When I first started going to computer trade shows (in the 1980s) the booth babes were strippers. That was, at least, an honest approach.
Personally, I like looking at attractive women, I guess I was wired that way, but I'd be happy to have no booth babes at these shows. They are an anachronism and can't provide any useful information (which as what I'm at the trade show for, in the first place).
And while we're on the topic of men reacting to attractive women. Can we please stop with the "men don't make passes at girls that wear glasses" and "gentleman prefer blondes" nonsense? The women that turn my head tend to be glasses wearing brunettes. People have different visions of what's attractive.
But I do agree that there are men (idiots) who can't see that there are intelligent women. But please, women, don't tar all men with that brush.
So is your suggestion, based on 30 year-old anecdotal evidence, that they are strippers now, too. If not, why do you think the current approach (using a non-stripper as a BB) is dishonest? Do you think all attractive females used in advertising should be strippers for it to be honest? Should Danica Patrick change her profession?
Sorry, maybe I come across too strong but the BB ~ stripper analogy just gets to me. You are doing the same sin that you are condemning, namely judging people by the cover.
AFAIK, recently that was just one incident like that at OSCON. Do you have many more examples of BBS being hired from "strip clubs near the conference"? If so, I'll create another user and downvote myself.
I once worked for a place that just put an ad for female models on the local craigslist. I don't want to assume to much, but I'm pretty sure at least some of the models who showed up were used to being asked to do a lot more than stand in a booth for an hour.
I'm not sure if I'm in the minority here but I always find the concept of booth babes awkward as hell. Just the idea of interacting with someone who's been paid to endure my company seems rather unpleasant.
I concur; nothing will put me off a booth more than the feeling that they've hired the conference equivalent of a stripper.
What's your name? What do you do? Would you like a dance?
What's your name? What do you do? Would you like to find out more about our F5 internet appliances?
Being sold something by an attractive woman with an ulterior motive raises my hackles and causes me to put up my guard. I'm certainly not going to be receptive to the sales pitch.
I agree. In the early 1990s I was working at a company where I spent a lot of time on the road with sales guys. One time I had to take a customer to a strip club as part of landing a deal. Both the customer and the sales guy (who was going to expense the trip) were really happy to be there.
As part of being a team player, I had to have a lap dance. Sitting in a chair having a woman shove her breasts in my face after paying her was simply horrid. I remember feeling physically sick.
Out of interest, why were the customer and sales guy so pleased to be there? Was there any rationalization going on[1], or did they just see tits and not think any further?
I don't know. Maybe the liked having boobs shoved in their faces. This was something that the customer specifically requested that we do for him, and he was well known in the place. So, I guess he liked it.
But, yes, I do recall some rationalization or at least attempts to 'connect' with the women.
Oh, so many comments come to mind! I'll just write two:
(i) BB's are not paid to "endure your company", they are there just to attract the average conference/trade show attendee who happens to be a 30+ year old male. Now, you may find this objectionable, but then why stop at BBs; you should then object to all advertising, which by default use the same strategy. You should object to Danica Patrick and other GoDaddy girls. You should not drink beers that use provocative women in their advertising (that would be very few). You should not use Old Spice (their sexist marketing campaign was touted as "brilliant" just yesterday on HN) or Axe because they use similar approaches.
(ii) Think about it: Saying BB = stripper (as other people have written here) is the kind of generalization that you are objecting to. How is this different than the despicable notion that women attendees to these events somehow know less than male attendees? You are judging by the cover only. Have you actually talked to any of these girls?
Edit: Downvoters, please try to tell me why you think I'm wrong. Do you think females are not used in other advertising in this fashion? Do you think all BBs are strippers? Do you find my language objectionable? THINK! Then downvote.
Regarding point (i) above: personally, I'm not terribly impressed by advertisers who attempt to sexualize things that are not inherently sexual in order to get my attention. Beer ads, Go Daddy and Evony banners are all equally skeevy in my book.
Axe is a bit more understandable-- their marketing premise is that their fragrance will make you more attractive to women (which, while most likely false, is at least on the verge of plausibility).
However, I really have to object when you lump the Old Spice Twitter/YouTube campaign in with that. The fact that the actor in the Old Spice commercial was buff and topless was only a minor factor in the overall scheme of things. With Go Daddy and Evony, if you remove the breasts, there's nothing much left. With Old Spice, there was still a whole lot of win.
