I just had to laugh after reading sven’s post. TMI: I got off the rag yesterday, and today I’m wearing the skirt that’s so tight I have trouble getting out of the car.
For whatever reason, like it or not, there is sex discrimination in clothing.
In most places in America, it’s acceptable for males to be topless in very informal settings (at the beach, out jogging), but certainly not for females. On the other hand, there is nothing a man can get away with wearing to the office that bares his calves or shoulders or feet, unless he works in a very casual office.
Your two examples are not remotely comparable.
The difference in toplessness is completely based on the differences in the nature of women’s breasts versus men’s. The former have a completely different connotation than the latter, from erotic and cultural standpoints. By contrast, there’s nothing inherently different about men’s and women’s arms/legs/etc. that would drive a difference in allowed or expected exposure. No, the reason women typically expose arms, legs, upper chests in situations where men do not is based on a difference in how much exposure is expected from women versus men.
I don’t know what the culture is like at your office - I know that the general corporate culture has changed a lot since the late 80s/early 90s which was the last time I heard this complaint from a man, because “business shorts” for women were in style at the time.
At the time, it was also a requirement for women to wear pantyhose to the office (unless you were wearing pants and knee highs). And the “business shorts” was basically a women’s jacket with a pair of shorts made like, and the length of, a comparable business skirt.
So, for a guy, it would be like wearing shorts, a shirt, a jacket and a tie.
So when you look at a woman getting to wear shorts, make sure you look at the whole outfit - women’s shorts are not always designed strictly for “comfortable and cool”, and other dress requirements might put them right back into the uncomfortable zone