Mary looked bloody brilliant in the coat/shoes combo - every inch the attractive, interesting, lively, intelligent older woman. The fact that Gill finds it distressing in such a terribly personal way (it really seems to have upset him) speaks volumes about his attitude to women. It is no surprise to find him slagging off your mention of masculinity, further down the review.
The problem is, Mary, that this style of dress is not deferent enough: as Sheila Jeffreys argues in Beauty and Misogyny, the reason why women are meant to trip around in high heels, dye their hair to youthful colours, wear clothes that show off their figure etc, is as a compliment to men. Allowing yourself to go on telly without undergoing the necessary preparation is experienced by men like Gill as very rude.
How much of an arse could this man be.... 'Just turning up as a [insulting phrase censored because it, and he, are revolting] and demanding to be taken seriously is an enormous vanity' - as if her career as a Cambridge Classics professor, authorship of a hugely popular book on the subject, being acknowledged by generations of students as a brilliant lecturer, were not adequate reasons to think we might be possibly interested in what she has to say about Pompeii! 
OK, and the bit in the review that really makes him look pathetic: he tries to place himself on the moral and intellectual high ground by finding an aspect of Beard's argument to attack. Obviously he personally gets all antsy when she makes points about Roman masculinity, so he assumes there must be something wrong with the argument, and finds it in the fact that she is supposedly using 'the present' to explain 'the past'. He even gives it a posh sounding name, 'the great archaic fallacy'. (He's a bit woolly here.... does he mean 'a modern concept'? in what sense can you not use the present to explain the past? How do we normally do history then?) Because Gill, with the extraordinary arrogance that you see in his type of man, doesn't seem to twig that Mary Beard as a historian who has thought endlessly about the complicated relationship between the present and the past, will have a far more sophisticated understanding of this relationship than him. No, he thinks the very fact she has used a modern word, 'paternalistic' (I thought she said patriarchal, but hey ho) to refer to the Romans represents some terrible theoretical errors and he, the mighty Gill, has found her out in it!
wanker.