As for point (ii): it's been well over a decade since I've been to a trade show, but back in the day, there was no pretense that the "booth babes" had any knowledge of (or interest in) the product. They were there to be eye candy, pure and simple. Any other skills on their part was purely fortuitous.
I dunno...
If the actor wasn't buff and topless it wouldn't have been as good. If the actor was fat and topless it would have seemed obscene. If it was a busty woman in a tiny bikini top doing exactly the same thing, it would have seemed pretty sexist. Maybe those postmodern body politic semioticians actually do have valuable ideas to contribute to our digital world...
Well, maybe you think the guy's toplessness was a minor point because you're not in the target group, i.e. women. I forwarded that link to a few of my colleagues (was that a sexist thing to do?) and they absolutely swooned over the guy, so it was a major thing for them. The bottom line: for a lot of products, sex sells. The only question is how tactfully it is done.
Well, maybe you think the guy's toplessness was a minor point because you're not in the target group, i.e. women. I forwarded that link to a few of my colleagues (was that a sexist thing to do?) and they absolutely swooned over the guy, so it was a major thing for them.
But that's exactly my point: even though the guy's physique did nothing for me, there was still plenty for me to love in the campaign. As opposed to the Evony banner ads, on the other hand, which offer absolutely nothing to anyone not impressed by cleavage.
The bottom line: for a lot of products, sex sells. The only question is how tactfully it is done.
And this relates to my other point: some products are more inherently sexual than others. The entire premise of the Old Spice product (not just the campaign) is based on making oneself more attractive to the opposite sex. This is different than, say, Cisco Routers, where there is no natural connection between the sex used to sell the product, and the product itself.
In theory I agree with you, on the other hand they tend to be hot and they are human beings after all. Maybe while they are paid to do it, they don't mind having a good time on their job.
It's a similar problem with waitresses (some places). But many waitresses I talked to actually enjoy their jobs and do occasionally make friends among customers.
This post is not actually about a "booth babe problem", it's making the point that they are a red herring in discussions about women and technology.
"It’s about the reaction of men to a technically competent woman, no matter what she’s wearing. It’s the surprise and the shock in their expression and voice. It’s about the assumption that no woman is technically competent – at a trade show or on a conference call. That’s at the heart of this debate and others like it, and whether booth babes are present or not is unlikely to have an impact on those assumptions."
I interact with women in technology enough for it to not be surprising.
At conferences and meetings when people act strangely meeting my technical and capable female colleagues, it suggests to me that the person is inexperienced rather than making me sad for my colleagues. It suggests the same to my colleagues as well.
Really!? Then, you definitely have not been around (or maybe from outside the US where mileage may vary). Just go to any big tech company campus, e.g. Google, Apple, Microsoft, sit on a bench and observe. My guess is that 10-15% of any large company's tech-heavy departments (labs, etc.) are women. Now, that is more probable than a diamond falling on your head.
In normal life I don't hang around on the campus of Google or Microsoft a lot. Of course people you meet there are likely to be more tech-savvy than the average population.
If you go to a diamond mine, odds of stumbling across a diamond are probably also slightly increased.
Sure, but people going there come from normal life, which might have shaped their expectations.
Anyway, I am not really interested in the subject, so I shouldn't have commented.
Edit: I am confused what the discussion is even about. Apparently those men were surprised. What is the point then of arguing that they should not have been surprised? Doesn't the fact that they were surprised kind of imply that they don't meet many tech-savvy women on average? What is there to discuss?
It's not just women. You are just as shocked when the good looking jock type at the front of the booth with the expensive haircut knows anything about the product other than the price and his commission.
It's all a pattern recognition excercise.
At an American or Japanese company, attractive young women on the stand are statistically likely to be at worst hired booth babes and at best someone from marketing. In a european company they are likely to have PhDs in engineering.
Similarly the guys in the fancy suits with the $100 haircuts are going to be sales.
What you are looking for is the scruffy guy at the back climbing behind the PCs checking the cables. If he is in a black T-shirt with a roll of duct tape he works for the show organizers. If he is in a company T-shirt with glasses he is the one techy they sent along.
