Workwear is much more of an issue for women than men

[Echobelly]

Had a discussion with DH (which turned into a bit of an argument) where I was saying I was interested in the idea I heard that for women there is no ‘neutral’ outfit that won’t be judged in the workplace one way or another, whereas for men it’s pretty simple in most settings – suit = professional, casual = not trying enough/low status (unless it’s somewhere very casual). He got annoyed because he felt that he saw women wearing what they like at his workplace, whereas guys had to wear suits and the lack of choice pissed him off. I didn’t feel it worth replying that yes, lack of choice/expression for men is an annoyance, but it’s nothing like as bad as having your whole competence sometimes questioned on a small detail of your outfit as can happen with women.

Ask 50 people what they think about the likely work performance of a guy in a dark suit with a sober tie and probably all of them will say ‘He looks professional’ – ask them to comment on a woman in a suit and you’ll probably get a multitude of replies that might question whether she looks ‘distracting’, ‘frumpy’, ‘high maintenance’, ‘low self-worth’, ‘wallflower’ etc depending on some small variances. Yes, women in DH’s office may seem to ‘get away’ with more in what they wear in terms of not being disciplined for it, but maybe more of them are being judged unprofessional, unambitious, flirty etc because of their choices. Whereas men can know where they stand with what they wear, even if it's annoying that it's so limited.

DH suggested that surely ‘neutral’ for a woman would be a dark suit, white shirt and mid heel – I pointed out some people would declare that frumpy, anonymous, low-status, dull, that a woman who dressed like that was undynamic and unambitious. He really did not get it!
So yes, dress expectations for men are irritating, but they are pretty unambiguous and tend not to have serious outcomes, whereas women will always be judged and often taken significantly less seriously on tiny, everyday details of ordinary clothes in a way that will never happen to men unless they happen to be unusually flamboyant.

Shorts with bare feet, by any chance, deydododatdodontdeydo?

Sandals I think. Even in winter. In Sheffield?

Not Sheffield. And completely bare feet.
Oh dear.

OOH yes, the PPE problems!
My company always provided me with boots that fitted, so that wasn't a problem, but my coveralls were always a bit odd on me - just baggy enough to make me look like a kid dressing up! Compounded by the safety glasses that were too big for my face (one size does not fit all). At least despite looking a bit daft this didn't cause any practical problems,

More of an issue was that I could never get gloves that fitted (sounds minor but made my job a lot harder) and as the smallest slicker suits available in the stores were "XL" I had to have the sleeves gaffa taped shut or they were useless. Having to remove the gaffa tape, leave the worksite, change out of work gear, and head into the accomodation unit to use the only female toilet took bloody ages too.

We had unisex uniform ( apart from our hats) at work. The female trousers relied on a 1950's sizing where women had tiny waists and bigger hips. I have small hips, no bum but a thicker waist. I had to beg and beg to be allowed to order men's trousers.

Responding to deydododatdodontdeydo's messages, I think the truth is that for clothing in any kind of formal situation, men have easy rules to follow, but they are very rigid. Whereas for women, there's lots of choice but never a completely right answer, and the world is always ready to criticise.

(And that professor is in a position where he can do what he wants, as long as he decides not to listen to objections. Anyway, he probably thinks professors are meant to be eccentric.)

Except in the summer...

@TeiTetua - yes, that's it expressed better than I can put it!

In my experience, however, it's usually other women who do the judging with regard to acting as the self appointed fashion police. Unless an outfit is really unprofessionally racy (e.g. excessive cleavage) or really frumpish most blokes wouldn't notice.

I'd also say that there are up and downs to both sides. Men have less agency in their choices which obviously 'safer' in some regards, but I remember working in an office with faulty a/c where it was 30c. The women were wearing light summery dresses and I was stuck there in a suit and tie with my shirt literally sticking to my back under my jacket. It was vile!

I don't agree that men are not judged on their clothes. For context, I work in an investment management company in the City of London. We have a fair mix of clothing choices from relatively casual to ultra smart (both sexes). I have to say, whether the wearer is male or female, I honk their clothes do say something about them. Some examples spring to mind.

A younger person with an obviously cheap suit (H&M, Top Shop for example) I generally think they're not long out of uni, possibly still on grad scheme. They're clearly making an effort to appear "professional" but probably don't have much cash. They are probably not very experienced in their job yet.

A guy who wears brightly coloured chino type trousers and a rugby style top I tend to peg as a bit of a "hooray Henry" type. They've usually attended a "good" school and university. Probably been in the role a little longer than the above. Tends to fall into two categories - either very talented at their job but possibly not marvellous social skills. Or not very good at their job but have an over inflated sense of ego.

An older person with a clearly tailored suit and nice shirts (possibly with monogrammed cuffs). Been around for ages. Probably senior. Probably a pain in the arse. The female equivalent tends to be nicely tailored dress or shirt/trousers and heels.

I probably sound like a judgy cow but I do somewhat think that "clothes maketh the wo/man".