You actually do not answer the main question. The fact that you personally ware a tie to conform to the norm does not explain how the norm came to be. Instead y

You actually do not answer the main question. The fact that you personally ware a tie to conform to the norm does not explain how the norm came to be. Instead you talk in random directions, ending with a nice athominem attack against the author. Some notes: waitresses and front house staff are not in position of power, and it actually aligns with the thesis of the author which mentions that ties are sexualizing women. You say that the tie hides the buttons of the shirt, but there is already such a solution for trousers and why not reuse the concept? You say that ties are good when eating soup. However, they are not all that effective in their current form, not used for this purpose for the last few hundred years, and there is no sense carying it around through the entire day the way cutlery is not part of the men's office dress code as well. Where I'd agree with you is in doubting the mental jump necessary to discover sexual symbolism in something which might be just a counterweight to otherwise boring exterior.