people keep asking why I wear pantyhose, career coach wants me to use someone else’s job title, and more

by Alison Green on June 27, 2023

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. People keep asking why I wear pantyhose

I am an adult woman who doesn’t shave my legs. I don’t like the feeling of shaving, I’m prone to rashes that I feel are more noticeable than the hair, and I hate having stubble. I’m fine with my hairy legs at the beach, but I feel like the leg hair would look unprofessional in an office. At the office, I am always wearing pants or hosiery. I’m a recent grad in my 20’s so my boss let me know that I didn’t have to wear pantyhose if I didn’t want to. The dress code is slightly more formal than business casual. Pantyhose is appropriate, just a bit old-fashioned. My boss and one other woman at the office wear them, but they are both about 60. Even the women in their 30s and 40s don’t wear pantyhose. (The office staff is eight women. The only man who works here is my boss’s retired father who shows up for a few hours two or three days a week.)

When I started, I had the convenient excuse that the office was way too cold and I couldn’t do bare legs. Our office shares a building and we are not the people who own it. The back office was regularly set to 68, sometimes even lower. It was believable and nobody asked further. Now I’m sharing the back with somebody new and she purchased a space heater. I’m not complaining — the office is way more comfortable now — but I am once again being asked why I never have bare legs. It’s not like they are singling me out, talking about clothes is regular small talk in the office. Wearing pantyhose by choice in your 20s is somewhat unusual and it keeps coming up. What should I say?

Option 1: “I like them!” Because you’re allowed to like them. People probably think you’re wearing pantyhose because you feel like you have to, so if you reframe it as something you like, it might take care of those comments.

Option 2: “I don’t shave my legs so I prefer this at work.” There’s no reason you can’t just own it —and if you do, you might hear, “Hell, go with hairy legs if you want to, we don’t care!”

There’s definitely still a thing about women’s body hair, particularly legs and armpits, but it’s starting to change a bit. It would still be A Thing in many offices, but there are an increasing number of offices where it wouldn’t be. And by A Thing, I mean mostly that it could be something people notice, think about, and have feelings about, not necessarily anything more than that. You might care about that or you might not.

In any case, you need to know your office to judge how much of a thing it might be, but I wouldn’t assume hairy legs would be side-eyed everywhere (especially in less conservative fields).

2. Career coach wants me to use someone else’s job title

I’ve recently hired a career coach as I’ve been looking to leave my job for a while and figured putting money down would finally motivate me to fully participate in the job-searching process. It’s been going fine, but I’m concerned about their advice for my resume. They’ve changed my current job title to fit the jobs that I’m looking for. For example, if my current job title is operations manager and I’m hoping to transition to the leadership coaching field, they’ve encouraged me to change that to say “leadership coach.” Aside from that just not representing my current role, I’m weirded out by the fact that someone at my current workplace does have the title “leadership coach.” If people from my workplace see my LinkedIn profile updated with that job title, they might actually think I’m having a break from reality and that I think I have my coworker’s job.

Is it normal to paint your resume and LinkedIn to reflect what you’re looking for instead of what you’ve actually done? If so, how would I do that without confusing all my past and current colleagues?

No! Not even slightly normal. This is not a thing that is done or would be okay to do. You can’t just randomly change your current job title to something completely different. And even if you could do that, which you can’t, it would be bizarre to list “leadership coach” as your title and then, presumably, have the bulleted list of accomplishments for that job be things that have nothing to do with that job and instead reflect your actual job of operations manager.

What does your career coach suggest you do when an interviewer asks why your title doesn’t match your resume’s description of your work? What do they say will happen when employers contact your company to verify your title and discover that you lied about it? (For the record, you could lose the offer.) And there’s also your very good point about how weird it will look to colleagues if you use someone else’s title on LinkedIn.

This is so astoundingly and strangely off-base about how hiring works that I’d be very wary of taking any other advice from this coach.

3. Should I report deceased people’s LinkedIn profiles?

As I get older, I’ve encountered former colleagues who died but their social media accounts including LinkedIn are still active. A freaky thing on LinkedIn is that LinkedIn generates posts on people’s work anniversaries as if those people are still working at the employers. LinkedIn support accepts requests to remove those accounts from non-family members by providing an obituary. I have done so once, but felt nosy afterwards.

What’s your take on reporting deceased people’s LinkedIn accounts? Some people, while still living, wrote a post notifying their connections that their accounts will be closed because death was imminent. Some people also entrusted family members to use their accounts to notify others upon their death.

Unless the person is a family member or you’re the executor of their will, I’d stay out of it. You have no way of knowing what their wishes might have been; it’s possible they or their family wanted their profile to stay up, and you risk directly violating their wishes. It’s really theirs/their family’s/their executor’s to handle.

4. My interviewer apologized for ghosting (but they didn’t and I wish they had)

About six weeks ago, I interviewed for an entry-level position in a field I’ve been considering moving into. They told me they hoped to have an update after two weeks and they’d let me know if anything changed. Then I repeatedly heard from them via email with apologies for not having updates yet and explanations about the status of the offer — an industry conference delayed us, the offer is stuck with HR, etc. Then six days after the last follow-up, they sent me a rejection email with a long apology for “radio silence” and “ghosting.”

However, I did not feel remotely ghosted. It’s standard in my experience for interview processes in this field to be pretty slow moving with lots of gaps in communication (a comparable org told me after an interview in May that they hoped to have an update “before September” for a job I applied for in February). So I was assuming that these detailed updates about the status of the offer were because they were planning to offer me the offer. I know that basically the number one thing you tell people about job searching is to assume nothing from a potential employer’s communications, but I was assuming. And now I do feel a little resentful that these updates spent so much time pushing this offer to the front of my brain when I could have just ignored it until the rejection rolled in.

Is this type of communication typical? Should I reframe my expectations here, or is it worth bringing up to the hiring manager that I didn’t find their approach to the process as helpful as it seemed like they wanted it to be? I know more transparency is theoretically good thing, but this felt like more of an exercise in frustration than a meaningful shift in the power dynamics of the interview process.

Nah, let it go. They were trying to do the right thing: they gave you a timeline and then tried to keep you updated about potential changes to it. It’s possible, even likely, that they were doing that because they did consider you a top candidate and thought they could end up making you an offer — in fact, this looks to me a lot like what can happen when you’re in the top two or three candidates and they want to make sure they maintain the connection because they very well could end up offering you the job. But even if it’s not that, it’s worth reframing your expectations; let this just reinforce that the only true  sign that an offer is imminent is when they say “we are sending over an offer.”

5. Do you have to be paid for your waiting time if your manager is late to open the building?

I have a question about the legality of docking hourly employee pay. Let’s say that an hourly employee is scheduled to start work at 5 am. The opening manager is scheduled to start at the same time and this manager has the keys to unlock the door to get into the building. What happens if the manager oversleeps and doesn’t arrive until 6 am? Can the business dock the pay of the hourly employee by one hour? I can’t find anything online about this type of situation, but I hope that the employee would be required to be paid for that time since it is not their fault that they can’t get inside the building to clock in.

Yes, they’d need to be paid for the hour they were waiting. This falls under what’s called “waiting time,” which is where you arrive at work and are required to remain there until you’re needed. This is the same concept as if you got to work and your computer was down so you couldn’t work immediately but were expected to wait there while it was fixed.

You may also like:
{ 485 comments }

{ 485 comments… read them below }

      1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

        “t’s been going fine”
        This letter reminds me of those other ones to Alison:
        “I have a great employee, but she lies about everything.”
        No, it’s not fine.
        You paid someone to assess you, your resume and your interview presence. You trusted he would do that fairly and honestly.
        He said, just lie to get what you want.
        If you can’t believe what he says, what purpose does his assessment serve?

    2. Where’s the Orchestra?*

      Yeah – this is not a good coach. Any chance they are part of a company and you can switch to somebody new if you can’t get a refund for any unused sessions?

    3. Total Killjoy*

      Yes, this is so far outside business norms and puts you at a legal risk to the degree that you should request a refund. You might even want to write a review laying out the facts of what this person told you — not required but might help someone else.

        1. Meep*

          Not a legal risk, but we had a guy who was fresh out of college. Mind you, he had a PhD, but he had never had a job prior and did not have the PhD experience to back his ego up (he was 25 and used a dual credit program to get credits to count for his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and PhD). He really only got the PhD for status and got out as quickly as possible. But did he think that PhD entitle him to being “Senior Engineer”. When we told him he was just regular “Engineer”, he changed his position to “Principal Engineer” not understanding that was a leg up from senior. Bossman was furious and tore him a new one.

          He was fired for lying about other nonsense shortly after.

          1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

            Here’s a legal implication. Principal and senior indicate PE licensing.
            If he hadn’t earned it yet, misrepresenting himself to clients could well be actionable.

            1. Random Dice*

              I don’t know what PE licensing means. In my world, Senior and Principal are just steps that correlate with knowledge and responsibility.

              1. ScruffyInternHerder*

                At least in my industry in the United States, it means that they hold a recognized engineering license in a particular state. They have a seal and signature that needs to be affixed to drawings and documents. I think that in some cases they can be held legally liable for their work if failure happens, given that most who I know personally carry professional liability insurance.

                Misrepresenting yourself as a PE is a really big no-no. Its usually not your title though, its more of a signature line inclusion. Job title isn’t “Professional Engineer”, its “Engineer Elizabeth Wakefield, PE”

                I agree that senior and principal dont’ necessarily imply licensure, at least in my industry.

            2. Twix*

              This is highly dependent on the industry. In some engineering fields, a job title indicates a specific level of licensing. In others, like mine, there are no qualification requirements whatsoever to use a particular title.

              1. Cyborg Llama Horde*

                Yeah, my team all have “Engineer” in our title, and “senior” or “principle” just means that you have more experience. (It’s not even consistent between companies — I’ve interviewed people with a “Senior X Engineer” title who I would only consider hiring for “Junior X Engineer,” which at my company would be the step below “X Engineer.”)

                I think in tech/software/IT it’s pretty common for Engineer to just be a step on the promotional path, without specific corresponding metrics. But I could imagine that it’s very different for, say, chemical engineers.

            3. ScruffyInternHerder*

              This may be industry specific? (I’m asking because to me, and I work with engineers, both PE holding licensees and not, it really doesn’t. That’s what the initials “P.E.” are for.)

              Granted, I’m also looking sideways at any engineer who doesn’t grasp that “principal” is over “senior”, but that is specific to my industry. “Principals” are either owner-stake, or very very close to it, in my industry. Mileage may vary by industry though.

      2. ferrina*

        Maybe not a legal risk (lying generally isn’t illegal), but definitely counter to the reason why you’re there. You are less likely to get a job by following the advice- you should definitely get a refund.

        1. Carol the happy elf*

          Lying about your job title may not be illegal in itself, but if people rely on something you’ve told them, you could put your company at risk. And if you voice an opinion (“buy ABC stock, it’s a good company”– and then it tanks– but they thought you were a licensed stockbroker, or because they saw CPA and didn’t realize that your name is Charles Phillip Arthur….) Well, things that go downhill tend to pick up speed and wreck stuff.
          Like your reputation.

          Explain that you hired a coach to help you manage hard things with integrity (Do this in writing, sent by certified or registered mail! Your initials in this mess should be “C.Y.A.” because this idiot will lie about being fired unfairly, (go figure.) and this idiot will sue you for your shorts if your paperwork isn’t in line.

          There are good career coaches out there, and advisers who don’t urge you to make yourself afraid every day that the Other Imposter Syndrome (enjoyed by real imposters) will come back to bite you.

    4. Observer*

      Yes.

      This person lacks both integrity – advising you to lie, and competence – advising you to do something that’s highly likely to fail and harm your chances.

      If you can’t get your money back, you should STILL get away from them. Don’t waste your time and money on “advice” that you can’t trust.

      1. So they all cheap ass-rolled over and one fell out*

        This is extremely like to fail and probably backfire. Job title is one of the things that most employers will verify even when the have a no references policy.

      2. MigraineMonth*

        Yeah, “lie about this incredibly obvious and easily-verified thing” is bad advice on both ethical and practical levels.

    5. Elizabeth West*

      Yeah, this is weird. The ONLY time I ever changed a job title was after OldExjob had already shut down, and then I only changed it from “Receptionist” to “Administrative Assistant,” to remove the front desk association, since by the time I left I was doing much more than that. I let my reference from that job know I was doing it so there wouldn’t be any discrepancy if someone called them.

  2. learnedthehardway*

    OP#2 – that’s very bad advice and I would be leery of anything else the career coach suggests, too, based on their suggestion that you change your title on your resume.

    The only way their advice makes any sense is if you are in a company that has weird / non-standard job titles. Then you could legitimately put an explanation for the title. Eg. “Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief (equivalent to Operations Manager)”, making sure that the level you choose to use to explain your role is appropriate.

    And/Or you could provide a brief summary of your role. eg. “Manages a team of 12 operations staff and budget of $x to deliver widget services to clients.” I would focus most of your info on your accomplishments, but you can add some metrics / info about your role to make it clear what your responsibilities / areas of expertise are, too.

    1. Elsa*

      Yup, that is me. A previous job of mine had a nonstandard and extremely cumbersome job title for my position, so I always change it on resumes to something more normal sounding that reflects what I actually did.

      That does not seem to be the case here at all.

      1. OrdinaryJoe*

        I can see that and have seen other resumes do the same thing. For me, as long as you could explain the job title and didn’t go above the ‘level’, you’re fine. You don’t promote yourself to Vice President – Llama division when you’re real title is Manager – 4 Legged Creatures

      2. Artemesia*

        You handle that on a resume by using the title that makes sense and the actual title in brackets after it or vice versa. In your case it would be. Project manager (whatever the silly title is)

        1. Inigo Montoya*

          I agree with this. It is acceptable to put a more descriptive job title with the official one in brackets or after a dash. I worked for a company once where just about everyone had the title “Member of Scientific Staff” and refused to allow descriptive job titles. I think it had to do with trying to make it harder for recruiters to try and poach people in key positions.
          In this case, I think it is acceptable (everyone in this industry did it) to simply state your title on the resume as Llama Researcher. HR departments are going to realize that Member of Scientific Staff is a ridiculously generic and meaningless title and are not going to revoke an offer if you put an appropriately descriptive one (as long as it is appropriate for your duties and level).

        2. Turquoisecow*

          Yeah that’s what I did (and a lot of my colleagues after the company shut down). An old company created a new role which merged to the responsibilities of several precious roles, and gave us a title that was descriptive of one of the many tasks, but was not actually the title used when that task was a separate position. So most of us put whatever the equivalent, recognizable title we wanted to emphasize down and then the actual, misleading title in parentheses when we wrote up our Linked Ins or resumes after the company went under not long after.

    2. kiki*

      Yeah, editing your position for clarity is one thing, and even then I think it’s recommended to include your actual title. For example: Check-In Specialist (Receptionist). Just flat-out changing your title is dishonest and will likely cause issues later in the process. It seems like they’re prioritizing getting you interviews quickly and not actually helping you fully transition into a new field. I wouldn’t trust this career coach.

    3. Malarkey01*

      I’m at the point where I pretty much ignore job titles on resumes. Just as a recent example I’m hiring for two positions and mixed up which resume went with which job for a second as on person had “Senior VP and CFO” as a title (very true titles but this was a 30 person company and he was basically the in-house accountant) and another person had “Division Lead” (but in fact headed a 500 person division with offices across from he country that did the revenue collection for a huge organization and collected $8 BILLion in annual revenues.) Internal titles unless extremely standardized tell me nothing.

      1. Peter*

        I think this is true for lots of industries but the lying on the CV about it is another issue.

    4. Duckles*

      Exactly— in very specific circumstances you can restate your title if your current company uses something that wouldn’t be recognized in the industry (eg, in my prior role as a “dermatologist” my company called them “dermatology specialists” which made us sound like assistants. Not great. So I still put “dermatologist” on my resume.) But changing the title to an entirely different role is crazy.

    5. Peter*

      In the UK it’s totally normal practice to verify someone’s job title and dates of employment before making an offer. Someone giving a false job title they never held to sound more senior would, I think, lead to the offer being withdrawn/not made for lying on the CV. It wouldn’t be enough to say a career coach recommended the lie.

      You wouldn’t contact their current employer for obvious reasons but even then there is a risk it comes out in the hiring process. Don’t do it.

  3. Sue*

    #1. I wear a black skirt to work most days and wear “tights” instead of pantyhose. For some reason, that seems to be more fashion acceptable these days.

    1. AnonNow*

      I usually wear leggings unless I am wearing a long dress. Wearing dark pantyhose or some other definitely not skin-tone hose might be a way to lessen the comments, because those look less like “classic” pantyhose. (This is assuming the poster has relatively pale skin, which I don’t know, of course.)

      1. Selina Luna*

        I wear leggings under skirts and dresses in the fall and spring, and tights in the winter, and I’ve never gotten a single comment, so I’m going to agree that “this is the way.”

        1. Mantis shrimp*

          leggings under skirts and dresses in the fall and spring, and tights in the winter

          I think I’ve got tights vs pantyhose correct for this conversation (*), but I think of leggings as ending at the ankle (like running tights, below). So, do you wear socks with leggings? Do you need different shoes from the shoes you wear with tights, because socks are thicker?

          (*) there’s also running tights, which are lycra-like fabric pants from waist till ankle.

          1. Selina Luna*

            No socks. I hate socks. For some reason, my brain categorizes tights with feet differently from socks. But my brain also says that socks are uncomfortable.
            For boots and anything that would give me sweaty boot feet, I have very thin nylon slippers that I use that, again, my brain categorizes differently. And when I can, I wear sandals.

    2. Artemesia*

      that was what I was going to recommend — colored tights are more common now than neutral pantyhose and don’t evoke the same assumptions.

      1. Fellow tights lover*

        And here we go again, people have to stop wearing what they like in order to negate comments on what they’re wearing.

        LW, continue wearing the tights if that is what you like. Allison’s responses are perfectly fine, you don’t need to change your clothing style to suit people who cannot keep their opinions on minor stuff that doesn’t involve them at all to themselves.

        1. Falling Diphthong*

          People have to stop wearing what they like in order to negate comments on what they’re wearing.
          … Yes, this is a human interaction thing. For optional things about your appearance, either you don’t mind the comments–maybe you even embrace them–or you adapt your clothing style if the comments bug you.

          I like Alison’s distinction of how something can be A Thing but still okay to do. In this case, OP is receiving well-meaning “Hey, young person new to office, you’re dressed in a way that many people find uncomfortable but business formal. But you don’t have to do that in this office. Even though I, the boss, also dress this way, I’m set in my ways after 4 decades in the office and this is not something where you need to copy me.”

          OP notes that casual and friendly conversation about what people are wearing is a norm in this office.

          1. DanniellaBee*

            “For optional things about your appearance, either you don’t mind the comments–maybe you even embrace them–or you adapt your clothing style if the comments bug you.”

            I find this to be very problematic. No one is entitled to comment on another person’s appearance.

            1. raktajino*

              Nobody is saying that OP can’t ask them to stop, and nobody is saying that they have to change what they’re wearing. OP has options of how to proceed on any given day.

              It’s a picking your battles thing. Ultimately, we can only control our reactions and behavior.

            2. Falling Diphthong*

              No one is entitled to comment on another person’s appearance.

              Do you think it is a thing that happens anyhow?

              Might it happen in situations where preserving a good working relationship is important to an OP?

      2. Reetgood*

        Wait pantyhose is not just tights? You have tights too? Who knew, another transatlantic translation.