Last summer at OSCON Kirrily Robert gave a keynote which discussed gender and open source projects. The keynote itself was interesting (I only read about it from slides - didn't see it), and an O'Reilly Radar write-up about it led to a long and varied set of comments about "booth babes" and girls hired/invited to socialize at parties.
I am surprised at rare occurrences, and will continue to be so.
The author is treated the way technical men have learned, through social pressure, to treat average women. The intersection of the sets of women who are technically competent, and want to converse with me about technology is small. I've spent 22 years learning that the average woman will disdain me if I so much as open my mouth about some of my interests. I'm sorry, I can't magically intuit for which few it becomes prerequisite as a demonstration of respect.
This is key. The number of encounters with women where my technical aptitude was an uninteresting quirk outnumbers those where it was a conversation point by probably 100:1 if not more. With men, that ratio is far lower.
I think this whole situation is a very slowly unraveling catch-22 where women aren't interested in tech because they don't feel welcome, and they aren't welcomed because they aren't interested. These days, tech is so pervasive (even the girliest-of-girls probably has a very powerful computer in their purse by way of their phone), that I think it will work it's way loose over time.
It can't happen fast enough, IMO, it's hard enough already to find talented people, I'd like to see the pool doubled.
The author is not talking about average women though. She is talking about professional women attending technology conferences.
Also, I am not sure why you feel particularly pressured not to talk shop in front of women. As a female programmer I shut up about technology when talking to an average guy just as much as I would talking to a woman, or for that matter, just as much as anyone in any field avoids talking shop to people of any gender outside their particular knowledge domain. I really feel that you are being a bit disingenuous when you say that you can't "magically intuit for which few it becomes prerequisite" to talk about techie stuff. Surely it's pretty easy to intuit a person's interest at a technology event.
39 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 84.5 ms ] threadPersonally, I like looking at attractive women, I guess I was wired that way, but I'd be happy to have no booth babes at these shows. They are an anachronism and can't provide any useful information (which as what I'm at the trade show for, in the first place).
And while we're on the topic of men reacting to attractive women. Can we please stop with the "men don't make passes at girls that wear glasses" and "gentleman prefer blondes" nonsense? The women that turn my head tend to be glasses wearing brunettes. People have different visions of what's attractive.
But I do agree that there are men (idiots) who can't see that there are intelligent women. But please, women, don't tar all men with that brush.
Sorry, maybe I come across too strong but the BB ~ stripper analogy just gets to me. You are doing the same sin that you are condemning, namely judging people by the cover.
What's your name? What do you do? Would you like a dance?
What's your name? What do you do? Would you like to find out more about our F5 internet appliances?
Being sold something by an attractive woman with an ulterior motive raises my hackles and causes me to put up my guard. I'm certainly not going to be receptive to the sales pitch.
As part of being a team player, I had to have a lap dance. Sitting in a chair having a woman shove her breasts in my face after paying her was simply horrid. I remember feeling physically sick.
Heck, even escort services and prostitution are legal in some places.
Out of interest, why were the customer and sales guy so pleased to be there? Was there any rationalization going on[1], or did they just see tits and not think any further?
[1] ie "I think that one really liked me"
But, yes, I do recall some rationalization or at least attempts to 'connect' with the women.
Who wants to be the "creepy guy I had to give a lap dance to so that I could feed my children"?
(i) BB's are not paid to "endure your company", they are there just to attract the average conference/trade show attendee who happens to be a 30+ year old male. Now, you may find this objectionable, but then why stop at BBs; you should then object to all advertising, which by default use the same strategy. You should object to Danica Patrick and other GoDaddy girls. You should not drink beers that use provocative women in their advertising (that would be very few). You should not use Old Spice (their sexist marketing campaign was touted as "brilliant" just yesterday on HN) or Axe because they use similar approaches.
(ii) Think about it: Saying BB = stripper (as other people have written here) is the kind of generalization that you are objecting to. How is this different than the despicable notion that women attendees to these events somehow know less than male attendees? You are judging by the cover only. Have you actually talked to any of these girls?
Edit: Downvoters, please try to tell me why you think I'm wrong. Do you think females are not used in other advertising in this fashion? Do you think all BBs are strippers? Do you find my language objectionable? THINK! Then downvote.
