A male friend of mine recently testified before a parliamentary committee on computer security. He wore a suit, as one might expect. If he hadn't dressed formally, the committee wouldn't have trusted him, even if he'd said exactly the same things (which consisted of being highly critical of a proposed government technology policy).

A female software developer friend of mine has gone home after work and changed into a less formal outfit before going to a developer event in order so that people don't assume that she is a marketing or sales person or just there to accompany her boyfriend.

Both of these are uses of dress to influence other people's decisions and attitudes. Are either one, or both of them, worthy of the resentment you describe? And why do we pick, say, dress out as something where manipulation for social ends is bad but, say, typography isn't? If someone is preparing a resume for a job and uses an inappropriate font (Comic Sans, maybe), I'll tell him not to do so. But if he wears a tie during the interview, is he trying to emotionally manipulate people?

I can't blame your friend for accommodating their foolish demands. He treated them no worse than they deserved for it, and refusing would have made it a waste of everyone's time.

> gone home after work and changed

I guess I'm wondering whether she thinks her coworkers are incapable of judging her genuine merit, or something else is going on.

Numerous female friends have had the same experience. I don't think it's about coworkers. I think it's more to do with idiotic dudes thinking that pretty woman in a dress just a priori cannot be a software developer.

Even taking no thought and wearing the simplest possible thing communicates "I invested no effort in putting my outfit on today". Which can itself be a status play - the person doing this is saying, I don't have to dress to impress others.