        I would just try it and see. How closely do people need to be looking at your legs to be able to tell anyway?

        1. Artemesia*

          In the US tights are usually heavier and opaque and colors. People don’t call pantyhose ‘tights’; these are the various skin tone semi transparent leg covers. Dark colored panty hose can read as tights.

        2. theletter*

          tights are meant to keep the legs warm under skirts, while pantyhose is a more of a compromise for societies that fear exposure of women’s skin for cultural reasons. It allows a woman to be cool and comfortable without exposing bare skin.

          Except that most women don’t find pantyhose to be cool or comfortable anymore, and they rip so easily that most women find they are not worth the effort. Bare shins and knees are no longer a scandal, so the cultural reasons that used to require pantyhose are mostly gone.

          But as lw pointed out, they are useful for disguising unshaven legs! LW, the comments your experiencing might be more of an attempt to make you feel more comfortable. They’re probably assuming you wear them to follow a dress code rule that no longer exists. You can tell them you know you’re a little different in your appreciation of the hose, but it doesn’t bother you and you feel more comfortable with them on. If you’re not violating the dress code, it’s your decision!

          1. Dr. Vibrissae*

            I was confused by the use of pantyhose to hide unshaven legs, because in my experience, while tights will hide hair, pantyhose are so sheer/open that hair just sticks through the mesh, a look I found less appealing than just walking around with the hair out.

            1. Hans Solo*

              Yes, my hair would stick out! My hair is light colored but the hair would be highlighted and made me look furry.

        3. I'm Just Here For The Cats!!*

          Tights are usually a little thicker and come in many colors. Not quite as thick as leggings but not sheer. Pantyhose, also called nylons, are sheer, usually skin tones, but often come in black/ dark grey tones as well.

      3. Turanga Leela*

        Eh. OP doesn’t need to change anything! She can just say, “Oh, I always wear pantyhose” or any of the things Allison suggested, and it’ll be fine.

        I’ve mostly given up dresses, but I was also a pantyhose wearer. Pantyhose help to neutralize my very pale skin, they reduce chafing, and they look more formal and less heavy than thicker tights. I’m a fan.

    3. E. Monday*

      Agree! Tights are a good way to go — keeps your legs covered (if that’s what you really want to do), but reads “younger” than pantyhose. But honestly, speaking as a mid-40s woman who stopped shaving her legs in high school and has worked in office settings since college, most people aren’t going to notice or care. (Besides, I always thought pantyhose made my leg hair look funny!)

      1. April*

        *dance tights* are thick/opaque enough to hide my hairy legs, but yeah I don’t wear pantyhose because it makes my leg hair look *worse* lol

        I wear black tights, or sometimes black knee socks in the summer (my skirts are long enough that this is fine)

      2. Cat Tree*

        Yeah, pantyhose would never cover my leg hair, just smush it. It seemed like a weird explanation at first, but I just chalk it up to everyone having different bodies and OP’s leg hair must be sparse enough and/or more similar in color to her skin tone.

        1. ASGirl*

          Yes, some of us natural blondes have very fine and translucent leg hair that when we don’t shave it is hard to see that we aren’t shaved.

        2. Kat Em*

          Not the letter writer, but my leg hair is very light in color, so when I wear pantyhose, I’m looking to smooth out the outline, rather than completely cover the hair. People notice a fuzzy texture, but the faint coloring under a smooth surface doesn’t attract notice the same way.

      3. Sloanicota*

        Lots of people I know wear tights for “shaping” anyway, so it would be extremely rude to ask them about it, IMO. OP might only be running into this if she’s wearing old-fashioned nylons (I’m still surprised it’s coming up this much, I guess).

        1. Smithy*

          100% this.

          I do think that “skin-toned nylons” are what read the most as out of fashion/old fashion where more opaque colored tights/nylons have remained far more in fashion, even when they’re only semi-opaque in the style of traditional nylon brands. One approach would just be to switch to relying more on shades of black, gray, and other colors as fun and accessible.

          However, with pantyhose dropping from being fashionable – the rise of shape wear I think has indicated that plenty of women have always seen those types of garments as more multi-purpose. As someone who started working in the Midwest, I could imagine a workplace where I’d feel more awkward mentioning leg hair but more comfortable saying I enjoyed them for shape wear/cheaper than Skims.

        2. All Het Up About It*

          I really get the sense it’s coming up because the co-workers are trying to be helpful. They don’t want the new to workforce OP to feel like they must wear these typically old-fashioned and uncomfortable garment. That’s why making it clear that this is the OP’s choice for whatever reason is so important here.

        3. NotAnotherManager!*

          I was surprised by it, too. It would never occur to me to comment on someone wearing pantyhose. Do I want to wear them? Nope. But I don’t care one bit if others prefer to wear them. Maybe if your job involves fashion somehow, it might matter?

      4. Nozenfordaddy*

        I often wear tights or leggings but that is more so I don’t freeze in the office – not a desire to hide my hairy legs (and I might shave once every few weeks so they are inevitably hairy). On the handful of occasions I’ve had bare legs not a single person has commented on my sasquatch legs.

    4. Seven hobbits are highly effective, people*

      As a fellow non-shaver, for longer skirts, I wear knee-high soccer socks instead of tights or pantyhose. Before that, I used to wear knee-highs, but soccer socks are designed to not run when someone else kicks you in the shin while wearing cleats, so they hold up much better than things designed as women’s dress clothes. They also have more room in the calves since they’re designed for athletic people who will be stuffing shin guards down them.

      I had to hunt around a bit at a sporting goods store to find a brand where the logo was on the toebox rather than on the shin, but I found one eventually. I bought several black pairs of that brand, then some “fun” red, white, and blue ringed pairs that also had a logo on them for less dressy days, and some other brightly colored ones of various kinds.

      One year I also accidentally bought a bunch of pants that were hemmed just below the knee rather than full-length, so I wore those with the soccer socks as my everyday work outfits for a year as well. Perhaps my work is just used to me being a giant weirdo, but no one mentioned anything about it to me. (I work in a field where “quirky, but in a wholesome way” is an acceptable personal style, so YMMV.)

    5. Myrin*

      I’m finding myself once again not understanding the difference between tights and pantyhose, in large parts probably because they’re translated as the same word into my native language; people will tell me that tights are thicker and I’m left wondering how one would even see that just by looking because they’re all just one thing to me.
      Every time this comes up here, a very nice person explains and I still don’t get it and then I google pictures and explanations and STILL don’t get it and then the next time the topic comes up, the cycle repeats itself.
      I’m being haunted by the hose!

      1. nnn*

        Pantyhose are sheer and generally designed to look like “your skin but better.” Tights are generally more opaque and not designed to look like your skin.

      2. Sue*

        pantyhose = usually sheer and close to skin tone
        tights = other colors (I only wear black)
        and can be of various thickness

      3. Seeking Second Childhood*

        Don’t worry — I’m a native speaker and I can’t tell either because the word doesn’t mean the same thing in the US that it does in the UK. And I suspect even within the US the word is drifting.

          1. Chilipepper Attitude*

            Oh gosh, we need to add leggings to this convo!

            Leggings have no feet and people wear them as outerwear. Tights and pantyhose/stockings are not worn without a skirt or trousers/pants.

            I found a helpful “quiz” im adding in a reply to this post

        2. Ellie*

          I’m Australian and I call them opaques – they’re the same as panty hose, but much thicker. I wear them all the time, I like the look, and they aren’t as easy to put holes in.

          I also don’t shave my legs, although how comfortable you are is going to depend on how much hair you have I guess. If it doesn’t bother you at the beach, then why not give it a go and see what you think? Fishnets are another option, they look very professional with office attire and they read as more fashion forward than hose do.

          1. metadata minion*

            I may have more prominent leg hair than the OP given that she can cover it with pantyhose, but for me wearing fishnets with leg hair would just make the hair stick out even more between the holes and look very weird.

            Unless fishnets means something else here? I’m imagining tights with openwork holes in any of a number of patterns.

            1. I have RBF*

              In my experience, fishnets are for more… um… extracurricular dress. Great for a Saturday night at the club or hookup bar, not so great at work. But I’m probably more conservative in that regard than people would expect.

          2. Valancy Trinit*

            I think that what you call fishnets, we’d call “openwork tights” in the US. “Fishnets” IME refers exclusively to a style that is not considered professional but was extremely popular with the Hot Topic set in 2007.

            Agreed that openwork tights are a nice look for the office, but they do little to cover leg hair if that’s LW1’s goal.

            1. PhyllisB*

              I wore fishnets in the 60s and hated them because the net was extremely uncomfortable on the bottoms of my feet.
              Of course, being a silly teenager and being a slave to fashion, I wore them anyway!! :-)
              Hopefully they’re more comfortable now.

              1. Lydia*

                A lot of the fishnets now have toe and foot covers (not the word) so your toes don’t go through the holes and you don’t have that uncomfortable walking on net feeling. They’re solid (still not right). Reinforced?

            2. Lily Rowan*

              I am in the US and wouldn’t call anything “openwork tights.” I think skin-tone or other non-black color fishnets are totally office-appropriate.

          3. TeaCoziesRUs*

            To me those sound like dance tights (like ballet dancers wear). They’re much sturdier than the very sheer regular pantyhose which tend to run as soon as I glance at them, look somewhat skin adjacent (slightly pinker on most pairs), and opaque (to hide any bruising or unsightly leg blemishes??). They’re meant to lend a sameness to a group of dancers – which means they can be jarring to see on darker skin although most ballet is FINALLY changing to allow for darker tights.

            Gotta love how we can all slaughter the same language depending where in the pond we are! I’m sure there are also US regionalisms of which I’m not aware. :)

      4. fanciestcat*

        Not to restart the great pantyhose debate yet again, but basically here’s how you tell by looking:

        Can you easily see the person’s skin underneath? Pantyhose.

        Is their skin hidden or hard to see through the mesh? Tights.

        1. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

          Yup. Tights cover my brightly colored leg tattoos well enough to meet a work dress code, if I work somewhere that has one. Pantyhose doesn’t. (Don’t? Is “pantyhose” singular or plural?)

          (Black pantyhose will probably obscure a blackwork leg tattoo well enough to get by, but in general…)

        2. Smithy*

          For US English – this is generically correct.

          However, I think we’re entering another sort of linguistic/cultural place when something that once was very common (i.e. women always covering their legs/feet in business formal or similar settings) changing. So back in the day, in a context where a woman was wearing a below the knee skirt or even ankle length dress/pants – full pantyhose or over the knee hosiery were standard as part of the formality of not having the bare leg/foot. As this would compare to menswear, imagine contexts where the sockless loafer would be appropriate and where it would not be.

          While technically this definition incorporates shades of hosiery that are not a skin tone match, I think where this often adds to confusion is that wearing sheer black, purple, grey hosiery (defined as pantyhose, semi-opaque tights, etc.) doesn’t register in that “old fashioned” way. In most business formal or other formal settings such a funeral – bare women’s ankles/calves are not considered inappropriate in a way that visibly not wearing a bra might be (which may also change in the future).

          From a pragmatic context – like someone working in a costume house and storing lots of items – I get why this clarity works. But I think this cultural split is why the definition remains fuzzy. Semi-transparent hosiery that offers that skin-tone match is of a cultural purpose that is fading. However, semi-transparent hosiery that represents colors, back-seams, designs, etc. still has evolving fashion purposes.

        3. Goldenrod*

          Ha ha, I love how this topic comes up on the regular!

          (For reals – I always enjoy reading all the comments.)

      5. amoeba*

        Haha, yup, same here. I really don’t see the clear divide at all – here, it’s definitely a “spectrum”. There are “skin coloured” (luckily nowadays in multiple tones) ones in all grades from sheer to completely opaque, same for black, same for colourful ones…

      6. Happy meal with extra happy*

        Do you have to get it? People have posted resources about the differences between the two in American English, but it really doesn’t matter for this question.

        1. amoeba*

          Nah, but it just makes it hard to… get the problem, I guess? I guess, not only pantyhose but also the whole debate around it doesn’t really translate across the atlantic. I really cannot imagine anybody asking me why I’m wearing pantyhose/tights! (And if tights would be more “acceptable”, this then seems to me like a weird commentary on the choice of legwear…)

          But anyway, I guess my reply would just be “It’s more comfortable for me this way”. Which would actually be true! (Bare legs with any kind of outfit that’s not a nice, loose summer dress/skirt/shorts are just weird for me as the top part of the outfit will be much warmer than my legs – also, they get sticky with sweat, might stick to your chair, might chafe…)

          1. londonedit*

            Yep. I’m really struggling to understand why anyone would a) care whether someone’s wearing tights of any sort, sheer or opaque and b) go as far as ASKING someone why they’re wearing them. WTAF?? I just can’t imagine anyone here caring enough about what’s on someone’s legs to ask them why they’re wearing tights.

            1. Totally Minnie*

              It’s really weird. They’re essentially the same garment, but in the US there’s a cultural assumption that pantyhose are a really uncomfortable hassle and nobody would ever wear them if they didn’t think they had to. Whereas, tights are seen more as a fashion accessory that people choose on purpose to accentuate their outfits. So I guess the boss is trying to be nice and say “you don’t have to make yourself uncomfortable for us,” but I generally think of tights and pantyhose as underwear, and it feels really weird to me to think of my boss telling me I’m allowed to wear more comfortable underwear to work.

          2. Allonge*

            I suppose this might be helpful to OP – I understand that in the US there is a major, cultural difference between pantyhose and tights and so the issue makes sense there.

            But outside of the US, likely you need a multi-level, multi-paragraph explanation of what the problem is in the first place and why a particular colour of the exact same thing is ‘decades out of date’ while other colours or a different density are perfectly fine.

            OP – wear what you feel comfortable wearing, and feel free to wonder (out loud even) why anyone feels like they have a right to comment on it.

          3. Helvetica*

            I also feel deja vu every time this topic comes up because 1) yes, tights and pantyhose seem interchangeable terms to me and 2) they are very normal in my European country and 3) no one would ever remark on wearing or not wearing them!
            For the record, I have never thought pantyhose were old-fashioned until I saw AAM letters about it.

            1. Good Enough For Government Work*

              UK here and same! Tights are tights and I can’t imagine anyone actually ASKING why you’d wear them, especially in the workplace. Anyone who did would get a very weird look from the person being asked.

              1. TriviaJunkie*

                US to UK expat here!
                I think the difference is, quite simply… climate. The US simply has more places where it gets Far Too Hot for tights to be comfortable. Normally would have been just left off, but then you add in Southern cultural aspects such as propriety and modesty and more conservative views about femininity, and it became a bit of a battle. Old school southern propriety vs comfort in serious heat. It’s much less an issue in colder areas like the PNW or New England as far as I’m aware.

                Europe is just generally cooler so there hasn’t been a younger generation pushing back, because they need the extra warmth.

                2. Ukdancer*

                  I think you’re right. I mean in the UK I wear trousers more often than not with socks and shoes or boots for work. During the 2 weeks of the year that are warm enough for bare legs I’ve never had a problem exposing them. I’ve no clue what any of my colleagues wear. It’s really not a thing, probably because it’s seldom very warm.

                  I wear ballet tights for ballet and sparkly or fishnet ones for tango. Unless the tango club is warm in which case I don’t bother.

                3. PhyllisB*

                  You are right about Southern standards. Right now where I live it feels like Hell’s front porch, but if I wear a dress for any reason, I will be wearing hose or tights. (And yes,I think that’s just a matter of semantics. To me panythose and tights are the same.)

                4. amoeba*

                  Maybe also in some parts car vs. public transport commute? Having bare legs even under a knee-length skirt or dress can be… less than nice on a sticky subway seat… (and in general, you tend to be much more exposed to the weather, obviously)

                5. Rex Libris*

                  There is also a sense of entitlement with a lot of people in the US, where they just assume that they’re owed an explanation for anything that seems weird to them.

                6. Rebecca*

                  Europe has the Mediterranean Sea.

                  I am in France right now, and it is disgustingly hot. Paris has a cannicule (heat wave) every summer that lands people in the hospital. Buildings in downtown cores are older than America in some cases (Bordeaux’s apartment buildings are a Unesco Heritage Site) and we don’t have the infrastructure for centralized air conditioning. We definitely don’t need the extra warmth.

                  It is way to hot in significant portions of Europe for tights or pantyhose during significant portions of the year.

                7. Hairy Asker*

                  Hi, OP 1 adding how the climate affects where I’m asking from!
                  I am from the less-than-great state of Florida! We have lower expectations of formality down here (like, you can see flip-flops everywhere) and it is absurdly hot most of the year. All this makes it especially strange that I wear pantyhose (which for us, is a distinction based on how sheer it is, not the color.)

              2. Magenta*

                Every time the subject comes up on this site I am baffled. Tights are tights, they come in different thicknesses that I pick depending on the weather.

                120D pure wool black tights for the coldest part of winter.
                80-100D for normal winter
                40-50D for spring/autumn
                20D skin coloured for summer
                bare legs for the 2 weeks of hot weather we get a year.

                I was delighted when I found some 40D skin toned tights that meant I could extend the wear of my lighter coloured summer dresses that don’t work with darker, thicker tights.

                They are all perfectly comfortable and I genuinely don’t understand why there would be an issue with wearing any. I certainly wouldn’t comment on anyone’s tights unless they had a really cool colour or pattern that I wanted to complement.

                I get that the US has a different range of climates but it still feels really invasive to care what other people wear on their legs.

            2. TeaCoziesRUs*

              I’m guessing you live somewhere cool, temperature wise? I’ve noticed in the States that it’s more culturally understood the further north you get why someone would wear pantyhose / tights / leggings for warmth – especially when the North winds blow! However, culturally the US south tends to hold on to the idea that pantyhose are proper and ladylike, even though wearing pantyhose in a hot, humid summer is absolute torture to me. (My body has a hard time regulating heat.)

              Also, I think we miss a bit of cultural fashion history when we talk about pantyhose in general. I grew up in the 80s and knew my Grandma wore them (in Oklahoma, even in summertime if she was heading to church) because they acted like a panty girdle. The girdle is shapewear that initially evolved from the corset. Although, yes, absolutely, we have Spanx and other shapewear to conform our bodies to the culture’s idea that beauty = no visible bulges under clothing, somehow modern day variations don’t get NEARLY as much side-eye. I’ve been considering switching from bra to corset, in part to help my shoulders stay out of my ears from carrying the weight of my chest, and it’s been amusing to watch people who know lose their minds at me. “BuT CoRsEtS are DEATH!” I think some of that idiocy holds over into pantyhose prejudice. :)

              But you’ll still never catch me wearing anything except bike shorts – and only for chafing / no sticking to leather chairs – under a dress if it’s anything more than 60 degrees!

              1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

                This is very off topic, so I will be quick, but in winter I wear corsets as often as bras, and I find them perfectly comfortable for all situations except lengthy driving (because a car seat does not permit any forward tilt).

                1. TeaCoziesRUs*

                  Thank you! I’ve heard driving is the one thing that is pretty universally uncomfortable.

              2. SimonTheGreyWarden*

                I second the comment on driving – I don’t wear corsets as a fashion/shapewear choice but as a hobby (Steampunk) and the times I’ve had to drive with one on, it was less than ideal.

          4. Amy*

            The word “pantyhose” lives in the same place in my mind as the word “girdle.” Yes, people wear shapewear today but the specific word pings with a very old-fashioned world where women “put on their face” and wore heels to the grocery store.

            More my grandmother’s world than my mother’s.