Axe is a bit more understandable-- their marketing premise is that their fragrance will make you more attractive to women (which, while most likely false, is at least on the verge of plausibility).
However, I really have to object when you lump the Old Spice Twitter/YouTube campaign in with that. The fact that the actor in the Old Spice commercial was buff and topless was only a minor factor in the overall scheme of things. With Go Daddy and Evony, if you remove the breasts, there's nothing much left. With Old Spice, there was still a whole lot of win.
As for point (ii): it's been well over a decade since I've been to a trade show, but back in the day, there was no pretense that the "booth babes" had any knowledge of (or interest in) the product. They were there to be eye candy, pure and simple. Any other skills on their part was purely fortuitous.
(For the record, I didn't downvote you, btw).
But that's exactly my point: even though the guy's physique did nothing for me, there was still plenty for me to love in the campaign. As opposed to the Evony banner ads, on the other hand, which offer absolutely nothing to anyone not impressed by cleavage.
The bottom line: for a lot of products, sex sells. The only question is how tactfully it is done.
And this relates to my other point: some products are more inherently sexual than others. The entire premise of the Old Spice product (not just the campaign) is based on making oneself more attractive to the opposite sex. This is different than, say, Cisco Routers, where there is no natural connection between the sex used to sell the product, and the product itself.
It's a similar problem with waitresses (some places). But many waitresses I talked to actually enjoy their jobs and do occasionally make friends among customers.
"It’s about the reaction of men to a technically competent woman, no matter what she’s wearing. It’s the surprise and the shock in their expression and voice. It’s about the assumption that no woman is technically competent – at a trade show or on a conference call. That’s at the heart of this debate and others like it, and whether booth babes are present or not is unlikely to have an impact on those assumptions."
Because it happens fucking far too seldom.
At conferences and meetings when people act strangely meeting my technical and capable female colleagues, it suggests to me that the person is inexperienced rather than making me sad for my colleagues. It suggests the same to my colleagues as well.
If you go to a diamond mine, odds of stumbling across a diamond are probably also slightly increased.
Anyway, I am not really interested in the subject, so I shouldn't have commented.
Edit: I am confused what the discussion is even about. Apparently those men were surprised. What is the point then of arguing that they should not have been surprised? Doesn't the fact that they were surprised kind of imply that they don't meet many tech-savvy women on average? What is there to discuss?
It's all a pattern recognition excercise. At an American or Japanese company, attractive young women on the stand are statistically likely to be at worst hired booth babes and at best someone from marketing. In a european company they are likely to have PhDs in engineering.
Similarly the guys in the fancy suits with the $100 haircuts are going to be sales.
What you are looking for is the scruffy guy at the back climbing behind the PCs checking the cables. If he is in a black T-shirt with a roll of duct tape he works for the show organizers. If he is in a company T-shirt with glasses he is the one techy they sent along.
For anyone interested, here's some links:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/07/oscon-standing-out-in-the-c...
http://infotrope.net/blog/2009/07/25/standing-out-in-the-cro...
The author is treated the way technical men have learned, through social pressure, to treat average women. The intersection of the sets of women who are technically competent, and want to converse with me about technology is small. I've spent 22 years learning that the average woman will disdain me if I so much as open my mouth about some of my interests. I'm sorry, I can't magically intuit for which few it becomes prerequisite as a demonstration of respect.
I think this whole situation is a very slowly unraveling catch-22 where women aren't interested in tech because they don't feel welcome, and they aren't welcomed because they aren't interested. These days, tech is so pervasive (even the girliest-of-girls probably has a very powerful computer in their purse by way of their phone), that I think it will work it's way loose over time.
It can't happen fast enough, IMO, it's hard enough already to find talented people, I'd like to see the pool doubled.
Also, I am not sure why you feel particularly pressured not to talk shop in front of women. As a female programmer I shut up about technology when talking to an average guy just as much as I would talking to a woman, or for that matter, just as much as anyone in any field avoids talking shop to people of any gender outside their particular knowledge domain. I really feel that you are being a bit disingenuous when you say that you can't "magically intuit for which few it becomes prerequisite" to talk about techie stuff. Surely it's pretty easy to intuit a person's interest at a technology event.