FWIW, my wife preferred stockings to pantyhose. My daughter does too. I don't really know why, but neither do I care why. My sisters-in-law take objection to my daughter wearing stockings, but as they have no parental role, I don't give a damn about what they think about it.
Stockings and garters are what my daughter prefers, and inasmuch as she thinks it's déclassé to allow the clasps and straps to show, she chooses skirts and dresses that ensure that won't happen. That worked for me, so after her mother passed and I had to take on shopping with/for her, stockings and garters are what I bought her. She got to wear what she wanted to, and I got the peace of mind that comes with knowing my child's dressing sensibly. We both "won," and that's a good thing.
As for when she wears them, well, like the ladies I date, she wears stockings only when she's dressed to the nines...a cotillion (when she was of that age), a black-tie party, (maybe) an interview at an "old boy" organization, etc. The women who are my peers wear hose/stockings only to go to (semi) formal events. My casual observation of that suggests to me that there's a set of rules about what hose/stockings they can and can't wear on such occasions.
Those rules seem to have something to do with whether they'll wear open or closed toe/heel shoes. Apparently, with low-slung sandals, wearing hose/stockings is a "no-no."
...But with what I call "CFM" sandals, very sheer or patterned ones are okay.
...But sometimes, especially in the summer, they deem not wearing hose/stockings is okay too, even though they are "dressed to kill" and attending a dressy event.
For my part, I don't care one way or the other. As long as the ladies I date "look like a million bucks" when I'm in public with them, I'm good. I do the same for them because both the goose and the gander enjoy having fine arm candy.
Lastly, I think the senators noted in the OP's article are overly provincial in demanding their female staff wear hose.
Somewhat to the point of what I suspect may be part of how the Senator's thinking goes:
Thinking about roughly the same issue as it applies to men, I don't, in general, care whether my male staff wear socks to work, though for initial and senior level client-facing meetings, they had better. (or if they don't/didn't, I better not find out about it, for if should, they hear from me admonishment that they best not do so again.) Such wouldn't be a termination-level offense, but if it's repeated after one's having been instructed to wear socks in client facing situations, it would be career limiting. Mine is an "up or out" firm, so make of that what you will....
Asking for forgiveness rather than permission is a maxim we partners will at times tolerate, but upon receiving forgiveness, don't abuse it.
-- Something I said ages ago during a new-hires training session on firm policy
Day-to-day in our offices or for staff assigned to a client facility where the client's client's dress code permits going sockless, I don't mind our male or female staff also going "sockless." At social yet business-related events, I expect men and women in the firm to use good sense; if they look appropriate overall, be they sockless/hoseless or not, I'll have nothing to say about it.
What's "appropriate?" Whatever I or any other partner says is appropriate. In other words, if a partner takes exception with one's attire, complaining to another partner(s) isn't going to do one any good no matter whether the second partner agrees with the first one. After all, we're talking about the workplace, sartorial bad judgment and grown-ups, here -- a contextual "triad," frankly, no partner wants to have to discuss, ever. I suspect the Senator is of the same mind.