            1. PhyllisB*

              Yep. when I started wearing stockings we did the girdle or garter belt routine.
              I was a young teen when pantyhose came to be, and we were thrilled.
              Talking about Hell’s front porch, you’ve never lived until you try to put on a girdle (even a panty girdle) when it’s 100 degrees outside and your house has no air conditioning.

        2. Myrin*

          I mean, I guess I don’t “have to” anything, but I like giving advice and sharing thoughts here and that’s much easier for me to do if I can envision what something looks like.
          (Nevermind that this is possibly a distinction other readers might have trouble with, too, and seeing how there are differences even between the clarifying comments can be helpful to them as well.)

          1. Green rose*

            For me unless you reach about 160 denier they aren’t tights. Commonly pantyhose is around 6-20 in my experience (although there are thicker options, depending on what look you want). To further complicate things – we have two different items of clothing that both cover your legs called “tights” in my country (in addition to pantyhose). One (similar to pantyhose) requires that you wear a skirt/dress over them – they are underwear not outerwear and should only be visible places where it is acceptable to not have pantyhose on (legs fine bum not). The other sort of tights are like skin tight pants (leggings in some cultures) and do not require another layer over them (although worn with tunic/longer tops not appropriate with shirt tops at work). It is important not to confuse the two.

            As to what the difference is – purely fashion and culture. Pantyhose comes across (to me in my non-American culture) as old fashioned / formal for office wear. I would expect to see pantyhose in evening wear, but I can’t ever recall seeing it around my office. It reminds me of out of date dress codes for women – my grandmother’s day even more than my mother’s. Tights however come across as informal/casual clothing item (would not have been acceptable in offices that required pantyhose). Tights are common in school uniforms for winter.

            The colleagues might be commenting more on a – yes we are more formal but nobody expects you to wear pantyhose – this is information you might not have approach. I would assume that a new to the workforce employee might think they had to wear the old style of clothes (pantyhose, heels, make up) and might give them a heads up that this isn’t expected. Much like I might comment to a new to the workforce male who turned up in long sleeve and tie all the time. I wouldn’t comment more than once – but could see someone getting this advice from multiple colleagues all trying to be nice. Others could be being nosy/rude.

            I think saying – oh I know I don’t have to, but I like to – is the best response. Let them know that it is a personal preference, not something LW feels they must do.

            If you would prefer not to, but feel it might be that their options are shaved or covered – ask a trusted colleague what they think. Just because people should not care doesn’t mean they won’t.

            1. metadata minion*

              Yeah, as an American (albeit one who seriously Does Not Get fashion cues a lot of the time), I have roughly the same associations with pantyhose. Old-fashioned and known for being annoying/uncomfortable, so if I had a new coworker who was maybe also new to the work world, I could see myself saying “just FYI, you don’t have to wear pantyhose if you don’t want to; we’re not that formal!”.

            2. Turquoisecow*

              Yes that’s exactly it. I’ve always worked in business casual offices and modeled my dress off what my colleagues wore, but I could see for example a young man in his first job being told by his blue collar parents or grandparents that office people wear suits, so he shows up in jacket and tie and dress suit, and coworkers kindly take him aside and say “we don’t really do suits or ties here, fyi, you can wear khakis and a button down and it’s fine.” Same thing if a young woman showed up in a suit, heels, and hose. “Bit formal for us, you can be more casual, just so you know.”

              And especially if it is summer and warm and OP is continuing to wear what seems like an old fashioned pain in the butt style of dress that isn’t necessary. Back in the 1950s you suffered through suits and hose in the summer because it was required by the job so maybe people think OP needs permission of some sort to be less formally uncomfortable.

            3. TeaCoziesRUs*

              This is exactly how I take the coworkers, too. Well- meaning older women who enjoy fashion and don’t want you to feel uncomfortable simply because they’re modeling something they prefer. :)

      7. coffee*

        “Haunted by the hose” lol!

        Pantyhose are thin enough that you can see the wearer’s skin through them – if they had a bandaid on their leg, you’d know. Tights are thick enough that you couldn’t see the bandaid.

        I don’t shave my legs, and you can see the messy smushed leg hairs through pantyhose, but you can’t see the hair through tights.

        If you google “tights dernier”, it will bring up a lot of articles about the thickness of tights which have explanatory pictures.

        1. londonedit*

          As far as I can tell, pantyhose are what we’d call sheer tights of about 10-20 denier, and they’re (supposedly) skin-coloured rather than being black or navy. We just call the whole lot tights, but tights come in a range of deniers from very sheer (10 or even below 10) to very opaque (100 denier). I guess at a stretch you might say that the sort of ‘American Tan’ sheer tights associated with 1980s cabin crew would be viewed as old-fashioned here, but no one’s going to comment on it. Most people here go bare-legged in summer these days (with chub-rub shorts under dresses if thigh chafing is an issue – Snag’s are brilliant and M&S also do good ones) but you might wear sheer skin-coloured tights if the weather is changeable, and/or to a more formal setting like a wedding or to the races. In general, though, it’s not something anyone really thinks about, and we don’t seem to have the cultural baggage around ‘pantyhose’ that I’ve read about here.

          1. bamcheeks*

            I think we don’t have the idea of “respectability” around pantyhose? Like, it’s decades since it was scandalous to go bare-legged and you had to wear 20 denier tights to be Respectable. Since I was at school in the 90s, the point of >20 denier tights was to look like you had bare legs when for whatever reason you weren’t *quite* brave enough to go bare-legged, so someone saying, “Oh, you don’t need to wear that” would basically saying, “sorry, your trompe l’oeil failed, please be more naked.” I don’t think there are any settings where it would be assumed that you’d prefer to be bare-legged but were wearing tights because you thought you Had To.

            1. Irish Teacher*

              I always took the point of tights as that it’s usually too cold to go around with bare legs, so yeah, I would never think the person felt they had to. Somebody mentioned the temperature differences between parts of the US and Ireland (and the UK) above and yeah, it makes sense that that would make quite a bit of a difference. I prefer skirts to pants (trousers) but there are only a couple of weeks in the summer that it’s warm enough not to wear tights (in the coldest weather, I wear maybe 40 denier, in spring, autumn and most of summer, 20 denier).

              I thought it kinda weird that somebody would comment on a person wearing tights but if they are something more commonly worn for “respectability” or “to look professional” than “because otherwise my legs will be too cold,” it makes more sense, I guess.

              1. amoeba*

                Also, shoes – I’d feel super uncomfortable wearing heels or something similar with bare feet! So if I do wear a dress/skirt, it’s either sandals, sneakers with socks, or any kind of closed “fancy”/leather shoes with tights. Have even worn sheer tights with summer dresses for weddings etc. because otherwise the nice shoes I had were chafing too much!

              2. doreen*

                I’m not sure US “pantyhose” are ever worn for warmth. ( The ones I wore back when I wore them were about 10 denier). US “tights” ( starting at around 40 denier) are worn for warmth at least sometimes.

                1. amoeba*

                  I do know quite a few people who swear that they feel warmer even with the super thin (10-20 den) ones! Never tried it in winter myself, so cannot comment from personal experience, but it does appear to be a thing…

              3. YetAnotherAnalyst*

                The “respectability” association of pantyhose in the US is so strong still so recent that it was considered slightly newsworthy when Michelle Obama noted in 2008 that she didn’t wear them, and as recently as 2021 when the Air Force stopped requiring them for women (I believe the other branches still do require them). In more conservative parts of the US, they’re still a mark of respectability, pretty much entirely because they’re considered uncomfortable and impractical. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a third wear out of a pair and often not even a second wear, so if you had to wear them regularly you’re looking at $300-$500 a year just in hosiery.
                I’d definitely assume the coworkers’ comments are well-intentioned, and a breezy assertion that LW actually prefers to wear hose will resolve things.

                1. raktajino*

                  As an elder millennial in the PNW, I don’t often run into situations where pantyhose is expected. My unshaven legs didn’t get an explicit comment at my office job in a more conservative suburb–until I shaved them and someone commented (neutrally) on that!

                  When I visit my in-laws in the deep south, I absolutely do see pantyhose as a marker of respectability. My sisters in law wear them to cooler-weather more formal events, when I would just wear pants or opaque tights to keep my unshaven legs hidden and warm. Not sure what they do for formal events in the summer.

                  Tbh I’m surprised any American thinks they’re 100% outdated and irrelevant.

      9. Darn, heck, and other salty expressions*

        Maybe this visual will help. Ballet dancers, male and female wear tights on their legs. The fabric is thick like athletic socks and you can’t see through them. Pantyhose are see through and make your legs look a little shiny.

    6. Mialana*

      I have to wear black pantyhose to hide my body hair. If I wear pantyhose the colour of my (pale) skin you can definetely see the hair.

    7. AlwhoisThatAl*

      Being a complete non-expert being male, although I have worn them to various Rocky Horror Shows, can you wear the funky patterned ones, so people see it as a fashion statement and don’t even ask. Would that work?

    8. I should really pick a name*

      It sounds like the LW is pretty comfortable with the choice of pantyhose, they’re just looking for a way to respond when people ask about it.

    9. Spencer Hastings*

      I would guess the LW already is wearing what you (and I) would call tights — what gets called “pantyhose” in my experience is too sheer to hide the leg hair, so the question wouldn’t make sense.

      1. Myrin*

        I don’t know, I wear sheer tights/pantyhouse in the summer because my office is in the basement and on the cooler side (and the archive, where I spend a good chunk of my time, is legitimately cold) but a nice side effect is that this stretches the time between shaves. Granted, I’m a redhead with reddish-blond hair on my legs and I don’t know if the hose would hide the actually fully grown hairs as well as it does the stubble I’m mostly dealing with but I feel like with pretty light hair this is definitely possible.

      2. Gray Lady*

        I think that depends on the level of contrast between your skin color and hair color. Unless I go months without shaving, pantyhose mask unshaven legs pretty well for me, but beyond a certain point it just looks worse. But I have very fair skin and fairly dark leg hair. If the tones are closer, pantyhose could be pretty effective at masking unshaven legs.

    10. Phryne*

      Yes, I pretty much only wear 70 denier black tights (or often leggings, if I wear high shoes of boots I prefer socks over feeties) in winter and nothing in summer. But shaving is not much of an issue for me as my leg hair is whiteblond and quite thin. If you can see it you are too close anyway.

      Also, am I the only one who thinks 68, which apparently is 20C, is a pretty normal temperature for indoors? So either the aircon is on in summer and someone is using a heater at the same time, and/or LW and coworkers think an office should be warm enough for bare legs in winter?

        1. the bean moves on*

          I misread your prior comment – but honestly it doesnt matter what I wear- I’m cold at 68. Its quite possible that dresses are required at lw job

      2. metadata minion*

        In my experience, 68 is on the chilly end of normal. Not something I’d complain about, but I’d really wish we could turn the thermostat up/down to 70.

      3. SarahKay*

        At 68 (20C) I am cold if I’m sat in an office not moving around. I’d need to be wearing a warm sweater and woolly tights or the equivalent – and even more so if it’s because the air-con is constantly blowing cool air at me.
        At home, or out and about, it’s fine because I’m moving around.

        1. Phryne*

          My home this winter was 17C, so 62,6F because of the insane energy prices in Europe. I did need a thick sweater, but I did get used to it. We had a cold spring and the first day in may it got over 68 I was sweating like mad I was so hot…
          But yes, cold aircon airflow is not nice to sit in at all. Very different from still cold air.

          1. londonedit*

            Maybe we’re just used to colder houses here in the UK, but I’ve always grown up with the idea that 18-20C is ‘room temperature’. In terms of outdoor temperatures, 20C is considered ‘warm’ here! Before energy prices went insane I’d have my thermostat set to 20C in winter; these days it’s 18 and I try not to put the heating on if I can get away with it (I grew up in old houses and was always told to put a jumper on if I was cold!) Agree that sitting under an air conditioning unit is very different from being in an ambient 20C, though.

            1. amoeba*

              Not sure if that’s the same everywhere, but my boyfriend told me that at school (so, physics class) in the US, “room temperature” was 298 K (= 25 °C) whereas in Germany, it’s 293 K (= 20 °C). 25 seems super warm to me! But then we don’t have air conditioning, anyway, so see above, probably…

              And yep, in the summer, obviously, it goes up to 30 °C or whatever. (Then 25 seems acceptable, but you’re dressed for it!)

            2. SarahKay*

              I’m in the UK too, and agree that a house at 18-20C is reasonable (although I strongly suspect that that particular definition of reasonable was set by a man) and when I was WFH during Covid that was what the thermostat was set at during the day (going up to 21 for an hour when I got up and a couple of hours in the evening). But at that point I was indeed wearing a thick polo-neck jumper and woolly tights.
              In the office this year, 21C during winter was chilly because it was blowing air, and I was wearing more office-like clothing and fewer big cosy jumpers.

      4. Rach*

        As someone who lives in the American southwest, 68 is quite cold when it is 114 outside (the high this week). My office keeps the temp at 70 and I’m cold (have to wear a sweater even in summer, if it goes below that women have been known to bring in throw blankets, tho we can’t wear skirts, if we could tights would be necessary at that temp). For reference I keep my house at 78-79 degrees (this is comfortable with ceiling fans and helps keep electricity costs lower, the electric company suggests you keep the temp at 80 or more and 68 would result in electricity bills that rivals my mortgage).

        1. I have RBF*

          I absolutely hate the “keep your house at 80 to save energy in the summer” BS. I start sweating at 78. I start developing a rash in sensitive areas, too, particularly my armpit under the arm that doesn’t work (stroke survivor.) I set my AC at 74 to get my room down to 76. Yes, I pay high energy bills. It’s still cheaper than medical bills.

      5. Not Totally Subclinical*

        For me, 68 is a normal indoors temperature in winter, when I’m wearing layers anyway. In summer, it’s too much of a contrast with outdoors (for context, today we’re expecting a high of 104F/40C), and I find 78 much more comfortable.

        1. Phryne*

          We don’t have much aircon here, so we have no choice about the temp in summer. It is what it is. But I’ve been to the US and I did notice that it tends to be set really low there, and I agree the contrast is not nice…

        2. amoeba*

          Makes more sense from an environmental point of view, as well… just heat it up (winter) or cool it down (summer) to whatever is more or less comfortable in season-appropriate clothes, it doesn’t have to be the same temperature year round!

    11. Butterfly Counter*

      This is what I was thinking. If you wear fashion tights or hose with non-skin-toned colors or patterns, it’s less like you’re going for the 1960’s-80’s corporate “how dare women show bare skin, so here’s a thin layer that looks like skin” look and more like you’re trying something fun, instead.

      And though fashion tights are more expensive than regular panty hose, I find they are also more durable and last longer.

    12. QuinFirefrorefiddle*

      I don’t shave either and have just created a collection of full length trousers and maxi skirts. The hair isn’t visible if someone catches a flash of ankle.

    13. Beth*

      I was going to suggest tights for this! For whatever reason, tights (whether they’re black, colorful, patterned, or even skin tone) read differently to me than pantyhose. Pantyhose does feel outdated and old fashioned, even in formal contexts, and I can see why it’s drawing commentary. Tights, on the other hand, are just a normal piece of clothing.

    14. Poster Child*

      I don’t get having bare legs with shoes. Sandals yes, but if the dress or season requires nicer shoes then I need hose or tights. Otherwise my feet would end up with blisters. So I think pantyhose are just fine because darker tights might not look good in some cases.

  4. Sleeve McQueen*

    #1 “it’s so weird, everyone keeps talking about my pantyhose. *shrugs”
    OR
    “I wear them in case I need to rob a bank and don’t have time to plan ahead”

    1. Seal*

      ”I wear them in case I need to rob a bank and don’t have time to plan ahead”

      Perfect!

      1. SarahKay*

        Yes, I love this. It feels like a really light-hearted, friendly way of telling everyone that you’re doing you, and it’s none of their business why.

    2. DataGirl*

      LOL, excellent answer.

      I have to wear compression socks at work because if I don’t want my ankles to double in size by the end of the day. It’s very rare that I wear a skirt or dress to work, but if I do compression tights or pantyhose are a must. I felt weird the first time I wore them because it does feel old-fashioned, but thankfully it was a non-issue. OP- I’m sorry that people keep asking you, that really is invasive.

      1. Minimal Pear*

        Yes, I really relate to OP because I wear compression stockings for disability reasons! Since they’re so thick (and usually plain skin tone or black), they can read as very old lady-ish. Luckily I dress like an old lady anyway, so it works with my outfits.

        1. I have RBF*

          I wear compression socks so my legs don’t swell up and start getting edema blisters. Fortunately they come in black and colors now.

    3. DJ Abbott*

      I am finding it weird. I wore pantyhose until 2019 and no one ever mentioned it. I wore the lightweight drugstore ones in summer and they looked enough like skin that people wouldn’t notice unless they looked closely.

      In 2019 I had to start wearing support socks, which is a whole other fashion challenge since I’m not giving up skirts. Even at that, one day colleagues were complementing my skirt, and I asked what they thought of the support socks. I was wearing black support socks and they had not even noticed.

      Do people routinely comment on each other’s clothes in #1’s office? Or is it just about pantyhose? Let OP wear what she wants and move on.

      1. WellRed*

        That’s the weirdest part to me. It’s ridiculous they keep commenting.OP wears pantyhose, let it go.

        1. Loremipsum*

          Well said, WellRed. I am not 60, but I have been in the workplace long enough and once in a setting where I saw women SENT HOME TO PUT ON STOCKINGS/PANTYHOSE in the early 1990s.

          A former colleague of mine said that *she* was sent home in the 1970s to go get a jacket or a sweater to put over a sundress.

          Let’s get back to work and stop debating women’s dress. I wear it sometimes but it’s too hot in the summer. Climate change may take care of this issue altogether.

          1. Salad Daisy*

            During the 70’s I worked for one summer in a department store. Women were not allowed to go sleeveless or wear open toed shoes. If we were wearing skirts or dresses, we were required to wear stockings or panty hose. People would be sent home for not adhering to the dress code.

          2. Unkempt Flatware*

            2002 for me. Small town bank. Women were required to wear hose under slacks too.

      2. Allonge*

        Thank you!!! I was wondering how (and how many) people notice in the wild (and care!) whether someone is wearing:
        1. over-20(?) den tights
        2. pantyhose
        3. nothing
        4. something else entirely
        unless, like, the tights are neon pink or otherwise more attention-grabbing by design. I never heard anyone make a comment otherwise and I would seriously find it weird to do so.

      3. MigraineMonth*

        I think this is just an attempt to clarify the dress code for a new worker. It’s obviously *okay* to wear pantyhose, since her boss does it, they just want her to know she doesn’t have to. And yes, it does sound like people talk about each others’ clothing in that office.

        “I like them” is probably all that’s needed to stop the comments.

    5. Sinead O*

      This is the perfect device to explain the difference between pantyhose and tights in countries where they are two different things. (As per the conversation in the above thread.)

      Could you put them over your head to rob a bank? You’ve got pantyhose, friend. Otherwise they’re tights.

    6. Janeric*

      This is a good approach, I think. Or even a basic “I know it’s not required, I just think they look cute!” or “I know, they just pull the outfit together!”

      OP could follow up with “do you think they’d be better in black/blue/etc.?” or similar.

