Head covering is apparently quite a contentious subject.
Two things to consider.
A. It is subject to change. It can change from required to optional; it can also change back from ‘optional’ to required. An example from the same historical time and reasoning is the "nonLenten Friday abstinence indult’. An indult means that a required practice need not be performed by an individual or group per request of the local bishop(s). And (again per the bishops) the indult can be lifted or removed and the required practice once more be performed by the people. While head covering is not a ‘required’ practice at this time period it is not something forbidden. And that leads to #2. . .
B. Since it is neither required nor forbidden, it is just as wrong for people to say (as many do) that the custom was silly, or chauvinist, or an attempt to act ‘holier than thou’ or to ‘stand out’ if a woman chooses to wear a covering, as it is for people to say that women who do not wear coverings today are ‘offending God’ or ‘disobedient’.
Personally, and especially on these boards, especially in the last 4 years or so but from a sizeable percentage even from the beginning of CA, I hear a heck of a lot more comments from women stating that hell will freeze over before they would ever wear such a stupid, silly, male-dominated, antiquated, uncomfortable, degrading to women etc. article and that women who do wear a covering are mindless, spineless, brainwashed traitors to women who should have the coverings ripped from their heads and be publically shamed.
It might be an interesting project for some mathematically minded person to go back over the last 13-1/2 years and see the percentage of posts which called women who do not wear coverings names, or castigated them as ‘wrong’, as opposed to the number who called women who do wear coverings holier than thou, mindless, brainwashed, etc. etc.