Here is what I know:
Men are expected to remove hats indoors, women may leave them on.
Same goes for when the national anthem is played, whether indoors our out.
What are the other instances in which a man may remain hatted indoors?
I’m not sure about this being an expectation in modern society. It certainly isn’t a general expectation. Otherwise we wouldn’t see so many men wearing hats, especially baseball caps, inside.
If men are hard-boiled private eyes or mild mannered reporters for great metropolitan newspapers they can keep their hats on even while making love, as long as they keep one foot on the floor.
Wait. What time period are we talking about? Because no one wears a hat ever. Caps, yes. But hats? No.
Unless they are orthodox Jews, of course. Then they can take both feet off the floor.
If he’s in the military, when under arms (carrying a weapon).
There is, if I recall correctly, some sort of special elevator exception to the indoors rule. Which is what makes me think that “indoors” may not exactly refer to being merely under a roof, but, in the case of a commercial building, actually at the place you’re going.
And indeed, according to at least one site, hats don’t come off in places that are “akin to public streets.”
Use of hats depends a lot upon where you live. I wore a spiffy Panama to work today, as I usually do in summer. Caps are for sports or kids. I do wear a cap sailing.
The varying rules for men and women in the past probably has its roots in the church and original sin. Men should not wear a hat in church, but women should. Women to cover their shame. Hardly suprising that such ideas are now mostly long forgotten.
I seem to recall an exemption for cowboy hats when worn by real cowboys.
They are, however, required to tip them and say “Howdy, Ma’am” when the schoolmarm sashays by.
This is not true.
Not only is it not true, but it doesn’t appear to make any sense. The doctrine of original sin makes no distinction between men and women.
I suspect the truth is the other way around. Men uncovered in church because the removal by a man of his headgear was already an established gesture of respect. Headgear was used to signify political status - e.g. the laurel wreath, the Phrygian cap - and the removal of one’s hat could signify formal acknowledgement of the higher status of the person thus saluted. (This symbolism survives in the military salute, which looks a lot like a vestigial hat-tip.) But this may not have applied to women, who in the classical world had lesser status to begin with, and/or because they didn’t have the kind of role in public life which made such gestures of respect or submission useful or desirable. (Or, possibly, because they didn’t use headgear to signify status.)
I can assure you that I have heard exactly what I wrote used as justifcation in historical contexts. Mostly Anglican high church.
A quick bit of Googling calls up a very very detailed and long winded set of ideas, http://www.biblebeliever.co.za/Brethren%20Assemblys/Woman's%20Head%20Covering%20&%20The%20Glory%20of%20God.htm but about half way down you get this:
In the dim past the various churches were not nearly so sanguine about the role of women, and the idea of blaming Eve for the fall had a lot of currency. Heck, it wasn’t that long ago some people thought it was amusing to debate whether women had souls.
Oh, yeah. My momma taught me to remove my hat and my cigar in the presence of a lady. Whatever else I take off depends on how lucky I get.
In general I don’t see any hat rules followed anywhere now. People wear them where and when they want to. Some bald men and women never take them off. Some people even are buried wearing a hat.
Yet it still remains untrue.
That web page neither supports your theory; nor does it hold any authority on this matter. Biblebeliever.co.za?
The orgins of the practice are multitude, and include signs of respect, symbolism of miltary helms and armour, and in some medieval periods encoded into protocol for greeting royalty and trickling down through various classes, the headwear being constituted as a challenge. These and many other facets combined to the - relatively - modern social rules concerning hats.
The fact that it may have taken place in churches is incidental; it took place in churches because it took place everywhere, and the tradition stuck.
I’ve no idea who they are either, but they do give the biblical citations, and I doubt you are going to suggest those are wrong.
True, but none of this addresses the difference between men and women. Military, armour, challenges? This is all male stuff. There is no useful mechanism by which this addresses the disparity between men and women in the rules, and that is the OP’s question. I might note that the sway of the church, and the very close alignment between church and royalty in historical times would, if anything, lend greater creedence to an origin in biblical prescription, not lessen it.
Something we will almost certainly never know. But the influence of the church on tradition versus tradition on the church has run pretty strong through history.
Part of the traditional idea is that one removes outerwear when indoors. Thus, when visiting someone’s home or seated at a restaurant, the hat (and usually the coat) comes off. The exemption for women is based on the notion that (usually) the hat is an integral part of a complete outfit rather than just an added piece of outerwear. As mentioned above, not all places with a roof are considered “indoors,” one example being a shopping mall.
Religious buildings sometimes have their own particular traditions. In some, all heads are to be covered; in others, men’s heads are to be covered. There’s no blanket rule that applies to all.
Women don’t remove their hats, men remove their hats, unless they lied to their women about being bald. Then they may keep them on.
So if you go into a room and the man says “I don’t have to remove my hat,” you, as a woman, will know he’s bald
You better not try that at my mom’s dinner table, alls I’m sayin’.
Hell, don’t try that anywhere in my mom’s house.
I’m certainly going to suggest that the origin of hat protocol does not lie in biblical citations, whether or not any coincidentally happen to mention the same subject, or whather any given theologist (or owner of a random biblical website) interprets them that way.
You kinda lost me there. 
Military, armour, challenges are all male stuff. And it’s the men who remove their hats. It most certainly does address the difference between men and women!
I’m sorry, man, but the origin of the practice is not religious - it is military. It predates any Christian church by centuries, and the well-documented (as opposed to randomly theorized by a poster on a messageboard) practice continued well throughout the whole of the last two millenia based upon well-known protocols.
There is no evidence of your theory whatsoever; but there is boatloads of historical evidence on the actual origins of such things. We’re not just talking middle-ages here.
Cultures predating Christianity with a wide variety of non-connected religious beliefs adopted similar customs for similar reasons; heck, even the Chinese and Japanese did it, and they sure as hell didn’t base it on any biblical citations!
But we do know.
Well, you don’t know; but historians do. This just ain’t one of those vague areas. Unless you have some actual evidence to the contrary, I’m gonna go with the weight of universal research.
Absolutely. How about a cite or two? Seriously, I’d be interested, I never claimed my ideas were anything but a WAG, but you are claiming “universal research”. So some hard facts would be interesting.