  5. Name*

    LW 2 – I’d disagree with Allison’s response and say that it depends. I worked for one retailer with a bulls-eye logo that is big on teams. Everyone is a team member. The store manager isn’t “store manager” but “store team lead”. I was a senior team lead, which would have meant manager anywhere else. I kept getting passed over for interviews when I had all the qualifications. I changed the title to manager and started getting interviews and eventually hired.
    That said, I wouldn’t change a title like operations manager to leadership coach. Instead, I’d change my tasks and skills to highlight what I’m doing and how it’s similar to what they want.

    1. Goldie*

      Then you do this
      Store Team Lead/Store Manager

      and then list your duties that indicate that you we’re responsible for running the store.

      1. Artemesia*

        or Store Manager (Store Team Lead) so you lead with the functional title but acknowledge the local translation.

      2. Trout 'Waver*

        Nah, I wouldn’t do that either. There’s a huge gulf between Team Lead and Store manager. If you’re a manager by the Department of Labor’s definition of manager, I’d just stick with the manager title.

        A lot of companies are really sketchy with their reluctance to give out manager titles while still expecting manager level work.

    2. Filicophyta*

      It’s bad advice.

      That said, I changed my job title on my resume decades ago. I worked at a very small branch of a large internationally known chain store. I was the branch manager, but because it was so small, they only gave me the title and pay of ‘first assistant’, which had no relation to what I actually did. (They also set staff wages at the lowest band, which made hiring impossible, yet expected me to get good people.)

      I got my next job before I made that change, and changed fields after that, so there was no long-term harm done. I’m not proud to lie, nor do I recommend it, but I can understand how it happens.

      1. Resident Catholicville, U.S.A.*

        I think I’ve made this comment before, but at a previous job, I had a title that spanned a lot of industries and, if you weren’t in my field, had a very different connotation from the job I did. When I job hunted, I was getting responses, but not necessarily as many and/or from jobs that SEEMED like a great fit. I happened to be looking at the LinkedIn of someone at the big behemoth company in my industry, in my city, who had my same job- except, his title was very much better suited to the actual job description. It was the difference between my job title as “lama groomer” vs. his of “operations admin, lama division.” I didn’t do any lama grooming, but I worked as an admin in the lama division of my company. I made very sure all of my job duties were the same as him and changed my title on my resume. The next round of job applications got much better results.

        So, while I think this is bad advice in this instance, as long as you’re not claiming a title higher than what you already have; the change makes sense in the context of the industry and job you have; and you aren’t claiming skills you don’t have, I don’t see much reason NOT to change it if it will help. If it comes up in an interview or reference check, it can be explained. I’m two jobs post that job, btw, and it seems like everything has worked out okay.

        1. bamcheeks*

          My most-common job title includes the word “consultant”, which covers such broad range of things. LinkedIn can’t get its head around the fact that the bit that comes before the word “consultant” is way more important than the word “consultant”.

          1. Analyst*

            ha, LinkedIn is constantly asking me if I know people who work in the same location as me…which is “remote.” No, I do not…

          2. Shiba Dad*

            I get the same thing with “programmer” in my LinkedIn job title. I program specialized systems, think Llama Grooming System Programmer. LinkedIn largely ignores everything before programmer.

            Also, the job title I use on LinkedIn is different from my job title at work, which is highly generic. Think “Animal Planning Engineer”. I use that everywhere else.

          3. rebelwithmouseyhair*

            Same with “project manager”. At a translation agency, that’s a human letterbox: client sends a text to be translated into X languages, PM sends it to the X translators, they translate it and send their text back, PM sends all X translations back to the client.
            In my son’s engineering firm, the project manager is the stressed out guy trying to get impossible deadlines met, wrangling engineers and clients and developers and problems, and no matter how much they are paid, they leave with burnout after about a year.

            2. Michelle Smith*

              And I’m called a “project manager” but barely do any project management. The bulk of my job is research and providing consulting in my area of subject-matter expertise, which I obtained from years of practicing law. I still list my title as Project Manager on my resume, but when I start looking for a new role I’ll probably add a parenthetical like Project Manager (Legal Consultant).

          4. Snowy*

            My major was in Natural Resources Management….LinkedIn doesn’t get that the “management” is not, like, people management….and the “Natural Resources” is the very important part….

        2. RecoveringSWO*

          Yes, I deflated a job title in my resume. The small business I worked for gave every sales rep the title of “Sales Manager” to help misclassify us as non-exempt from overtime. I only include the inflated title in parenthesis on background check forms. Also, since I don’t work in sales anymore, I’m not as concerned about detailing out that title on my resume.

      2. Generic Mid-Career HR Person*

        Right, and the flipside of this is when someone has a somewhat inflated job title at a very small organization. There needs to be some flexibility for the fact that job titles are an art and not a science.

    3. Babanon5*

      Yea, a friend worked for a startup that had very silly titles that were all animal themed. Like the project manager’s literal title was “cat herder.”

      Most people ended up “picking” a title for themselves for their resume and everyone just kinda agreed on it.

      Still no idea what the “right” thing to do was.

      3. The Gollux, Not a Mere Device*

        I knew someone who worked at Apple in the early ’90s, whose business card said “Chief Wirehead.” I think he picked that himself, and I assume that for job-hunting purposes, and maybe even some conferences, he had a card or title that had some connection to what he actually did there, beyond “weird science fiction fan who works at Apple.”

      4. TX_trucker*

        We have mostly boring and descriptive job titles. But we also have a Cat Herder and Chief Cheerleader in our office. I can’t imagine calling these two employees by any other job title.

      5. raktajino*

        In college, I worked in an on-campus department that had an incomprehensible title for student employees. We were told to make up our own title for resumes and put it alongside our esoteric title. As long as we didn’t promote ourselves to manager or something, the school and department would go with it in background checks.

    4. Insert Clever Name Here*

      Alison is saying you can’t change it to something completely different that doesn’t match up with your job duties, not that your job title has to only be what’s on your paycheck. “Senior Team Lead (Manager)” wouldn’t be changing your title, just translating company-specific jargon to something more universally known — Alison has regularly recommended this when giving resume advice.

    5. Green rose*

      I agree that if your official title is misleading it does not make sense to use it on your resume. But changing your title to be misleading is a different matter.

      If your workplace uses odd titles / weird rankings you can also indicate the industry norm using parentheses. Eg Superior Chief Llama Groomer Llamas R Us (Animal Groomer’s Award – Level 2 Groomer).

      I had the same job title despite two significant promotions in one job. On resumes I broke them out to show that I was climbing the ranks within my professional field (I was at increasingly more senior positions in the same technical area). If I just used official titles I looked like a junior when my role definitely wasn’t (anymore)

    6. Venus*

      Alison has previously said that it’s okay to change the job title if it’s misleading (although I think the recommendation was to put the actual job title in brackets after?).

      You aren’t disagreeing with her, you’re suggesting something different. The LW was recommended to change their job title on each job application from the correct one to something misleading, and that’s different from changing it once from something misleading to accurate.

    7. MassMatt*

      This really doesn’t match the situation the LW described. The LW is being advised to change their current job title to match that of a job description, which is a completely different job/field.

      I hope this “career coach” has lots of other, better, advice, because this was absolutely terrible.

  6. Hmmm*

    For LW 1, I encourage you to get comfortable with saying that you like/enjoy something when you do. I’ve struggled sometimes with owning what I like, as I sometimes feel self conscious or embarrassed about it – I guess in case it’s not cool to like it! I still fall into the trap of teenagers thinking the only way to be cool is to dislike things, even now in my mid thirties. So I really like Alison’s advice to just say “I like them.” you do, and that’s great. Obviously you could go into greater detail if you want, but there’s a lot of power and peace of mind from even that simple positive statement.

    1. BubbleTea*

      I agree. I wear tights (SnagTights! In an assortment of colours) every day, year round. Last year I think I had bare legs once, because it was too hot even for me, and I like to be cosy. People do sometimes comment but I just say “I like wearing tights, it feels weird not to wear them because I’m so used to them” and either they accept it, or I chalk them up as rude and annoying, and avoid them in future. That’s probably easier to do when you work for yourself.

        1. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

          They are amazing. I live in their chub rub shorts under skirts in the summer, and they’re wonderful – no slipping down, rolling up, or otherwise requiring tugging adjustments, even after walking literal ten miles around Disneyworld in July.

          1. Silver Robin*

            oooh I already lived in their merino tights this winter and was eyeing those shorts for the summer. good to know they work!

          2. londonedit*

            Another huge fan of Snag chub rub shorts here. I have them in a rainbow of colours (they often have buy-more-save-more offers on) and they’re brilliant – they don’t make you sweat, you can hardly feel you’re wearing them, they don’t ride up and they’re perfect for stopping thigh chafing under dresses (even back in the days when I was three stone lighter than I currently am and a UK size 10, my thighs have always rubbed together, so they’re an absolute godsend).

    2. Jay (no, the other one)*

      Agreed. I’m a cis woman in my early 60s raised by a mother who firmly believed that bare legs were only appropriate at the beach. I also have some discoloration on my lower legs and I’m self-conscious about it. So I wear “nude” pantyhose whenever I wear a skirt for work or to anything even remotely dressy. No one has ever, ever commented on it. Not once. If they did I would be startled the first time, annoyed the second time, and completely exasperated the third time. “I like them” should be enough. If it’s not, I’d say “not sure why people keep commenting…” and hand the awkward back to sender.

      1. Really?*

        I agree, but then, l’m in the same age group as you and the bosses. Can’t even imagine wearing dress shoes all day without hose; I don’t like the feeling of my on my bare feet, and get blisters if I go without. And I never found pantyhose particularly uncomfortable, thanks to a\c probably. I also think my legs looks better in hose. You really shouldn’t need an excuse, but if you do, you could say that you are leaning into a “new” fashion…or everything old becomes new again.

      2. Lisa*

        “hand the awkward back to sender”
        I love this, and am totally stealing this phrase.

        1. Jay (no, the other one)*

          Can’t take credit for it – it’s from Captain Awkward, who is totally worth reading!

    3. ferrina*

      Seconding this advice! Own what you like and don’t apologize. Women are taught from a young age to apologize for being themselves. Don’t apologize for what you like. Don’t justify why you like it. “I like it” should be enough. That’s a complete sentence.

      This will be really good practice for you as you advance in your career and are advocating and talking about your accomplishments. “Yep, I did that.” “I like it”. “I’m good at that”. It also sets a precedence for others around you to be able to do the same thing.

    4. Heidi*

      I like this too. It’s not great that no longer having to wear hose now leads to people feeling like they need to defend their decision to wear them.

      1. rebelwithmouseyhair*

        yeah, women’s lib was supposed to give us choices, not a new set of diktats.

    5. Gary Patterson's Cat*

      I honestly think this is the best path! Just say you like them.
      Or, I like them because they:
      cover a multitude of leg issues
      make my legs look perfectly tan
      look smooth
      feel nice
      look nice
      go with everything
      Etc.

  7. Where’s the Orchestra?*

    OP 1 – I will also sometimes wear hose, it just makes me feel more professional (and also spreads out the time between shaves). I just own it if it becomes a topic of conversation- “nope, no reason, I just like how I look in hosiery.”

    Plus when I was pregnant, it was super easy to switch to support hose that helped keep the varicose veins to a minimum and support better circulation if you’re on your feet a lot.

  8. Goldie*

    I’d prefer to get coaching from an Operations Manager than someone who is simply a Leadership Coach. Is that a job?

    1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      It is a legit job (although I think the titles in the question were placeholders), but there’s a sort of irony in this “career coach” offering dud advice like this. I can only wonder if their actual title was something else but they’ve decided they want to be a career coach and the advice worked for them…

      1. Rex Libris*

        Good question. For all anyone knows, they could be the janitor, but decided they wanted to be a Career Coach, so they just started using that title. Fits with their advice, anyway.

    2. metadata minion*

      It sounds like one of those jobs where the are a few people who are genuinely very good at helping people who are new to upper management improve their leadership skills, and a whole lot of people who will charge absurd amounts of money to tell you either bogus or obvious things.

  9. MeetMeInCognito*

    I like Alison’s first suggested reply for OP #1. Friendly, while also making a subtle bstatement. It’s likely due to their young age and trying (in a roundabout way) to tell them pantyhose are not expected.

    For way too many years I put up with intrusive, obnoxious questions (but also innocent ones!) that I didn’t know how to answer and was utterly alone in figuring out the norms.

    Out of ideas on what to do, it got better when I started posing the question right back to them, as in “why do you ask?” making them have to explain their nosiness.

    It really depends on the context, the type of people they are, how well you know them etc. But if in doubt about how to reply, Alison’s suggestion is the ticket.

    Good luck to OP #1, you don’t owe any explanations about your personal choices to anyone. If you need self assurance, confide in someone you trust, otherwise (and especially) if someone is making you uncomfortable tell them to mind their own business!

    1. Myrin*

      Yeah, I really like this positive and friendly suggestion.

      It’s also not unlikely to stop the fact that this topic “keeps coming up” – I say “not unlikely” instead of “likely” because honestly, the fact that it does keep coming up suggests to me that the people in that office are weirdly fixated on this issue; so a declaration of preference might stop the innocent, well-meaning comments but not those who are annoying about other’s fashion choices. (Although they might! I’ve found that being very cheerful and owning things can make even the more boorish feel a bit embarrassed about their pestering.)

      1. ferrina*

        Coworker: “Why do you wear pantyhose?”
        OP: “I like it.”
        [Awkward silence while Coworker waits for OP to elaborate, then slowly realizes that OP has said all that she wants to]
        Coworker: “Well let me tell you my thoughts on pantyhose! [continues for a few minutes]”
        OP: “Sounds like you don’t like it. I guess that’s why you don’t wear it. Oh look, there’s a fluffy cloud passing by the window that I need to look at. Bye!”

        1. Hlao-roo*

          If OP wants to avoid hearing their coworker’s thoughts on pantyhose, it’s a good idea to do a subject change after stating “I like it” so the conversation becomes:

          Coworker: “Why do you wear pantyhose?”
          OP: “I like it. So, about those TPS reports…”
          Coworker: “Yeah, I’ll have them done by 2pm today.”

          or

          Coworker: “Why do you wear pantyhose?”
          OP: “I like it. Anyways, how was your weekend?”
          Coworker: “Great, I went to the zoo. How was yours?”

        2. rebelwithmouseyhair*

          As a non-shaver (lucky to have very little in the way of body hair which does make it easier), I would like to own my decision and say “well I think some people might be offended by my ‘non-professional’ leg hair” (air-quoting “non professional” to show that I think it’s ridiculous that there are norms for hair). Who knows, it might lead to someone saying “oh you don’t shave? I’ve been thinking I’d like to stop, so why don’t you come in bare-legged once my hair has grown out?”

    2. Wait but*

      “Why do you ask?” also has the virtue of leaving an opening should the co-worker have a genuine reason for asking – like maybe they want to know what brand it is because they’ve never been able to find a pair that doesn’t run five minutes after they put it on.

    4. Non-prophet*

      Yes, this! And OP1, I’m in my mid 30s and am someone who has been wearing pantyhose since I was a teen. I just feel more pulled together in them. I mostly work from home now so my wardrobe is pretty casual. But when I worked in office, I wore them year-round except in the height of summer. You do you, OP!

  10. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP3 (LinkedIn profiles of deceased people) – I disagree with the official answer, it is OK to report them. LinkedIn even has a page about this and makes the distinction between reporting (if you are a colleague etc, as per this situation) and requesting for it to be closed or memorialized (if you are a representative of the deceased person). Coming across the profile (as OP did) of someone known to be deceased when it pops up is likely to be quite jarring to others, too. It will sound harsh but I don’t think “the family deciding they want it to be left active” is a valid use of LinkedIn.

    1. Babanon5*

      I agree. I find it very jarring when I get a work anniversary notification for someone who passed away. It’s also a platform that family members may simply not be aware of.

      1. ferrina*

        Exactly- there’s no way I’d be aware of all of my close family’s social media. I’d hate for it to continue to impact others a long time later

        I’d say give it a year in case the family just hasn’t gotten to it yet (see Brain the Brian’s point below), but a year after they have passed, feel free to reach out to LinkedIn.

    2. Brain the Brian*

      Please do not report deceased people’s social media accounts. I just dealt with my father’s death this year, and someone else reported his Facebook account before we had pulled everything we needed — passwords (which he had an ill-advised habit of sending himself so he would remember), old photos that people had sent him, management rights for the public pages of which he was the only admin, etc. — out of his Facebook messages / account. Leave it up to the family, who will know when it’s time to report an account for memorialization. Frankly, your right to live unbothered by automated LinkedIn messages does not trump the rights of a deceased person’s survivors to manage their estate — including their social media pages.

      1. Quoth the Raven*

        This is where I fall, too.

        My father passed away less than a month ago. He didn’t use social media, but I would be pretty upset if someone reported it before my mum, my sister or I were ready for it or before we’d been able to retrieve all the information needed. His WhatsApp account is still up and will remain so for the considerable future, particularly because we haven’t notified everyone he’d been in contact with; while I did remove his last connection time, messages sent to him still go through and are shown as read as we open them.

        1. Brain the Brian*

          Right here with you — hugs, fellow commenter. My dad died in January, and we’re still getting password-reset codes to his phone for various accounts that the organizations with which he volunteered are transitioning to new people. We didn’t even know his phone was connected to some of these accounts… and that same principle applies to social media.

      2. Boolie*

        I’m not totally sure that’s your rightful prerogative, though, to go through someone’s private account and compile things sent to them perhaps in confidence. Even if it is things like old photos. It’s akin to rifling through their safe and picking what you want out of it imo. Besides as the original commenter said LinkedIn has explicit guidance for what should be done. I know Facebook has an option for designating someone to control your account when you die but that too is an explicit designation.

        1. Brain the Brian*

          It is, in fact, the right of the estate’s executor — or their designee — to examine private communications that a deceased person had while alive, unless their will indicates otherwise. (How else, for instance, would someone take over paying their bills?) In my case, my father designated me as his Facebook contact for memorialization, which gives me the ability to change his account’s profile picture and “pin” a post to the top of his page as a memorial. But as soon as someone else reported him as deceased to Facebook, I lost access to his messages, and all the public pages of which he had been the sole admin — several related to our local arts community — became “frozen” in their then-current state.

          Bottom line: stay out of other people’s business when they die unless their survivors ask for your help. Each social media platform handles things differently, and you might not realize or know the implications of reporting someone’s profile after they day. Their family is going through enough without unpleasant surprises at the behest of “well-meaning” strangers online.

          1. Boolie*

            Ah, so you did get the designation from your dad, which is good. I can’t believe someone was able to report the profile; I’m really sorry that happened. Shame. Meanwhile I report scammers that really do violate Facebook TOCs and they stay up for months before the report is rejected, lol. Gotta love social media.

          2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

            > It is, in fact, the right of the estate’s executor — or their designee — to examine private communications that a deceased person had while alive, unless their will indicates otherwise.

            Yes, but this can presumably be arranged via LinkedIn (or whichever site) as the executor. Logging in “as” the deceased person isn’t the right approach.

              1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

                I don’t know if the commenter above was logging in as the deceased person, it was more of a general comment about the need for executors/appointees to be able to get access to private communications etc. Even if the profile has been reported as ‘deceased’ there should be a process by which the executor can access the needed information (if that wasn’t the case for the commenter above, sounds like something has gone wrong in Facebook’s process).

                1. Brain the Brian*

                  As I’ve commented elsewhere, it cannot be arranged with Facebook or LinkedIn to allow a third party to access your DMs after you die. They can only access them if they log in *as you*, and once FB / LinkedIn / etc. become aware that you are deceased, they will lock your profile so no one can log into it. If you have a “legacy contact” designated, that person can approve tags on your behalf, change your profile and cover photos, and pin a memorial post to the top of your page — that’s it. So anything crucial lurking in DMs is just lost to everyone but the companies’ software engineers.

