I’ve noticed there are a LOT of thingies for putting inside your shoes made now. Cushions for the heel area, the instep, to keep your feet from sliding forward down your high heeled shoes, thing to put underneath irritating straps. This stuff is found usually with the Dr. Scholls shoe liners, the shoe polish and shoe laces, usually at the end of a shoe aisle. So, apparently some companies are making a modest buck selling to women who ditched pantyhose but whose feet are then getting chewed up by footwear.
It’s been decades since I wore skirt n’ pantyhose, but I have gathered that pantyhose are “out”. But does this mean blinding white legs with (no matter how closely shaven) stubble are OK to show in public? I think this would be extremely UNprofessional and sloppy, but apparently it’s a good thing. I’ve never thought of pantyhose as something The Man invented solely to oppress and torture women with. (When they were invented, they freed women from girdles and garters, after all.)
Companies have dress codes. It is the same as a company that doesn’t allow its male employees to wear short sleeves.
I was being more observant this morning after reading this thread yesterday and I was correct. All the professional ladies that came in with above the knee skirts had some kind of hose. There was one with a 3/4 skirt and I have no idea if she had them on or not. Even a court reporter that I wouldn’t think would have a rigid dress code when going to take testimony out of the courthouse, had stocking on.
Personally I wear heels and dress pants everyday and it would seem yucky to me not to have some kind of stocking or trouser sock on but instead have my bare feet in dress shoes. I got an ankle tattoo last year and felt VERY self conscious not having my feet covered inside my shoes, even while wearing pants, for those few days.
My expectation is the legal field will never move to casual clothes at least for public events such as going to court. Just like you won’t ever see a politician show up in casual clothes for an important event.
I work in a municipal court and I can tell you that none of the judges or female attorneys wear hose on a regular basis. By far the majority of female attorneys appearing do not wear hose. I also work near Wall St. and about 90% of well dressed women in the street, presumably working in the Financial industry, do not wear hose.
ETA: in all other respects they are formally attired (conservative suits, low pumps, inconspicuous jewelry, etc.).
Not really. The equivalent of short sleeves would be not allowing women to wear skirts shorter than a certain length. It’s a question of the garments you’re wearing underneath. Could you imagine requiring men to wear a certain type of undershirt?
I remember when every woman with an office job wore pantyhose–unless she wore slacks & could get by with knee highs. In Houston, Texas. (Heck, I remember when high school girls wore panty girdles with hooks for our stockings. Under our slips; or half slips if it was really hot.)
Styles have changed. Pantyhose are history unless you’re going to a very formal event or you work in a very old-fashioned office. When the weather gets chilly, we wear tights.
Well-fitted shoes & regular baths or showers prevent most problems. Shoe stores usually stock little footies for those trying on shoes.
I disagree. Short sleeves aren’t allowed because they show a bare arm. Pantyhose must be worn to cover a bare leg. I think it is exactly the same. It has nothing to do with undergarments. You don’t see an undershirt, you do see stockings.
The more I read about how many see professional women not wearing hose, the more surprised I am. While googling professional dress guidelines, I couldn’t find one site that states being hoseless is okay. As a matter of fact, the first link states that is inappropriate in business.
I’ll go to any and all lengths to avoid the dreaded hose. In winter, when it’s cold enough that bare legs aren’t an option, I just wear leggings and then boots and then my skirt/dress covers up most of the leg that isn’t covered by my boots.
No, short sleeves aren’t allowed because they’re casual.
I’d say that you do see a man’s undershirt to about the same extent that you don’t see a leg under a woman’s hose. Which is to say, you can often make out the undershirt, and if you think you can’t see leg through hose, you’re clearly picturing the wrong undergarment.
My company’s dress guidelines don’t give specifics for businesswear, but under business casual, they do include “Shoes with or without socks/hosiery.” I’ve worn skirts to client events both with and without hose.
Keep in mind that any general guidelines for professional dress are going to err on the side of being overly formal. I can think of very few business situations where it would be more of a problem to be overdressed than underdressed.
Me too. I actually like wearing hose. It firms everything up, smooths out skin tone, hides minor flaws, makes my shoes feel better, and so on. But then again, I work at home, so I only wear it when I’m out and about and wearing a skirt (more with shorter skirts than long ones). And especially so for things like church, weddings, funerals, etc.
Bare legs with professional dress? Does not compute. (And I’m 43.)
It wasn’t all that long ago that many women could not wear pants to a professional job.
In 1985 I interviewed with EDS (the Ross Perot company) and women could not wear pants there and men had to wear a suit. They finally allowed pants for women sometime in the 90s.
One thing I always thought was really dumb was when the copier repair guys would show up in a suit and tie even though their job could get them dirty. They finally stopped that a while back and now they wear golf shirts and dockers type pants.
I personally think of not wearing hose as a sign of youth, not informality. As women age, their legs age, and thus have more imperfections that look better covered up. That said, usually, it seems that the most professional women are moving on to pantsuits, which are finally allowed for women.
The only time I’ve seen young women in hose is when it’s cold and their uniform requires showing legs–like, say, majorettes or cheerleaders. And even that’s rare, as now they are allowed to wear alternate uniforms–the cheerleaders wear windsuit pants.
All of this said: I do agree that it’s probably better to wear something between your foot and expensive shoes–I know a lot of people who use those little disposable socks that are used at shoe stores. (They are just hosiery that covers the foot only.) Heck, I’ll occasionally wear them with certain shoes that look better sockless-as my feet react badly with man made materials, even crocks, which have holes in them.
I wore the tiny little hose things with some of my shoes when I worked retail and was on my feet the entire shift. They provided a little more padding and kept me from getting blisters.
With my towering heels, which reveal my toes, I wear a small strip of moleskin just on the ball of my foot where otherwise I would get a blister. In these shoes (4-inch heels, and I have small feet) I am virtually on point and I need some traction, which I don’t get if I wear any kind of stocking. There’s a place on top where I’ll get a blister if I have to walk too much, but oh well. These are very special occasion shoes I might wear twice a year.
But there are some other shoes I would choose to wear hose with, just because my feet will feel better in them and my legs will look better.
I don’t think there’s really a lot less foot sweating going on with hose/without hose. If it’s your shoes you’re worried about. In fact, I think this requires some explanation–will you sweat less if you’re wearing hose? How about socks? It seems to me that you’d sweat more in socks, but the socks would absorb some of it. It’s a sure bet that stockings won’t absorb it, and your feet are still going to sweat.
Oh, and the legal field? Yeah, lots of women still wear pantyhose. But then, lots of legal offices still use Word Perfect.
I’d say not even for formal events. If you look at red carpet events, women who are wearing shorter dresses are bare-legged, so you’ve got to assume that women whose feet can’t barely be seen aren’t wearing hose either. And this photo, which I love, from the 2009 White House Correspondents Dinner shows four fairly powerful women in formalwear and nary a nylon in sight. (That’s the First Lady’s press secretary, the former White House social secretary, the senior advisor the President for domestic policy and the president of the largest black publishing company in the U.S.)
