context of a courtroom.
eh, in the things I am worried about? getting sued is pretty far down the list. I am /far/ more concerned, for instance, about screwing up my taxes. (probably my biggest fear, as everything else can only take me to zero, in the worst case. Tax debit is forever.) Or, of, say, a serious security incident. That could kill my business and greatly damage my reputation in the process.
Eh, but really? I believe that this "avoid getting sued at all costs" attitude in general leads to suboptimal decisions being made in many different areas; and as a systemic force, it pushes all companies to do things the same way that other companies do them. "Industry best practices" - things like that which are usually code for 'expensive mediocrity' - I don't even think it makes sense for big companies that are worth suing, usually, but big companies are run by managers, not owners, and managers are far more concerned about avoiding blame than they are about anything else.
Really, I think this relative freedom from the fear of lawsuits is a huge advantage I have, and yeah, if I want investors or if I otherwise want to move into management in the corporate world? I'll have to change my tune, but for now? I get to enjoy my freedom.
You yourself acknowledge that male European dress shifted to trousers due to the influence of horses. It's also fairly reasonable to assert that many modern dress conventions are heavily influenced by European culture.
The OP may not have extensively covered the history of trousers, but it does a reasonable (albeit, short) job of describing why trousers are commonplace in modern society.