            2. Green rose*

              But is often far simpler. The amount of paperwork required to do this officially can be onerous. Especially for companies that are in foreign countries. Can you imagine the hassle (and cost?) if you need translations of official documents. Sometimes it takes months before probate etc. Frankly I’m fine with my family closing my accounts, or archiving my material, or placing an announcement etc at their choice. I don’t want random people deciding that for them or me.

              If you are bothered by seeing a reminder of a deceased colleague please just unfollow or mute or block. Different cultures look at death and silencing of their name/presence differently. You do you – let their family do it their way.

            3. Allonge*

              I would say whatever works for the family/executor has to work here, and the rest of us need to live with the consequences.

              I get that they might get access to communications not meant for them this way, but that is just part of life (if ‘I found my grandma’s love letters from someone not my grandpa’ is not a literary trope it should be) and social media (nothing is really ever private).

              1. WellRed*

                Yes. I really don’t get why people are making these bizarre comments about the appropriate heirs/survivors/executors not having the right to take care of business. Sorry but unless you lock your life in a box that self destructs upon your death, people are gonna go through your stuff to close out your life affairs. And this is social media, not some private affair. Luckily my two most recent deceased family were not on social media. It was complicated enough without this bs.

                1. Boolie*

                  I disagree they’re bizarre points of view; there are explicit rules spelled out for a reason. Again you don’t know what someone spoke to the deceased about in confidence…just because you don’t go in there trying to find it doesn’t mean you don’t have the door open to you to do so “just out of curiosity.” Just because there’s no “self destruct” option selected doesn’t grant anybody with the password the permission to rifle through whatever they want.

                2. Two Dog Night*

                  Replying to Boolie: The thing is, after you die, someone is going to be going through every single thing you own–every piece of paper, every photograph, every financial statement. Social media is no different. If there are things you don’t want your executor to see, you need to deal with them while you’re alive, whether they’re physical or digital.

                  (And not to put too fine a point on it… the person who died isn’t around to care. The survivors need to do what’s best for them.)

                3. Allonge*

                  @Boolie

                  But that is just what happens – once someone passes away, someone else likely will open their email, look at their phone and these days most likely their social media, just as a hundred years ago they would have been looking at their letters / diaries or whatever to close their affairs.

                  And in principle I agree they should not look, but, well, lots of people read automatically any text they see, some things may just be visible without looking that much and if I need to find an email among a hundred, I will most likely see a lot of the others too. Confidential things should be deleted while we are alive to do it as there is no controlling them otherwise.

                  I think it’s an issue not even connected to social media that much, we just have a lot more channels these days than snail mail and so notice it more.

            4. Brain the Brian*

              It cannot be arranged with LinkedIn or Facebook to view the DMs of a memorialized profile — short of a court order, which we weren’t going to obtain until long after Dad’s DMs related to his volunteer work were no longer relevant.

            5. too angry to use my usual name*

              OMG, why do you even care????

              Right now I am dealing with a suddenly disabled spouse who suddenly had to retire. You cannot believe how many things need to be addressed, closed off, looked through, and I cannot possibly get it all done fast enough to please people who are somehow “hurt” by seeing my spouse’s online presence when their situation is known. I have one or two more important things to take care of first.

              …if someone had the gall to go in and REPORT that “Name is retired and shouldn’t be appearing in XYZ online space”, well, I would have direct and very nasty words with that someone.

              And my spouse isn’t even dead yet. I cannot imagine how hurtful this would be for survivors.

              Butt. The. Hell. Out. It’s none of your freakin business what the survivors do and how they do it. You are not being harmed. Get your nose out of it.

          3. rebelwithmouseyhair*

            so maybe it would be better to report it to the family than to the social media? I mean, if you say “yes, we’re in the process of retrieving photos and notifying people, the profile will remain up until we’re sure that all the groups he moderated can function without him”, I’ll understand.

            1. Brain the Brian*

              Yep, this is the way to do it and the way we would have preferred it done for my dad. Once someone’s FB profile is “memorialized,” no one — not even the people designated as their post-death account managers — can see their private messages. I understand that this is to protect their identity and dignity, but frankly, people send information that their survivors will need after their death all the time via Facebook DMs. Dad’s conversations with the staff who run cemetery where he’s buried were in there, for instance, because the cemetery has no other contact info these days (they got rid of their phone several years ago). Before “memorialization” of his profile, we had indeed been logging in as him to archive information — because FB just doesn’t have another way to do it.

        3. Admin Lackey*

          Why on earth would you say this to a person you don’t know about how they dealt with their father’s death? Completely bizarre

          1. Boolie*

            They clarified that they were designated as the rightful carer of the profile which obviously makes it different and does grant them the right to take care of the profile. So they’re fine in this case. But if they weren’t explicitly designated, it absolutely would be wrong and bizarre of them to just bust in and rifle through whatever correspondence they wanted just because they had the password, because to your logic, anyone with the password would have the right to do that.

            1. Admin Lackey*

              No, I clearly was only talking about the children of the deceased, but go off.

              The commenter only clarified that because of your weird comment. It’s none of your business how a stranger on the internet dealt with their deceased parent’s social media account and it’s completely off topic.

              It’s odd that you think your way of being a busybody, reporting profiles on facebook and quizzing strangers, is totally normal but that it’s sooooooooooooooo inappropriate that a person would want to look through their deceased parent’s things. Given the other comments in their thread, you’re clearly the outlier.

            2. a clockwork lemon*

              I mean…yes that is what giving your password to trusted friends and family means. You give them your password so that they can have access to all your accounts. That’s the whole point of this.

              1. Brain the Brian*

                Bingo. I sent a list of passwords to trusted people this spring for exactly this reason.

        4. nnn*

          It is, in fact, the right of the executor and some heirs to “rifle through the safe.” That’s how this works when someone dies. What a bizarre thing to say.

          1. Frank Doyle*

            No no no, if someone dies and they have a safe, you just fling it into the ocean, unopened. It would be inappropriate to do anything else!

      3. Anonys*

        I would judge linkedin slightly different in this regard to more “personal” social media like facebook or instagram.

        In any case, from linkedins offical policy, if someone is not authorized to act on behalf of the deceased, the profile will just be “hidden”. If an authorized family member/representative later contacts linkedin, they can either full close it, or memorialize it, which will make the account visible again, but “in remembrance”. So a linkedin profile will not be lost to the family if someone reports the person deceased. Here the policy:
        “If you aren’t authorized to act on behalf of a deceased member, you can report them as deceased. Reporting a deceased member will result in the account being hidden. Once an account is hidden, the profile is no longer searchable or visible on LinkedIn; however, it is still available for memorialization or account closure by those authorized to act on behalf of the account.”

        And facebook’s official policy is that if a relative or close friend reports a member as deceased, the account will be memorialized (with all pictures, etc still up). An authorized representative (power of attorney, executor of will) can request a full deletion of the profile. It is also possible to nominate a “legacy contact” via facebook to have that authorization before one passes. Additionally, in your facebook settings, it is possible to decide that if facebook is notified of your death, the account should be fully deleted and not memorialized.

        So, basically, facebook will not delete an account just because a user is reported dead (unless the user explicitly wanted this in their settings). A person either needs to be legally authorized to act on behalf of the deceased or be their chosen “legacy contact” for a deletion.

        I think both of those are actually well-thought out and reasonable policies and should give comfort to both family members and anyone else wanting to report someone’s death.

        1. Brain the Brian*

          They are foolish policies in that they do not include a way for anyone to view DMs that the person has sent or received — which can contain crucial information and which, at least in the case of my dad, we needed. I understand if a person doesn’t want their family to see their DMs, but FB / LinkedIn / etc. need ways to grant designees access to DMs. I’m sure I would have cringed at the language my dad chose when sending them — I certainly did when searching his email for bills that needed paying and coming across other messages — but it’s better than the alternative.

      4. hbc*

        LinkedIn still leaves the account intact for the family/executors to decide what to do, just hides it. Given how LinkedIn is used, I think it’s reasonable for colleagues (or anyone, really) to point out when there’s incorrect information out there, and Fergus is not currently a good contact if I’m looking for Acme products in southern Ohio.

      5. I'm Just Here For The Cats!!*

        I am so sorry for your loss. A few years ago we lost my aunt unexpectedly, and then we all got the Facebook reminder that it was her birthday. It really upset my mom and the rest of her siblings.
        Did Facebook close the account or did they put it in memorialization? If it was memorialized it should still be on Facebook, so you can see those pictures, etc.

        1. Brain the Brian*

          Well, yes — but not the DMs about ad sales for the community event that Dad was organizing to take place just three weeks after his sudden death, or the ones from last year with the local cemetery staff about his burial plot. We needed those to pass along to the other people running the event and to figure out which plot in our family’s section was supposed to be his, and we couldn’t access them after his account was memorialized when someone else reported it. It’s a problem that stems from FB’s shortsighted policy, but you won’t solve it by reporting someone else’s profile before their executors.

      6. fhqwhgads*

        I took the letter to be specifically about LinkedIn, not social media in general. I do think it makes a difference. I don’t necessarily disagree with AAM’s advice, but lumping LinkIn with Facebook or Instagram or other personal social media accounts of a deceased person feels very weird to me. It’s fairly well-known the people managing the estate may keep FB pages up as a tribute, need to get things from it, etc. I don’t think that’s surprising or odd. It is odd that LinkedIn automatically posts as if a deceased person were still working, which to me makes it more understandable that a work-acquaintance might flag it to LinkedIn. Not saying they should, but it’s not as wildly inappropriate as with FB or other. All that said, the real problem is what LinkedIn does automatically in general. They’re making it weird.

      7. allathian*

        I’m so sorry for your loss.

        Social media companies really need to improve on how the accounts of deceased account holders are handled.

        That said, I do think there’s a difference between purely social media like Facebook and professional social media like LinkedIn. With FB, etc. it should absolutely be left to the family to decide what to do with an account (memorialize or delete), unless the account holder has decided on a particular course of action in their digital will, which needs to be respected if so. FB friends who are upset by things like birthday reminders for a dead person should unfriend or block the account.

        LinkedIn is a bit different, though, because people aren’t necessarily connected with their family on LI, especially if they work in completely different fields.

    3. Green great dragon*

      Yes, this is what reporting is for. Reporting it will hide it and presumably stop the auto-generated false updates, but it will still be available to the family to keep, close or memorialise as they wish.

      I wouldn’t do it after a month, but if it’s been a while and it’s still generating fake anniversaries, I would. It is horribly jarring to be reminded in that way of a friend’s death.

      1. Lady_Lessa*

        I also see a difference between Linkedin, which is more for career etc and Facebook which is more general communication etc. I’d tend to report Linkedin and do nothing about Facebook and others similar to that.

      2. Brain the Brian*

        In our case, someone reported my dad’s Facebook profile four days after he died, before we even had his obituary in the paper. What a mess to sort through, given how much of his life he ran through his Facebook account. The same principles apply to other social networking sites, although no one has yet reported his LinkedIn profile…

    4. Rachel*

      I would suggest ring theory here.

      Friends and work acquaintances are outside the ring, the family is inside.

      Know your place and leave it be.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        Thank you. Its not your business what happens to the page. If you don’t want to see anniversaries of deceased people you can just remove them from your linked in connections.

    5. Wid*

      Widow here. In my online widow groups, the removal/memorialization of social media pages is a Big Deal. People get really upset when others report pages and they get memorialized, etc. It might not seem like a big deal to others, but when you are grieving, I think you are trying to preserve any control you can, because when your person died, your life feels totally out of control.
      If a deceased person’s profile bothers you just unfriend/block them.

      1. Brain the Brian*

        This is a very insightful take — one that’s helpful for me, too, as I continue to grieve. Thank you for sharing it, Wid.

    6. MCS*

      I agree. I understand that grieving is hard and I can understand people may be upset, and I don’t think people should be out there *looking* for profiles of people who’ve died to report, but it doesn’t make sense to not update the information to reflect reality.

    7. Fluffy Fish*

      I say this gently but your discomfort as a colleague does not and will never trump they family’s feelings.

      Stay out of it.

    8. alienor*

      Why would you “report” them? They didn’t commit a crime or do anything wrong by dying, and if someone comes across their profile and sends them a connection request or message about a job, it won’t be any different than if someone messaged one of the millions of inactive/abandoned accounts out there. If the deceased person left instructions, that’s one thing, but I’d be highly annoyed if someone took it upon themselves to erase my late parent or spouse off the internet because it bothered them to see a notification pop up once a year, when I have to live with those people being gone every day.

    9. learnedthehardway*

      Agreeing – it’s quite likely to be upsetting for the family for their deceased loved one to be getting approaches from people re job opportunities, sales pitches, connection requests, etc. etc. And it doesn’t align with LinkedIn’s purpose, which is to connect people (not unless LinkedIn gets into seances).

      1. learnedthehardway*

        ETA – I see this as a totally separate issue from Facebook – that’s a social networking site, as opposed to LinkedIn being a professional networking site.

        A memorial page on Facebook is a good way to remember a loved one and to make sure that their friends and family have an online place for to exchange reminiscences, etc.

    10. Thin Mints didn't make me thin*

      My dad died in 2014 and I still haven’t been able to get LinkedIn to take down his profile.

    11. rebelwithmouseyhair*

      The family are not the only ones to mourn. I would be horrified to see the account of a recently deceased colleague.

      1. rebelwithmouseyhair*

        And having read others’ answers about needing time to deal with retrieving photos or names etc. I understand that the profile should not be deleted, just hidden from view.
        On another forum I often post in, the mods put In Memoriam just beneath the profile name, so that when old threads are resuscitated (which happens more there than anywhere else somehow), we know that there’s no point asking a question of those profiles. They also put out a post to let us know, sometimes with a link to send condolences to the family. I think that’s just great.

      2. Rachel*

        How do you think the family of the deceased would feel if an account was pulled or blocked before they had the chance to administer it properly?

        A few degrees above horrified.

        I suggest you read up on Ring Theory.

      3. Fluffy Fish*

        Your feelings do not trump the families.

        It’s not your decision. It’s not your business. If seeing a deceased colleagues LinkedIn profile is that horrifying then what would be in your control and purview would be to block it.

    12. Gary Patterson's Cat*

      I think if you are not the family and want to report it, perhaps wait at least a year before doing so.

      1. Forty Years In the Hole*

        This is very timely. We just lost a dear family member, and I am co-executor for his estate (not in US).

        So.much.paperwork. But we’re working very closely with his daughters in determining what happens with the “little/eventual stuff”(memberships, clubs, etc) – separate from the “big/must do” stuff like banking, property/assets, funeral, taxes, etc.

        He has a live but not up-to-date account. I asked the daughters what to do with it: cancel/delete, or memorialize. They opted – not me – to have it cancelled.

        So once I receive my formal Letter of Authorization via Probate office, that, and the death certificate will give me the authorization to request LinkedIn to delete the acct. Wouldn’t wish Executor duties on anyone; it’s like being back at work full time.

        1. Brain the Brian*

          My sympathies to you, Forty Years In The Hole. We’re in the US, but it did take months for the official letter naming my mother as the executor and me as her designee for certain items to come through – by which time a lot of things big and small had already had to be dealt with. The paperwork alone is dizzying, let alone the decisions of what to do. Sending strength to you and the rest of your family…

  11. Usagi*

    OP1 They probably wouldn’t ask if you were wearing tights under a skirt, but either tights under your pants or pantyhose under a skirt (or at all really) are going to seem decades out of date. Which is fine! You may just need to own it, lean into the 80s vibe OR if you prefer, it’s fine to just explain that you don’t shave your legs.

    But if you prefer not to explain, or to get the old fashion comments, I think sticking to tights or knee socks under a skirt (and just regular socks under pants) will seem normal. Black tights to whatever sheerness you prefer, patterned tights (like with hearts, etc) or colorful tights like Snag Tights all seem like good options.

    You might still get comments about always being covered up, because people can be nosy about that kind of thing, like if you never wore short sleeves. The old-fashioned comments are probably specifically if you’re opting for actual pantyhose.

    1. MsM*

      One or two sessions of gushing about Snag Tights will indeed generally get people to stop commenting on it being weird to like wearing hosiery. (I, uh, may or may not have firsthand experience with this.)

        1. Meri*

          Thanks for mentioning them- I’d been looking for some tights in my size, and they look perfect!

          1. Phryne*

            They are brilliant. I am both tall and have broad hips. Normal brands generally only stretch one way at the time, lengthwise or broadwise, and I need them to stretch both ways at once. Snag tights do that, don’t pinch your waist and are cheaper than the expensive big brand ones I had to buy before. 10/10 recommend!

    2. No no no all the way home*

      Ooh saying something seems “decades out of date” is exactly what a snarky 60-something know-it-all woman in my family says. We just ignore her attempts to correct our fashions.

  12. Jade*

    No one will question black or colored tights. They look much better and you won’t get the pantyhose questions.

    1. Myrin*

      Can we not with the “[other thing] clearly and objectively looks much better than [thing OP chose]”?

      1. yvve*

        yea, thanks! i dont think Op1 is asking if she *should* wear pantyhose, shes asking how to respond when people make judgements on her fashion choices

      2. Sarah*

        Yeah, especially if what you WANT is a neutral skin-like colour that can be worn with a variety of different coloured clothes without clashing, which is like pantyhose’s whole Thing. Different things for different applications.

        1. amoeba*

          Yeah, also style-wise… opaque (black or colourful) definitely doesn’t go as well with all outfits! I mostly own black tights and don’t like combining them with more light colours. So why would I wear them instead of something that I actually like better, visually?

      3. SarahKay*

        Yes, thank you for saying this. OP chooses to wear pantyhose and isn’t asking for alternatives, just how to stop people asking them about it (and quite possibly offering unsolicited advice on alternatives).
        Plus, while some outfits are fine with coloured or black tights, some…aren’t. If I’m wearing a light-coloured, lighter-weight smart skirt and blouse then I’ll wear sheer tights (aka pantyhose) because that’s what the outfit calls for. Granted I’m in the UK, where I think sheer tights aren’t seen as dated in quite the same way as they seem to be in the US so feel free to take my outfit choice with a pinch of salt.

      4. CommanderBanana*

        Seriously! I wear nude hose literally every day, even in the depths of our muggy summers, because my feet are always freezing, I have hella spider veins, I feel more comfortable wearing stockings than going barelegged, no, I don’t find them uncomfortable, and yes, I like the way they look and I don’t want to wear black or colored tights and bother with matching them to what I’m wearing.

    2. scandi*

      They’re also much less formal than sheer pantyhose. Don’t get me wrong, I like coloured tights on occasion, but they really don’t work with all styles of clothing or personal styles. Even opaque black is less formal than sheer black.

    3. DataGirl*

      Maybe it’s because I am very pale, but I always thought black tights look terrible. Maybe OP feels the same.

    4. M*

      Black and coloured tights don’t go well with summer dresses, they’re thicker and they tend to suit fall or winter palettes much better.

      OP should keep wearing what she likes, and a simple “because I like them” should satisfy all but the most obnoxious people

  13. AnonNow*

    Don’t express resentment to the recruiter, LW#5. They might come back with an offer later when their first hire doesn’t work out–that’s not uncommon in such cases. Even if not, you might run into the same people in another context.

