Even if you don't have the skills, it generally shouldn't matter what clothes you wear.
Like don't strap knives to your arms, and do wear a good mask, but generally we spend a lot of time policing other folk's bodies and attire, and for what?
This is actually a common meme:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/fbwnd0/im_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/ajthjb/thi...
https://www.quora.com/What-do-people-think-good-programmers-...
How developers dress really depends on the company and the culture there. E.g. in Germany in many of the conservative older companies, wearing a suite is mandatory, and esp also in all those consulting companies. Also in many of the privatized companies like Deutsche Post, Deutsche Bahn, etc. But then, in other more modern software companies, people would make fun of that.
The idea that you must adhere to some clothing dress code rules is really against the open-minded principles of software developers.
But if an individual just wear one themselves by choice, it's silly to judge them for that choice. Interviewing is hard, maybe they feel more confident in a suit.
I feel company culture should be less about someone's personal style/clothing/hobbies than if someone, for example, berates and yells at fellow employees who make a mistake or talks calmly through issues without treating others like they are the problem.
There are only specific cultural understandings, each of which almost always map poorly when applied cross culturally.
That’s just untrue and shows a misunderstanding of what conservatism is, which is about small gov and a return to the roots of said gov. While individual beliefs of how this should be achieved will very between the different nations, the general concept is the same.
From the little I understand, it's complex and dynamic and opaque to the point that current scholars and US government entities studying China have difficulty explaining it; I'm not even going to try.
Some signals are loud and drown out more complex ones. "Sex sells." The more those types of signals are tolerated or incentivized on a platform, the further it will be dominated by noise masking covert signals.
I once attended a round table discussion in a previous job. The topic was women and work. I'm male, and was a manager, and figured that if half my directs are women I should do what I can to listen and support them.
Anyways, the guest of honor proceeded to advise the 100+ female managers in the room to, among other things, "use their assets" to influence people in the organization. This was met with a stunned but approving clamor.
I felt embarrassed, as if I had accidentally crashed a private sleepover. The person sharing the advice had a proven track record. Why hang onto sexuality signals? Because they work.
It doesn't look like the stereotype of conformity from our parent's generation, so people don't acknowledge it for what it is. Or think that conflict between subcultures with a handful of mutually exclusive standards for conforming somehow nulls it out.
I'd guess it stems from some feelings of insecurity.
So, yes, insecurity but primarily insecurity about losing power and control, by men. That's why we focus so much on what "she" wears but nobody gives two shits if I show up to work in flipflops, board shorts and a tank top. Why would they? I'm a dude.
Feminism has an extremely broad remit and it's all based on the idea that actual ideology routinely boxes in half of the population in some way or another. It's just a fact, and thus there is endless study that can be undertaken.
Men get made fun of for what they wear all the time. So, I don’t get this argument that no one cares what men wear because we all certainly do. See mens wardrobe options vs womens. Compare the two - look at what is normal for one and normal for another. You’ll see one has far more selection than the other.
I think another aspect is that men's fashion is inherently more limited - because - men are aware of the critiques and don't want to deal with it.
Interestingly enough, this probably applies to the people who were dismissing Obama on the basis of that tan suit as well.
Has this ever been substantiated or verified publicly? Which industry are those and why?
Well, I'd say it's a bit more than "almost nobody" [1], even if you discount trialers.
But we do know that many companies do feel that way, which is why many companies try to create a "family friendly" image. And as Google has said themselves, why many don't want to be associated with "non family friendly" images
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/social_issues-july-dec13...
Advertising itself is that. Sex sells, or at least everyone believes sex sells.
What you wear when you're not trying to convince anyone of anything is your own business, but when you're actually trying to reach someone, maybe it's not asking too much to demonstrate some basic self awareness? If you're not willing to go that far then why should anyone listen to you?