  14. Boolie*

    What is it about career coaches and absolutely garbage advice? I really think they are scammers who take desperate people’s money.

    A young man out of the blue emailed me (not a hiring manager or recruiter at all) with his resume asking for a reference (???) I did not open his files but did, in a perhaps gutsy leap of faith, reach out to him via InMail asking how he got my work email address and why he chose me to email. He said there’s an AI site called Apollo dot io which collects your LinkedIn information even if hidden (ugh) and sells it to people. A career coach he hired advised him to use this site and to reach out to random current employees at the company he’s interested in, asking for a reference (because “an internal reference gives you a better chance of standing out than applying through the website” [like you’re friggin supposed to!!]). He seemed kings and intelligent, just naive, so I explained at length how that’s not how that works at all and will make him “stand out” in a negative way. He got the message; I then blocked him. What a terrible misguidance.

    1. Sarah*

      Yeah, I once talked to a career coach who kept insisting I should try to be a writer because I am good at writing, even though he also kept saying that meant contract mostly positions and having to look for new ones through networking and I was TELLING him that for mental health reasons I wanted stable employment. It didn’t matter what I was good at so much as what I could live with, but he didn’t see it that way.

    2. Not Australian*

      AFAIK there are no formal qualifications required of a ‘career coach’. I’m sure some of them are very knowledgeable, but – at least where I live – anyone can *call* themselves a career coach, get a logo and a website, and then just sit back and watch the money roll in. I knew someone who set herself up as a ‘life coach’ in a similar way: it was 100% a scam, and she was fooling herself as much as her customers. (She got shut down quite quickly, thank goodness.) People are always looking for short-cuts to success, but in real life there’s no such thing: proper research is a far more useful resource than any quack remedy peddled online – in this, as in so many other areas of life!

      1. Fieldpoppy*

        Coaching is a self-regulated profession — meaning that there are certification processes that are actually quite significant, and an international accreditation body (international coaching federation — ICF) that provides a framework for ethical and competent coaching. But the title coach is not protected like, say, the title psychologist, is. So yes, anyone CAN call themselves a coach — but if want to engage one, look at their accreditation. The vast majority of actual trained coaches will have an ACC, PCC or MCC from ICF alongside whatever training they have (coactive coaching — CPCC — is one of the most rigorous).

    3. Cat Tree*

      I imagine that the good career coaches do it in a way that is unobtrusive to entries else so you don’t even realize they exist unless you’re the one hiring them.

    4. Falling Diphthong*

      “Career coach” is one of those titles anyone can give themselves while hanging out a virtual shingle. Unlike “accountant” or “architect,” but like “tutor” and “garden designer.” Some people doing any of those jobs are going to be really good at it. (I recall an example from someone who wanted to be famous, and was coached to become a children’s librarian–it gave her the “regularly recognized by happy people” that she wanted.) Some people will be bad. (My neighbor’s career coach told him to backdate his “consulting” work to the date he was laid off, which attracted the interest of the people paying him unemployment.)

  15. Lily*

    Lord – I hate pantyhose with the fire of a thousand suns. Even though I know it’s not cool to comment on colleague’s attire, I would totally be guilty of checking ‘hey, you know you don’t have to wear those, right?’. Even tights give me the shits. I like wearing dresses and live in a place with cold winters. One day I realised that I could wear comfy black leggings (yoga tights) with tall boots and a dress and look sufficiently professional for my corporate management role. (you see so little of the leggings between the boots and the dress…) I also realised that I don’t care what anyone thinks. I threw out all my pantyhose and tights and embraced the comfort.

    1. Could you not*

      Can you keep your opinion to yourself please? Some people like wearing these things.

      Unless of course you are okay with me complaining about how uncomfortable yoga pants are every time someone brings them up

      1. GraceC*

        I got one too many comments on the fact that I always wear skirts and dresses even to casual “jean Friday” type events (with the “being overly feminine makes people think less of you” undertones) and ended up going on a semi-passionate rant about how jeans are the most uncomfortable item of clothing known to man, absolutely awful, and I hate the fact that they’re apparently synonymous with “casual comfort” to the point of people thinking I’m in some sort of religious cult if I say I don’t own any

        Hey, it made people stop saying weird stuff about my dresses! If they’d been less snide about it they’d have got a Snag tights recommendation and a cheerful “dresses are so much easier, you don’t have to worry about co-ordinating multiple items”

        1. Lady_Lessa*

          I’m with you about not having/wearing jeans. I do have some denim skirts that I like and wear.

        2. CommanderBanana*

          I hate jeans. I own them for dog park and other associated purposes, but I hate them. I find skirts infinitely more comfortable and they only need to fit in one place (the waist) versus all the other assorted places jeans must fit.

      2. CommanderBanana*

        ^^ This. I would rather wear chainmail than yoga pants. I hate leggings. I don’t even wear them at home, such is my antipathy to leggings. I wear nude hose every day. Your way is not the One True Way of Leg Coverings. Unless a coworkers asks if hose are required, I would err on the side of that person being the Boss of Their Own Legs and Associated Coverings.

    2. amoeba*

      I mean, it’s OK to give a young colleague a (one!) friendly pointer if you think they might believe they have to wear them! Like “hey, just to let you know, bare legs are also OK with the dresscode in case you’d prefer that”. But to keep asking? That’s just weird.

      (I also guess I really don’t see the difference in comfort for pantyhose vs. tights vs. leggings – they’re all quite equally comfortable for me and I assume I’m not the only person in the world to whom that applies!)

        1. amoeba*

          But apparently at least several of the older women *are* wearing them, and certainly not every office has an official, written dress code (which doesn’t mean there aren’t still expectations)! So I could see somebody thinking “oh, I hope just because Lisa and Anne are wearing them, she doesn’t think she has to, as well!”

          But again – one friendly pointer would probably not have led to her to write in to askamanager. So pretty sure they did not stop there.

    3. Irish Teacher*

      It really is just a matter of preference though. I find tights and a skirt far more comfortable than any alternatives I’ve tried. It’s probably just what I’m used to but I find pants of any kind less comfortable. Don’t think I’ve ever worn leggings because they look even less comfortable than other pants to me. That’s not a criticism of leggings or pants, just my personal preference.

      And I would find it kind of odd if somebody told me I didn’t have to wear tights, because I would wonder what would make them think I would think I had to. To be honest, if somebody just said it to me out of the blue, I’d probably wonder if it was some kind of hidden dig, like “surely, you don’t actually want to wear that.”

      I mean, a certain amount would depend on how it was said and if there was any context, but I am not dressing to impress anybody and I would assume that was pretty obvious and it would seem weird to me if people assumed I was just because my preferences were different from theirs.

      I find jeans massively uncomfortable and can’t even imagine wearing high heels but would never consider telling anybody who wears either of those that they don’t have to. I assume they just prefer them.

    4. Wait but*

      You’re correct, it’s not cool to comment on a colleague’s attire, at least not in this vein of “I would hate it if I were dressed like you”. Your colleague will not thank you for the useful guidance, but she will definitely develop some opinions about your boundaries and level of self-absorption.

  16. Free spirit*

    LW1: On top of the advice that’s already given, I would recommend to stop caring about other people’s remarks. You don’t need their approval, especially if your attire is appropriate for your workplace.

    1. Random Academic Cog*

      Yes and no. A young person in a small office will need the support of those around them if they intend to move up. These may be their first professional contacts that they’ll need for references later, if nothing else. Conforming to office standards/culture can be a lot more critical early in one’s career. You have to build up a little more political capital to buck norms without consequence. In this case, I think it’s appropriate to just use one of Alison’s suggestions and put the issue to rest even though I agree that it shouldn’t be necessary in an ideal world (as long as the overall vibe is appropriate to the setting).

  17. Kwebbel*

    OP2: Your story jumped out to me, because I’m actually hiring for an Operations Specialist role right now, and one of my applicants put their current title as “Operations Manager”. The thing is, they’re an internal candidate, so I could look them up in our system and I discovered they’re actually a Project Manager (and another person on their team is the Ops Manager!). Since the candidate provided no context in their application as to why they used a mismatched title, even though it was something I was likely to discover immediately, their CV went straight into the “no” pile, even though the rest of their application was very good. I just didn’t know what was true of them anymore.

    Since an application is the first impression a hiring manager will have of you, I’d always say to stick to the truth. Certainly, if an applicant’s title doesn’t really explain what they do in their role (like their title is “Business Analyst” but it’s more of a Jr. Project Manager role than a tech role), a more familiar title can either go in brackets or be highlighted in the applicant’s accomplishments. But using a completely different title than what the candidate actually does…that’s just terrible advice! Is it the coach’s hope that you’ll keep getting rejected from jobs so that you need their services from longer (and therefore pay them more)?

    1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      That does seem quite a brazen thing to do as an internal candidate! (Are you 100% sure that the internal directory information is up to date? If it is anything like the system at my place there could be outdated titles, people who have left, promotions that haven’t been reflected in there, etc etc.)

  18. bamcheeks*

    aargh, sympathy LW1! Such a great example of how overdetermined women’s dress and presentation is.

    (I find it so fascinating how ridiculously the trends in “bare” legs keep changing, and which is the “prestigious” thing. During the war, women dyed their legs to pretend they were wearing stockings. At school we wore very thin tights but hoped they looked like bare legs. Then you had bare legs but they were supposed to be tanned because you were fancy enough to go on holiday and tan, but there were sunbeds and fake tan if you couldn’t actually do that. Then everyone got worried about skin cancer and they invented airbrush tan, and now that’s fancier than simply going out in the sun. It’s just a ridiculous convoluted circle!)

    1. maybesocks*

      And for each of those someone was making money. They convince us that we need fixing and they can fix us.

    2. CommanderBanana*

      Haha my Gmom has some very funny stories about her and her girlfriends using gravy mix to fake the look of stockings in the 40s. She said it worked pretty well but they smelled like pot roasts. (That is probably how she got my granddad, tbh. He did love a pot roast.)

    3. Forrest Rhodes*

      The elder women in my family told me that in the 1940s and ’50s they’d use an eyebrow pencil to draw the “seam” up the backs of their legs so it looked like they were wearing nylons, but never said anything about dyeing their legs. (I do love CommanderBanana’s story of pot roast as a cologne, though—sneaky!)

  19. KD*

    OP #1 – I love Alison’s idea of just saying “I wear them cause I like them!” and i’m not trying to convince you otherwise, but I will say that when I worked in nonprofit law firms & city government, I didn’t shave my legs and no one cared. At both law firms I actually had women colleagues tell me they really I appreciated that I didn’t shave my body hair. So if you don’t shave, I think there’s a good chance that not only will you encounter more apathy than judgment, you will also encounter support!

    1. Random Dice*

      I’m ridonkulously femme, and just flat out stopped shaving during the pandemic, and never started again. I still dye my hair because the color thrills my soul, but I was only shaving to fit a stupid sexist gender norm (my husband doesn’t care at all), so I stopped. I wear skirts and dresses pretty much exclusively and just have fuzzy legs.

      If anyone were to comment I’d stare at them in astonishment until they got uncomfortable.

  20. Chilipepper Attitude*

    I don’t know if this is anyone else’s experience but I was taught that baring your legs was akin to sexual depravity! If you did not wear panty hose with skirts, you were signaling you were up for sex with anyone anytime. You were a loose woman. You were judged and it was gross!!

    1. I think the “old fashioned” idea comes from those ideas, that might help explain why some react so strongly to them.
    2. When I was young I always thought this was stupid. Fake skin meant to look exactly like your skin was ok but actual skin was not!? Wtf
    3. Bc I connect pantyhose to those judgements of women and our bodies, I hate them with the passion of a 1,000 suns.

    I might say something once to a woman wearing them in case she did not know they were required. So I understand why some might have said something to the OP.

    Times do change and we need to learn to grow with them. OP, people are giving you awkward, feel free to pass it back to them!

    If, “I like them!” does not work, say “wow, you are so interested in what I’m wearing.”

    1. Chilipepper Attitude*

      Typo! I might say something in case a woman did not know they were NOT required!!

      They were required in my first jobs.

    2. Dr. Rebecca*

      This, and my mother’s eternal commitment to getting me to wear a slip. Couldn’t stand pantyhose (bunchy, hot, snagging things) or slips (bunchy, bad textured, slippery things). No one can say “your slip is showing” if you’re not wearing one. *pointy fingers dot gif*

      1. Chilipepper Attitude*

        Omg! I forgot about slips! Another opportunity to moralize over female bodies and behavior through clothing. My mother about lost her mind when I stopped wearing slips!!

        1. CommanderBanana*

          I wear them every day? I find them super comfortable, they protect my clothes and stop static cling, and I can yank off my outer layer the second I get in my house and doodle around in my slip.

        2. Artemesia*

          I remember when it became very hard to get them as I found that lots of my skirts rode up or were not comfortable without them and then they became hard to find. I like a cotton half slip with many of my skirts — and then there were none. Although I don’t really wear skirts anymore, I still have a hoarded cotton half slip in case I ever do again.

          1. CommanderBanana*

            Thrift stores! Seriously that’s wear all of mine have come from and they’re usually very cheap. I prefer the nylon ones over cotton.

          2. M*

            They are kinda pricy (not outrageous though IMO) but I found that April Cornell is an online retailer that sells an abundance of cotton slips. Full slips and short and long half slips. And comfortable dresses with pockets.

            Love cotton slips. It’s a lining that I can add to any unlined dress!

        4. yvve*

          huh, im m in my 20s and always wear slips, i never knew there were expectations around them! just figured they were practical to prevent bunching skirts

    3. Sala*

      Women used to be judged for not wearing pantyhose, and now they apparently get judged if they do. It’s almost as if the random article of clothing (pantyhose in this case, but bras provoke much of the same reaction) aren’t actually the issue.

        1. Sala*

          I’m always infinitely amused when people complain about a certain article of clothing being impractical and then rave about some other impractical piece of clothing. I mean, sure, you’re not required to wear bras or pantyhose as far as I’m concerned but if you’re going to go on a rant of how impractical they are it’s ironic if you do it while wearing a jumpsuit (those top and bottom combos that require you to basically get undressed completely if you need to pee).

          For the record, the above was written with the general you

          1. Falling Diphthong*

            One of the weirdest sci-fi conventions was the idea that in the future everyone will wear one-piece body suits. Flattery completely aside, it’s not usually a practical article of clothing unless “make sure the machinery/chemicals/etc can’t splash a bit of exposed skin at the waistline” is the criteria for the clothing.

            1. Emmy Noether*

              I do think that’s exactly where that convention comes from. The bodysuits are meant to evoke mechanic’s suits/flight suits, and imply that one is ready to fix a complicated piece of machinery or fly a rocketship at the drop of a hat.

              Fashion is rarely about practicality. It’s about symbolism.

              1. Student*

                “Fashion is rarely about practicality. It’s about symbolism.”

                You do you, but my fashion is definitely about practicality. Symbolism is exhausting, so I leave it in the capable hands of others.

              2. Falling Diphthong*

                That’s an interesting insight! On The Expanse and The Silo, people wearing jumpsuits (loose pocket-filled ones) are in fact likely to be fixing things, and in the first to get into a space suit.

                Also on The Expanse, I loved how the UN Undersecretary had to adapt her style for freefall, where terrifyingly intimidating saris are not practical. Also I decided Drummer’s eye makeup was tattooed on so that she could look her usual terrifying self if she had just rolled out of bed, like her makeup was a useful shorthand to convey the rest of her.

                1. Joron Twiner*

                  Apparently Drummer’s eye makeup was inspired by the actress herself, who wore it to her audition!

  21. Delta Delta*

    #1 – OP can just say she likes hose and be done with it. No need to explain why – there are perfectly good reasons, and they’re all fine.

    #2 – this career coach has the same vibes as Carl Weathers as an acting coach in Arrested Development. Take that as you will.

  22. Anima*

    Whenever pantyhose comes up I want to say something, so now I finally do: can we stop policing each others clothes, please? Especially women’s? It is absolutely irrelevant what one wears if it’s clean and mostly weather appropriate, end of story. People don’t wear clothes *at* each other normally. (Granted some people do, but most don’t.)
    And yes I get that in some industries a certain way of dress is expected, but if it’s details like pantyhose/no pantyhose it shouldn’t even be talked about. At all. (Well, maybe to get recommendations for a nice pantyhose, but that should be it.)

    I’m so tired of this.

    1. CommanderBanana*

      THANK YOU. There’s been a lot of “well just wear opaque tights!” and other related comments on the thread. The OP didn’t ask for alternatives and seems 100% happy with her choice to continue wearing stockings.

      Also you can have my nude hose when you pry them off my cold, cold feet.

    2. pally*

      Yep!

      To those who DO comment on my attire, I remind them “be thankful I’m even wearing clothes!”- with a big grin. That usually ends the critique.

      (I work in a lab where there’s a good chance of ruining an article of clothing (via acid, bleach, dyes. Substances that do not simply wash out.). I’m not risking anything expensive. So it’s t-shirts and jeans every day. And if I have to visit the C-suite in said attire, well, learn to adjust people.)

    3. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

      Amen.

      If you need recommendations for hose – Sheertex. I bought mine off a review where the reviewer’s husband literally tried to pick her up by the hose and the people gave up on the attempt before the hose ripped. They’ve held up to my dogs, my fingernails, and my jewelry.

    4. whatapittie*

      Absolutely agree!

      Though the dressing *at* someone immediately made me think of the epic update to the letter about the employee who would drastically change her appearance in the middle of the day and then quit by taking her top off.

  23. Zee*

    #2 I had a role that was officially called team coordinator, very vague but basically admin support to a bunch of different teams. When it was my most significant experience I would change it slightly depending on the role I was applying for, but it was always still aligned to the experience I had.
    So a job that was looking for one all rounder admin staff member I would change it to “Team Coordinator – Administration”, or if it was a role that required managing others I would use “Administrative team coordinator” just tiny changes that aren’t flagging to anyone checking up on my history, but enough to emphasise the side to the job that I thought would be more desirable for the position I wanted. But! I never said I was something I wasn’t, one phone call to check my work history and you’ll not only miss out on the job you want, but any other opportunities with that organisation.

    1. Just a Minion*

      My job title is super vague and does not remotely represent the job. On my resume, I put a short explanation under the title

  24. Guest*

    What is it with Nosey Parkers who can’t resist bugging colleagues about their sartorial choices? LW, tell them to stop talking about this once and for all and if they don’t, it’s time to speak to HR. Your legs are none of your coworkers’ business.

  25. Gary Patterson’s Cat*

    3. Should I report deceased people’s LinkedIn profiles

    I’m going to disagree on this one having had my partner die and trying to get in and close his accounts.
    Some social sites do no make this easy! Many family members don’t know about the deceased’s social, how to close them, or may not be computer savvy. I’ve seen this on LinkedIn 5-6 years after a person passed, and it’s creepy to get notifications at that point.

    For LinkedIn, I think it is ok to report the person is deceased, but only do it after perhaps a year or more has passed if no one has done so.

  26. Ssssssssssssssssssssss*

    My sister and I both have brown hair.

    One day, on a visit, she pulled down her knee high socks to show (show off?) to me her unshaven legs and WOW, it was impressive (a) just how much hair she had on her legs and (b) just how long and dark it was. Only thick tights could have hidden that hair. Average hosiery would have shown all of it.

    If OP can wear regular hose and not shave her legs and have no one notice the unshaved hair as a bonus and be comfy, go for it. No need to explain to anyone beyond, “I like it.”

  27. Someone makes a buck*

    LW # 1 – There was a great “Adam Ruins Everything” episode about body hair. Basically Gillette and the other razor companies made up fake countries and articles about “trends overseas” to get women to shave in order to sell more razors under the guise of the “latest in fashion” about 100 years ago. It is a new trend, and it can die. If men or women want to shave whatever parts of their bodies, or not, great! It is no one’s business. FWIW, I am a man.

    1. MCS*

      Yeah; it’s kind of shocking just how many absurd ideas were generated by marketers in the 20th century that we’re still living with today.

    2. Armchair Analyst*

      Yes and no. There are also (patriarchal) cultures going back thousands of years with a gender preference for body hair – men yes, women no. I wouldn’t tell them that hair removal is a 20th century invention. See: Fertile Crescent from Nile River Valley to Tigris & Euphrates, c. 1500 BCE to 1000 CE or so. A wide range of beauty practices among many cultures

      1. Artemesia*

        The only woman I knew who did not shave her pits when I was young was an Aunt who was a very devout fundamentalist Christian. I always wondered if there was a link there, but it wasn’t something one talked about. This was in the 50s when no one didn’t shave and girls started shaving with dry razors because no one told them how when they were about 13 —

      2. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Some of those cultures also shaved because of body lice. So honestly whenever I shave I think, Well, at least this is my choice and not something I must do to keep the little gross buggies off.

    4. Lyudie*

      I roll my eyes every time I see one of those “European” wax places here in the US. European women didn’t shave, much less wax for ages (I think that is changing somewhat). Somewhat tangentially, my European-born husband told me that in Europe, things are sometimes marketed as being “American style” because that will make it seem more appealing, like things being marketed as “European style” in the US, regardless of how accurate those labels actually are.

  28. Epsilon*

    I used to work in a role where it was pantyhose or trousers – and rarely were trousers appropriate. I hate the feeling of legs with hair growing in! – especially with pantyhose on top and hate the hassle of daily shaving. Lucky for me, my hair is fairly fine – although I have very light skin, so it shows up!!! Then I discovered waxing. Yes, the first few times it hurt. Not a lot and I had it done professionally so they were quick. I found I really liked the feeling of my legs after waxing – and for ages afterwards. Then, over the years, my hair grew in finer and finer (typical with waxing) and now I can go for months between waxing. I never wear pantyhose now, but still wax because I like the feel.
    So my suggestion is: have a go at waxing. If you don’t like it, you can just let it grow back in.

    1. Epsilon*

      I meant to say that this is a way to stay cooler – if it’s too hot to wear pantyhose. Not to shut your co-workers up! or to meet their dress expectations. For your own comfort.

  29. MCS*

    Yeah; it’s kind of shocking just how many absurd ideas were generated by marketers in the 20th century that we’re still living with today.

    2. Two Pop Tarts*

      Breakfast is the most important meal of the day!

      A marketing line for a cereal company.

  30. Armchair Analyst*

    My son’s middle school math teacher had a LinkedIn profile. The headline was, “Current middle-school math teacher/Aspiring Computer Programmer” or something similar. She obviously didn’t want to be a math teacher (for honors kids in accelerated math in a privileged area, very few entrenched behavior issues beyond normal public school issues) and she wasn’t able to make the jump during the school year. I hope it works out for her!

  31. Nuke*

    LW5 – Ah, this gives me lovely flashbacks to when I worked at a non-profit. I was never given a key and often had to stand outside in the freezing cold waiting for my supervisors, who were usually late, to unlock the door for me to get in. Then they would push ahead of me to use our one left-on computer to punch in, and I would wind up “late” (think punching in at 8:04 instead of 8:00, my technical start time), and would later get written up for “always being late”. When I told my manager why I was “late”, they said it was my fault for not finding another way into the building, and/or not texting my supervisor every single morning when I got to the building, to “prove” I was actually there. Because, well, the computer said I punched in at 8:04, and that’s literally the only proof they had. My supervisor would never speak up and say she knew I was there.

    This “frequent lateness” led to me getting fired! After a lot of time of being made to stay super late after my shift, often being forced to punch out at my “normal” time, but still work. Very cool place.

    I work in a much better place now, luckily, where I’m treated like an actual human person, which was quite new to me!

    1. I have RBF*

      Is it too late to drop a dime on them for wage theft? Because especially the “clock out and continue working” is classic wage theft.

    2. Scarlet Ribbons in her Hair*

      How were you supposed to find another way into the building? Break a window? Break down the door? Steal someone’s key?

      And how would texting your supervisor prove that you got there on time? You could have texted your supervisor from anywhere!

      That company s*cked.

  32. Melissa*

    OP1: This kind of thing is only interesting to your coworkers for a very limited amount of time. Just answer with “I like them!”, and keep wearing them. Pretty soon it’ll just be a known thing that you wear pantyhose. It won’t be interesting enough to keep asking you over and over!

  33. Angstrom*

    #1 “I like them” is a fine answer.
    For more options, just thinking out loud here….
    “They’re more aerodynamic. They reduce wind drag while walking by 17%.” (with a smile)
    “My legs, my choice.”
    “Channelling my inner(favorite vintage movie actress).”
    etc….

    1. Delta Delta*

      I like the idea of aerodynamic legs in the workplace. Wind drag in the office setting is one issue we don’t discuss nearly enough.

      1. Roland*

        “Aerospace engineers HATE her! Local woman increases personal velocity with this one weird trick!”

  34. Blarg*

    For OP 1: Obviously, you do what is most comfortable for you. Just sharing my experience. I have psoriasis from my knee to my ankle on one leg, which varies in its ‘brightness’ and thickness by the season, my stress level, etc. I literally cannot shave that leg, even if I wanted to (I tried once as a teenager … it was like a scene from a horror movie). At times it feels like I have a glowing neon red light illuminating half my leg.

    And basically no one ever notices – on the rare occasion that people do, they often ask because it can also look like it might be contagious. Or it looks like it hurts and they are concerned. Anyway, this is all to say that you are likely much more cognizant of your leg hair than anyone else. Somehow, our eyes see clothing/shoes but skip right over skin/hair.

  35. Indolent Libertine*

    Re #1: I absolutely hate the way dress shoes feel on bare feet! If I’m wearing a skirt or dress, I will have pantyhose or stockings on, and if I’m wearing pants I’ll wear knee highs. I’m not wearing them *at you,* I’m wearing them because I want to, and it’s none of anyone else’s dang business.

    1. Dust Bunny*

      I do, too! I’ve always had issues with sensations on my feet and they’ve mostly gotten a lot better with age, but this is a line I cannot cross. Bare feet in shoes absolutely makes my skin crawl. So, yeah–sometimes I wear hose.

    2. GreyjoyGardens*

      I can’t wear bare feet in anything but sandals or sneaker-type shoes either! I have very blister-prone skin, and if the shoes rub enough or cut into my skin enough I will *bleed*. And then there’s the sweat and smell issue. So when I wear dress shoes (or even “business casual” shoes) I always wear fun tights or black tights. This also has the side effect of preventing chub-rub.

  36. ItsGravity*

    LW3: Please don’t report this. I’ve never used LinkedIn, but this made me think of my own experience with FB. My daughter died when she was 19, and not long after, someone reported her FB page and it was removed. I lost precious photos, videos, and just her random thoughts. It was devastating to a mom who was already grieving. It still makes me teary-eyed just to think about it.

    1. Melissa*

      Oh my goodness, I am so sorry that happened. I know that social media accounts can truly be like precious photo albums of our loved ones!

    2. LetItBe*

      Oh my heavens, I’m so sorry this happened. The same happened to a friend of mine, and his wife was heartbroken all over again when she could no longer access his photos and the messages that friends had been sending to him/them. I have no idea if LinkedIn does the same, but it is 100% not OP’s job to go around reporting profiles on behalf of the deceased. Dear lord, if it ain’t your circus, it ain’t your monkey. Stay out of it!

    3. allathian*

      I’m so sorry for your losses.

      I do think there’s a huge difference between purely social media like FB and professional social media like LinkedIn. Unless you work in the same or at least an adjacent field with your family members, you aren’t necessarily connected with them on LinkedIn. I’m a translator, my husband’s a development manager at an energy company. I see no reason for us to be connected on LI.

      It may be in the interests of an employer to ensure that deceased employees’ LI profiles are accurately reporting their status.

      In an ideal world, I think the former employer of a deceased person or other commercial contact should be able to flag the profile of a deceased person on LI as deceased, but only family/executors etc. should be able to request a deletion.

  37. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

    LW1, you can also assert you’re showing solidarity with your male peers, friends, and family by way of the “Movember” movement. (A judgment call with your sense of humor, relationships, and the office culture).

    (And, frankly, sauce for the goose and gander, IMWO).

  38. Dust Bunny*

    LW1: People ask the weirdest things! I don’t think I would even notice if someone was wearing hose or not.

    I always wear some kind of hose/socks/etc. because I cannot stand–like, “crawling out of my skin” cannot stand–the feel of bare feet in shoes and so far the nylon footies I’ve found don’t stay in place and always show around the tops of my shoes, which looks awful.

    1. Workerbee*

      Oh god, yes. Footies are always receding into the underside of my foot while always peeking around the top.

      And I have pictures of myself from high school & before where I wore shoes without socks, and I vaguely remember I managed fine – I think – but hell if I want to do that now. Yeouch.

      1. CommanderBanana*

        I just had a visceral, full-body shudder at the memory of the feeling of footies bunching under my foot inside my shoe.

        1. GreyjoyGardens*

          Same here! Footies never stayed put on me. They started off showing around the top of my shoe, then slowly wound up bunching like Kleenex under my feet.

          So if I am not wearing sandals or super-casual athletic type shoes, I will wear tights of some kind. No sweaty, smelly feet, no blisters or red marks (or blood!) and no chub rub on the thighs, either.

    2. Pippa K*

      Ok this may be slightly off topic, but I also hate this and now use those terrycloth-topped liner insole thingies. They’re washable, comfy, great in hot weather, and I never have to deal with footies etc. again. Maybe not life changing, but a huge improvement! Search for “barefoot inserts” or similar.

    3. different seudonym*

      I support all footwear choices. However, I can also report that Smart wool and Darn Tough both make thin, washable wool no-show socks, which I find genuinely comfortable. The available colors might not match darker skin tones, though. and they’re kinda pricy.

  39. Workerbee*

    I am also of the hairy legs. Beyond leggings or opaque hose/tights, my personal solution to avoid the “But women are sUpOssEd to spend time, money, and labor removing all traces of being a person who is a mammal” unthinking outrage is to wear maxi skirts and maxi dresses, when not wearing trousers & the like. No one can see under them, so the commentary is zero.

    1. Workerbee*

      Per the above, I wasn’t sure if the OP’s pantyhose was truly because she likes them or because she felt that was her only option. And for reference, I work in a biz professional environment.

  40. Green Mug*

    #1 I tell people that I wear panty hose because the Queen wears panty hose. Am I American – yes. Do I live in America – also yes. It’s a valid reason as any. I prefer to wear them.

    1. Ben*

      Unfortunately the Queen doesn’t wear much of anything these days, and saying the King wears them is only going to invite further questions…

      1. slashgirl*

        I’d say the Queen is usually fully dressed at least in public. Given I’ve read that all the Royal women are required to wear pantyhose while doing public engagements, then I’m sure Camilla does.

        So Green Mug is quite correct, the Queen of England DOES wear pantyhose.

        1. SarahKay*

          Plus, my guess would be that Queen Elizabeth II was probably buried in pantyhose so, even if it’s her you’re thinking off, she is technically, still wearing them….
          I’ll see myself out.

          1. Green Mug*

            Great point!! Now I can use this rational for all eternity, even if the current Queen or Princess of Wales decide to break with tradition one day.

  41. Daisy-dog*

    #2 – Clarification question. Did the career coach tell you to change your job title on your actual resume portion of LinkedIn? Or your “headline” – the area right under your name? Because yes, the resume portion is not a good move as that is lying. But your “headline” is generally accepted to be the “aspirational” spot for those who are job searching and it has to do with search engine optimization. It may be better to put a few variations of titles that you’d like to have. Now for you connections who don’t do recruiting, it does look off to have a job title that isn’t yours. And if your job search is a secret, then it’s harder to hide if someone looks at your page.

    1. nameless*

      that was my thought too – that the career coach was suggesting to change their headline. i still think that since they have a current co-worker with that title, they should tweak it slightly, but it’s a much less egregious suggestion than changing their job title… so i hope that’s what they mean.

  42. LetItBe*

    LW #3 – please please please do NOT report the deceased person’s profile!! I have a friend who died in a terrible car accident last year. Someone reported his Facebook profile, and Facebook changed it to the “In memoriam” version, which also locked anyone from signing into it.
    Like his wife.
    Who was grieving.
    And reading all the floods of messages coming into his profile with condolences and memories. It broke her heart all over again. Please never report a deceased person’s profile! You never know if someone they love is clinging onto it and the messages if love and healing it can bring. Let the family member or executor handle the process for switching their profiles whenever they see fit.

    1. OP of #3*

      In my case here, my former colleague’s wife took over his Facebook account and posted the obituary. He was a super organized person so I wasn’t surprised that he had his online affairs sorted out when he knew that death was foreseeable. Facebook post provides a better way to leave a message on the obituary than the funeral home’s website does!

      Another former colleague died over 10 years ago. His LinkedIn profile is still active. LinkedIn still generates the automatic posts for job anniversaries.

      2. JustKnope*

        You could just block the profile if seeing the notifications of that older colleague upsets you. The advice still stands that it’s just not your place to report, even if the colleague did die a decade ago.

      3. The Bill Murray Disagreement*

        To the best of my knowledge, there isn’t a way to mark someone as deceased in LinkedIn. The only option is to deactivate the account.

        My husband died 4 1/2 years ago and his LinkedIn is still up because it feels very weird just to erase all his accomplishments (or the ability for I and his other former colleagues to tag him when they do memorial walks to support a cure for his specific type of cancer).

        If it bothers you to get updates about a dead colleague (I can sympathize with this; it absolutely wrecked me when I got the celebratory “You’ve been connected to for 10 years” the first year after he died), you can turn off notifications about that individual.

  43. El l*

    OP2:
    You can’t change your title. That’s a lie, you have to operate on the assumption that it will be treated as such by hiring managers, and that’s an easy thing for them to check and catch you out on. What you can do is to tailor your cover letter (and to a lesser extent your resume) to the job you’re applying for.

    Finally, if you must spend money to get motivated to leave your current job, a better and more motivating way is to spend it on workouts and a new wardrobe. At least with those you’ll leave feeling good. Because spending the money on this BS artist is turning out to be actively counterproductive.

    1. Anonforthisforsure*

      Agree with the first paragraph, and the fact that this job coach’s advice is BS-filled and unproductive. But why the unsolicited workout/wardrobe advice? Nowhere does the OP mention wanting to improve fitness or own different clothes. Sure, these things can be a boost — for some, this would be a great way to spend money to get out of a job rut — but out-of-nowhere advice about how to change fitness or wardrobe doesn’t seem helpful.

  44. June*

    LW1 – No additional advice, but I also don’t shave my legs and I work remotely most of the time, but in my last in-office job / when I do have to go into the office, I wear lots of jumpsuits! I go with plain colors or sometimes you can get the top to be low-key patterned, they’re made of similar material as light businessy pants, and if I need to dress them up or down or add a layer I pick a jacket or blazer. I have some short-sleeved blazers for a more casual look. I get them for good prices at TJ Maxx usually!

  45. alienor*

    #1 – I hate pantyhose, quit wearing them years ago, and would never willingly put them on my body again…but, it’s also none of my business if someone else wants to wear them. If an intern or entry-level person who reported to me came in with pantyhose on, I might let them know it wasn’t required, just in case they had an old-fashioned parent or grandparent who said something different, but I would only say it once and would leave them alone about it afterwards. Their legs, their decision.

  46. bunny*

    For #2, I wonder whether someone (possibly the career coach) has gotten confused between the LinkedIn headline and the job title. The headline that appears next to your name defaults to “Job Title at Employer” but can be changed to something else and doesn’t have to be associated with a particular employer or role.

    I do see people on LinkedIn using that to reflect their ambitions rather than current role. Whether that’s a good idea for the LW I’m not sure, but it seems a reasonably normal thing to do.

  48. Program manager no I mean president of the USA*

    Re: changing titles —
    Sometimes official titles are misleading, and in that case I think it makes sense to include the more descriptive title. For example when I RAN AND DEVELOPED outreach programs, my official title was “public programs assistant”. Even though I wasn’t assisting anything. So on my resume I listed “public programs instructor”, trusting that my reference would have my back and if they got conflicting information from HR I could easily explain my rationale.

    Similarly, when emailing clients I refer to the person who manages our office and registers people for our programs as our “office manager” or “registrar”, even though her official title is “office professional” or something misleading like that. I would fully support her including the more accurate title on a resume.

    Or the companies that try to have “cool”/thematic names like “Chief Adventure Officer” or “flight director “ (for someone who runs children’s space programs)… again, changing or at least putting a clearer title in parentheses will HELP employers understand your role.

    But this? Literally changing your title to what you want to pivot to, without respect for what you actually do? How icky.

    1. Mimmy*

      Regarding your first paragraph: I have the same issue. I work for a state-run vocational rehab training program. When I was first hired, the title was “instructional aide” because the original intention was for me to help out in multiple areas. It soon turned into me being an instructor in one specific area but with no pay increase or official change in job title (that’s whole other story for another day). So on my resume, I put “instructor” because I feel that is a more accurate reflection of my day-to-day work. (Although it still says “instructional aide” on my LinkedIn profile. Whoops… might want to change that :/ )

  49. Peanut Hamper*

    I just love (not) how so many people jumped in to answer LW#1 with “here’s what you should/could wear instead” instead of answering their question which was “what do I say to people when they make these weird comments?”

    Instead of getting their question asked, they just got more weird comments. le sigh

    1. Generic Name*

      I know. And there was even someone who recommended she try waxing!! Like, literally every female presenting person in the United States knows about waxing. We know we are “supposed to” remove our body hair. My initial reaction to the question was, “It’s none of their business!” when people commented on her hosiery. OP could also say, “Why do you ask?” when people keep asking her why she wears pantyhose.

    2. I'm Just Here For The Cats!!*

      My thought exactly. And the same thing about “just show the leg hair.” The OP has reason’s why she wants to cover it up. Maybe she looks like a bear so it’s much less noticeable if she wears pantyhose.

  50. Laura Charles*

    LW #1 — have you considered going hairy & bare? I work at quite a conservative place and have multiple coworkers who have unshaven legs and wear short-but-appropriate dresses/skirts all of the time. If they get any side eye I’ve never seen it, and it absolutely has not held them back professionally. If *you* like the look of pantyhose over bare, as-nature-made-them legs, then do your thing. I would also encourage you to think about your own comfort while questioning traditional Western beauty standards.

    1. Wait but*

      The LW said up front that she is thinking about her own comfort: “I don’t like the feeling of shaving, I’m prone to rashes that I feel are more noticeable than the hair, and I hate having stubble.” What part of that meant she needed a lecture about thinking for herself?

      1. Laura Charles*

        Uhh, not sure what you thought you read; one sentence is hardly a lecture. LW said that hairy legs seem less professional. I wanted to give her an example of a workplace where it is perfectly appropriate and professional. Re: questioning, we all do so many things because it’s what’s expected, etc. Taking time to really ask the “what if I did?” question is important, and the letter indicated that going bare-legged wasn’t an option. But… what if it is an option? Does that change the way one thinks about it?

        But please, go ahead—misread/misinterpret what I said and make a comment that is just the result of having read a critical mass of comments you don’t like.

  51. Justme, The OG*

    For #2, I have an “official” job title (I work at a state university) and then one that my boss told me to create for myself that better describes what I do, and that created title is on my business cards and email signature.

    1. I'm Just Here For The Cats!!*

      I’m in the same boat. We have the official title that shows up on all my HR stuff. But on the document I signed there is a working title. This works because there are like 200 people at my university with the same official title but we all have different tasks. Like I don’t handle anything with travel, or entering student grades, or purchasing things beyond basic office supplies. Yet the person down the hall has to do all those things. And they wouldn’t handle graphic design elements, or PII, or the various other tasks I do on a daily basis.

  52. Pantyhose Lover*

    OP#1 I am 37 and absolutely love pantyhose! No nonsense tan control tops are my favorite! I’d wear them to work, to weddings, even just out to dinner. None of my friends do but I’ve never felt like anyone thinks it’s weird. If anyone asks I just tell them I love pantyhose! I’ve also gotten my mother, MIL, and some friends into them. If people ask aren’t you hot? NO! Pantyhose actually make me feel cooler because they keep my legs from sticking together! And they are so much more comfortable and breathable than Spanx. I also like that they make my legs look tan and even toned.

  53. nm*

    LW1: I can’t for the life of me understand why people ask questions like that! I’m also a hose wearer but nobody has commented on it that I know of. I’d also go with the “Because I like them” answer, but I don’t think I’d be able to hold back from using a tone that says “what a stupid question!”

  54. rr*

    Does waiting time apply if it is arranged you go in early (not your schedule) and the person who opens is late? What if there is just a general understanding that you are early – to the point that if someone knows they are not going to be there, they call you to let you know?

    I have often waited because someone is late, and then been told that since it isn’t my schedule, they don’t have to pay me. One time, I and and another person were there, and the person who opened was late. I was told they would pay the other person for the time waiting, since it was their schedule, but I wouldn’t get paid, since it wasn’t my scheduled start time. But during certain times of year, I am always “early” – and am told I am late if I’m not.

    This would be OT for me, which probably plays in too it too.

    1. Colette*

      If you’re scheduled for 6, you arrive at 5:30, and the person opening gets there at 6:15, you should be paid for the time between 6 and the time you clock in.

      I’m not sure why you’re being told you’re late if you’re on time, but your best response is probably to say “no, I don’t start until X” – assuming it is a serious comment, and that you are arriving ready to work and not spending half an hour preparing food or doing something else non-work-related.

  55. Hiring Mgr*

    The career coach advice is so horrible, it seems like it has to be a miscommunication or something. What are they expecting you to do in an interview when you’re asked about your leadership coach experience?

  56. grubbies*

    re: LW3

    An old friend of mine was murdered (while pregnant) in a DV incident several years ago. Her LinkedIn work anniversary pops into my feed every year. It’s crushing every time. I don’t have the heart to hide the updates, though.

  57. lilyp*

    For OP #1 why not just …tell people the real reason? “I don’t like shaving my legs but I get self-conscious about having hairy legs at the office/but I think hairy legs look unprofessional” isn’t an inappropriate or embarrassing thing to say. My guess is the most likely response to that would be people reassuring you that it’s fine to have hairy legs at that office, and then you can just say “thanks but this works for me”. You don’t HAVE to say that if you’d rather just stick with “I just like wearing them”, but having unshaved legs isn’t some deep dark secret you have to keep from everyone.

    I suspect that by dodging the question, and even lying about it, you’ve given people the impression that there’s some Intriguing Secret Reason to be found out (and yes, they ought to take a hint and stop asking but people are curious) when really the truth is pretty boring.

    1. Generic Name*

      Maybe because the real reason is none of her coworker’s business? “I like them” or “I prefer it” are perfectly fine answers. OP 1 does not owe her coworkers an explanation of her personal grooming and wardrobe choices.

      1. lilyp*

        Like I literally said in the comment, she doesn’t HAVE to share that if she doesn’t want to — but it kind of sounds like she’s embarrassed to admit to not shaving her legs, or feels like it would be a faux pas or unprofessional to mention it at work at all, and I want her to know that’s not the case.

  58. BellyButton*

    I love hose and tights. . I wear tights all winter, but because how are viewed as old-fashioned, I won’t wear nude. But I do love how they make my pasty white blue veined legs look!

  59. Problem!*

    Regarding LW #5, how does waiting time apply to salaried workers?

    Twice in my career my work computer has experienced major technical issues rendering it unusable for an entire day. In both instances I was advised to charge PTO for the time I couldn’t work because my computer was dead. I don’t think this was correct because it’s not like I was out doing things other than work while my computer was down, I was tied to my desk waiting for updates from IT. Another time the building lost power and the ETA for it coming back on was well after business hours. Again, we were told to charge that time to PTO.

    This is two different companies in two different industries, so is this normal? I don’t think it is but it always happens.

    1. Mimmy*

      That doesn’t seem appropriate in either case. You weren’t taking time off; you were ready to work. I would think the “waiting time” Alison described above would’ve applied for both.

    2. Affine Transform*

      I don’t know if it’s normal. It is legal. It’s not reasonable, though. In my industry, every hour has to go to a time code, even for exempt salaried people. At my current company, there is a special time code that we are issued when things like power outages or IT problems occur. My current company (or maybe just my current boss), however, is much, much better at providing charge codes for things that are not direct customer work than previous companies I have been at. The problem of what to charge when there was some kind of outage that prevented me from doing work never came up at previous employers, but some of them had a general pattern of “you make up the time or you use PTO.” Again, legal, but not reasonable.

      1. Problem!*

        I am in government contracting so we have super strict time recording rules. I asked if we had an overhead number for this stuff so it wouldn’t get charged to the client but that I also didn’t have to use my PTO and was told we don’t. Both instances were working for giant multi-billion dollar government contracting agencies so I have a hard time believing they couldn’t absorb 8 hours of unexpected admin charge code time.

        1. Affine Transform*

          I am in government contracting so we have super strict time recording rules.

          Yep, me too. As I said, at my current employer, there is a specific charge code which my boss can authorize me to use for this type of situation. At previous employers, this specific situation didn’t arise, but their general attitude was “make up the time or use PTO.” And they can do that.

        2. I have RBF*

          Yeah, that time properly should be billed to overhead, not your PTO. You did not chose to be idle, so it should not come out of your time off allotment. Making you essentially pay for the time because of someone else’s mistake is wrong.

          Wage theft is insidious.

    3. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

      Salaried just means they have to pay you at least your rate independent of hours worked. Hours can be recorded as “PTO” pretty much discretionarily.

      1. Random Dice*

        I highly doubt that. PTO has to be paid back in cash when you leave. It’s not willy nilly.

        1. Peanut Hamper*

          No it doesn’t, at least not in the United States. This is very much dependent on state laws (most of which do not require this) and any contracts you may have signed or employee handbooks (almost all of which favor the employer). In most cases that I have seen both on this site and in real life, if you leave a job and still have unpaid PTO, then that time and money is just forfeited.

          It is very much nilly and very little willy.

  60. Caryn Z.*

    #1, first of all, I can’t believe people ask why they wear pantyhose. It’s none of their business! But I say go all out with the response if they ask. Dude, my legs are so hairy. LOL.

  61. Catabouda*

    OP3 – mind your own business, let the family worry about any online presence. If seeing a colleague’s name pop up, unlink yourself from them. Don’t report anything. It is not your place.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      If you know they are deceased, then unlinking or unfriending or whatever it is called on that particular platform will have no effect on either of you and will simply be the best choice. This is an excellent suggestion!

  62. Victoria Everglot*

    Pantyhose are an undergarment and shouldn’t be discussed at work (unless you’re close friends and you’re comfortable, I guess). If you wouldn’t ask your colleague if she’s padded her bra or why she wore underwear that you can see the outlines of, don’t ask her about her pantyhose. They could be shapewear, disguising scars, all sorts of things that are none of your business. Yes, even if you’re all female.

    1. YetAnotherAnalyst*

      Eh, they’re an intentionally visible undergarment, so it’s a little more of a gray area. If you noticed someone had penguin socks on, it would be entirely appropriate to comment on how cute they are and ask if the person likes penguins… once. Similarly, given all the cultural baggage around hose in the US, it’s not unreasonable for coworkers who have been there longer to note that LW doesn’t need to wear pantyhose in that office… and then to drop it.

  63. MarianTheLibrarian*

    FWIW I’ve been rocking skirts and unshaven legs for 2 years now and haven’t gotten any comments! I’ve seen a few colleagues do the same. I am in libraries, though, which might make a difference.

    1. Queer Earthling*

      I don’t work in a traditional environment, but if we’re offering anecdata– I’m nonbinary but often “read” as a woman and sometimes dress on the femme side, AND I live in the deep south where you’d think people would care. I don’t shave my legs and only seldom my underarms, and haven’t for years. I have had exactly zero people comment on my body hair in public, even when wearing sundresses.

  64. Victoria Everglot*

    oh, about dead people online: only report these accounts if you have reason to believe they’ve been hacked. Dead people’s accounts can be a security risk. Otherwise, let their families handle it!

    1. I'm Just Here For The Cats!!*

      excelent point! Especially for something like linkedin where someone may use the account to scam people.

    2. Powercycle*

      This. If the account of the deceased person starts posting spam or scams, or worse, just randomly changes identity, it’s probably been compromised and should be reported.

  65. Meep*

    Re LW #1 – I shave my legs due to sensory issues, but whenever I am not wearing leggings and wearing a dress, I wear pantyhose. Whether you shave or not, they just complete the outfit and feel nicer than bare legs. “I like them” should be enough.

  66. I Wore Pantyhose in The 90s*

    Wear opaque-ish tights, bare unshaven legs, or switch to long skirts if you’re uncomfortable. Boss here in my 40s.
    It’s really no different than any of the other benign things we do to just keep in step with our office norms. It’s odd to be the 25-year-old in pantyhose. Just like it’s a bit odd to wear a beanie every day. Can you? Sure. Should you? No.
    By the way, this is the only place I would post such unfiltered advice. If anyone asked me if they could/should wear pantyhose, my actual in real life response would be ‘Sure, if you like! Whatever makes you comfortable’.
    But here, in the Internet, you get the benefit of people’s unfiltered advice. And the unfiltered advice is that become a little odd. If you want to be a little odd at the office, then, by all means carry-on. If not, see my first sentence.
    Best wishes to you!

    2. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

      Also a boss in my 40s. Wear whatever the heck you want on your legs as long as you’re not violating the official dress code, and if people want to get snooty about it, they’re the ones being weird. :P

  67. Hairy Asker*

    Hi, I’m OP #1!

    Points of clarification. Where I’m from, tights have no feet/partial feet and are usually thicker; stockings are thick like tights but cover feet; and pantyhose are sheer and you can see the legs through them. Hosiery encompasses all three types. In my experience and with my leg hair, I can get away with dark pantyhose and have my leg hair hidden. I also wear nude stockings, but people can’t tell with nude how thick they are. I was told by my mom that dark stockings look odd in the summer, especially because I live in a very warm area. Having covered legs is less weird in the winter though. I will consider leggings as an option.

    Back when the office was freezing, I used to wear these fake pantyhose that had a fleece lining on the inside. They were made in Ukraine and needless to say, kind of hard to re-order at the moment.

    If it’s relevant to commenters, I am super pale. I shaved my legs for my brother’s wedding and went to work in a long dress. I mentioned to my dad that I usually wear black pantyhose with it and he said “Those white ones look fine!” I don’t own white pantyhose or stockings. Those were my legs.

    1. SB*

      Oh god your dad is so beautifully clueless with that comment. I love him!!!

      I also do not shave but I also do not care so happily wear shorts & skirts without worrying about nylons. I did however go with nylons for a formal event where I felt it was appropriate (not because of my hairy legs but because it was a very formal event) & fell in love with SHEERTEX. They are almost impossible to rip & don’t do that weird crotch sag thing that some brands do.

  68. I Wore Pantyhose in the 90s*

    Ha :) you seem to have a good sense of humor about your dad’s cluelessness. And a good sense of humor overall. Listen. I don’t think anyone really cares. I don’t think your boss cares terribly. However, I’m the commenter right above you and I still stand by my feeling that while ‘care’ may be too strong of a word. . .they just probably do think it’s a little weird. Tights, colored stockings, or leggings are the way to go. Or bare legs! ( and if they do care abt bare legs, they are more likely to be a little internally chagrined that they care, whereas, if they care a bit about your clothing choices, they are not likely to have any self reflection about that. ) I would just go with tights or light colored stockings (in summer),dark stockings or tights in winter, or leggings year round- and ship the panty hose to a 70 year old woman somewhere who will appreciate it. :)

    1. I'm Just Here For The Cats!!*

      But if the OP prefers pantyhose to tights or leggings why should she change? It’s not a big deal. I’m betting the coworkers don’t even really care but that they mention it because the OP is new and they may think she has some misguided thoughts about having to wear pantyhose and they want her to be comfortable. I bet if they ask again and she says that she likes them then they will leave her be.

    2. Indolent Libertine*

      I mean, I guess they (and you) are entitled to *think* it’s “weird,” but really, nobody should be repeatedly saying that to OP1. There are plenty of people under 70 who wear pantyhose by choice and really don’t deserve ridicule for it.

  69. Risha*

    LW1, based off how you described yourself (recent grad), I’m going to assume this is your first professional office job. I’ve been in the working world for many years, and let me tell you that you will always encounter people like those you work with. For some reason, other people really need to concern themselves with things that really should not be their business. You wearing panty hose should not even be a repeated topic of discussion. Tbh, I wouldn’t even notice if any of my coworkers wore panty hose or not. It’s just not something that affects my life so I don’t care.

    Go with Alison’s first response (“because I like to wear them”). Saying you don’t shave may open you up to yet more of the coworkers’ questions/comments. The less you say at work, the less info these types of people will have to keep questioning you about. If they continue after you give the answer, ask them why this keeps coming up as a topic of discussion (if you feel comfortable doing so). As you get more experience in the office setting and dealing with all types of coworkers, you’ll be able to shut it down more quickly.

    Story time-I don’t like my foods touching. At my last job, these 2 women asked me why all my foods are in different containers (I don’t know why they even cared). I explained that I do not like my food touching. I get it, it’s unusual for an adult to be that way, but these 2 would not let it go. I finally asked both of them if they would even remember this conversation by the time they got home tonight. They said no with a puzzled look on their faces. I then said so why are you so concerned about how I, someone you work with and have no ties to outside of work, choose to eat the food that I purchase and cook myself. They both avoided me after that convo, so that’s a win for me. Believe me OP, there are so many people who spend so much time worrying about others instead of minding their own business.

  70. Michelle Smith*

    OP 1 – If it were me, I’d just say “I like them” and if they ask again “I’m not sure why you’re asking about my clothing choices” with a quizzical look on your face. It’s not really appropriate for people to comment on your clothing as long as it’s not inappropriate for the workplace (i.e., repeatedly asking you about pantyhose doesn’t make sense in a business casual office in the same way that it would if you were wearing them on a construction site to build houses in). If you know the “why” behind their asking, you can maybe more effectively shut down the questions. I strongly suspect people are asking you because they think you might feel obligated to wear them, when your office doesn’t require it. But they really should not be commenting this much on what you wear.

    OP2: You picked a dud of a coach. Try and get a refund immediately. Some of the less honorable ones may require you to agree not to publicly disparage them, but it’s worth it to get your money back and put it towards a coach who doesn’t give you blatantly unethical advice. It’s one thing to put in your headline that you’re seeking a role as a leadership coach so that you show up in recruiter searches for leadership coaching. That’s honest. But changing your job titles on your resume to something else is unethical and wrong and you already know that. The caveat is that if your company calls you something nonsensical, you are permitted to explain your title in reasonably understood terms. If your startup calls your position Computer Wizard but your actual responsibilities are that of an IT Technician, it’s perfectly acceptable to list your title on your resume as Computer Wizard (IT Technician) so the person scanning your resume knows what the heck your role actually is.

  71. SB*

    LW3
    My partner took his own life in 2019 & every time I jumped on LI to update something or check a message from someone I would see his face & it gave me an unpleasant jolt. I didn’t realise I could report his death to LI & have his account deactivated until a colleague told me & I was so grateful once the account disappeared. It was surprisingly simple, unlike his social media accounts which took so long to deactivate even after providing copies of the death certificate & the funeral notice in the paper.
    I would have been happy if someone else had done this for me as it took me almost a year to realise it could be done…sometimes I am a bit dense :/

  72. Head sheep counter*

    For OP1 – I am guilty of trying gently to mentor recent grads as to workplace norms… (“Susy, we typically don’t wear leggings with cut-outs and a sports bra in the lab”) and could see myself trying to be helpful… once. Only once. Repeat comments are not appropriate. And the only reason I could imagine commenting crossing my mind is because you live where its warm and so I would think I was being kind (eg you don’t have to wear more layers if you don’t want to).

    I like the “I like them” as an answer. It would seem to respond with politeness to something someone might have been trying to be nice about. I love the “Bank Robber” comment above if someone is repeatedly asking.

  73. New Jack Karyn*

    #5 I recall working at Starbucks, having an opening 4:45 shift (more than 20 years ago now). I showed up, waited around in the cold for maybe 20 minutes, and went home and back to bed. Around 7 am, I got a call from my manager asking where I was and I told him what happened. The new shift lead got the schedule wrong. I never thought about asking for the 20 minutes I’d been waiting, but they didn’t try to write me up, either.

  74. Anony776*

    1. People keep asking why I wear pantyhose

    in my 20s and I have always wore sheer pantyhose that matches my skin tone when wearing a skirt or dress. I could recall once when coworker told me it wasn’t necessary to wear but it definitely sounded as an FYI for telling me that. otherwise, no one ever made it an issue or pointed it out to me much. I wear them bc I don’t like to show my bare legs and don’t have time to shave each morning. Plus, I have very dry skin and bruise easily so I prefer to wear them to hide my blemishes. It didn’t even occur to me that this is considered old fashion until I read this!! now I wonder if I am behind in the times.

  75. Krystal Yates*

    Career coach here. Walk away. Best case they have no integrity. Worst case, they are clueless and giving bad advice across the board. There is no good outcome. There are better ways to show your desired transition.

  76. Regular Human Accountant*

    OP#3, I have several former coworkers who have passed away but whose birthdays or work anniversaries still pop up from time to time on LinkedIn, and I am glad that they do–it gives me the opportunity to write a comment about how much I miss them (which I hope their family sees) and it helps them stay in my mind and memory.

  77. OwnTheBodyHair*

    OP1, FWIW I am medically unable to shave and I have lots of dark, thick body hair on my legs, my forearms, my armpits and even my face. I’ve never gotten even a stray odd look from anyone in any workplace ever. Some caveats: 1) dress codes have ranged from “you have to get dressed” to the more formal side of business casual (no jeans, no sneakers) but never beyond and 2) it doesn’t make me self conscious at all (I have bigger things to worry about) which probably helps 3) There may have been some extremely polite people who were bothered by it but never let it show in any way (but I’ve worked with lots of folks who took issue with other things and made it very clear that was the case so I think it unlikely)

  78. Mmmwriter*

    #3- Am I the only one confused by the number of deceased LinkedIn profiles the OP is coming across to have this question? I wonder what industry they’re in because I’ve never noticed one.

Comments are closed.