Hey guys, Katy here, just wanted to thank everybody for the support and super insightful feedback. I will continue to edit the post and post here with clarifications, mostly after work hours :)
And yes, I know everybody's probably sick of gender issues, and that's why I almost didn't bring it up, but I hoped it would be a chance for a good civil discussion, and I'm really glad to see it turning into that. Hopefully someday soon everything can be awesome, we'll never have occasion to talk about this garbage again, and we can all go back to nerding. I can't tell you how much I am looking forward to that day.
But, seriously, the civility and respect here have totally blown me away. Really proud to be a part of this community. Thanks everybody, you give a lady hope!
Never stop blogging about it, please. Did you see the post the other day from the woman who works at Game Informer (http://meagan-marie.tumblr.com/post/46396481491/what-would-y...)? Her experience at PAX East was one thing, but her work stories were even worse. I'd recommend it to everyone here.
Personally, I'm glad you did. I'm a male engineer, but there are two women engineers in my family (mom and sister). They always bring up these situations to me that few seem to notice. And honestly its really difficult for them at times to be in this industry. More discussion is good.
Wait, I don't get it. I'm at GDC. A very large portion (maybe even a majority) of either gender is non-technical. It's an industry event so there are lots of salespeople, hr, biz-dev, etc. I wouldn't assume a man I met here was a developer.
There are some pretty obvious booth babes (the energy drink girls, ones with swords, etc.) There are women who, while perhaps non-technical, legitimately work for the companies they're hawking. I don't get the impression they're hired guns, though I haven't done a survey.
Perhaps it's easy to say because I'm not a woman, but I think I'd feel less uncomfortable here than anywhere else where I was outnumbered 10:1.
I think the problem I have with your comments is that you haven't put yourself in her shoes. You've simply related how you see things and drawn your conclusion from that alone. Her point was that women engineers seem to have a hard time at GDC -- so yeah, as a male engineer, it's not shocking that things seemed fine to you. She took the time to put up a sincere blog post about her experience; she's probably not doing it to be contrary or to troll. The least any of us can do is to factor in her perspective.
I think the issue is what it takes to convince a person you are technical. As a man, if I join a conversation while other people are talking technical, I will generally be assumed to be technical. I can easily imagine women not having the "technical" bit default to true.
You highlight a real issue, though. Given the percentages, if a technical conference has a large percentage of non-technical attendees, it is likely women will be seen to have the "technical" bit off. Certainly more women in tech would fix it, but that isn't the solution, because we won't get more women in tech if they continually feel uncomfortable.
Conference organizers could do more. Instead of "attendee"- and "vendor"-type badges, they could have more detailed badges that are noticeable quickly and easily. I know I would appreciate knowing at a glance, in any technical conference, how technical the person I'm talking to is. Saves us time talking past each other or covering ground we both already know.
The trick is that when people you talk to universally assume you're not technical due to your gender, it is simultaneously:
a) exhausting to have to change every person's perception of you prior to being able to really engage in conversation
b) demoralizing when your male peers are treated with more respect automatically based on their gender
c) a sad loss of opportunity to engage in the discussion, when no opportune moment arises where you can comfortably communicate that you are qualified to participate
The author cited conversations where men she was with did not have the same experience as her. She essentially had to work harder in order to be seen as an equal participant.
Sending people to do product promotional is perfectly legitimate depending on the type of event. Even if you weren't deliberately targeting a male audience with attractive females (although I'm sure that was the case), odds are that if you were recruiting for that kind of work 90% would be outgoing and attractive young women. Just like recruiting programmers will get you 90% geeky white males.
As a 31 year old male, here is my message to tech companies with products to sell:
If you have "booth babes" (I think she did a great job in the article of defining what that term means), I'm not going to buy your product. I hate it and always have. Its trashy and demeaning, and I resent being grouped into the lowest common denominator when I go to view a product I actually care about. As demeaning as it is to women, I think a lot of men would agree that its demeaning to be treated like a dog who can be baited with a doggy treat.
If you have a good product, you don't need to lure in knuckle draggers who let themselves be led around by their reproductive instincts.
Let me suggest that this is an impossible problem to solve.
Here are our options:
1. Require a strict dress code for booth babes as to not offend anyone with scantily clad women. Result: we can't tell booth babes from technical females.
2. Require everyone working at the conference to be an active and knowledgable employee of the company which has purchase the booth space. Result: number of females on the show floor drops precipitously.
3. Require a 1:1 ratio of males to females. Result: booths are understaffed or companies don't even bother showing up.
4. Wait until ratio of males to females in the given industry is 1:1. Result: conferences cancelled.
If I was a female, and I'm not, I would be insulted that other females were trying to stop me from getting a job. I know a lot of girls who work as "booth babes" and they are busting their asses just as much as any of us are. It's not easy traveling around and standing all day long in uncomfortable shoes for pay that is slightly better than peanuts.
I agree that it's a hard problem, but I think you're looking at the wrong one.
The problematic assumption here is that a given woman was paid to be there. This was a reasonable assumption on the part of the other attendees, only because there are so few women in the games industry.
So rather than the problem-to-tackle being a cat-and-mouse with vendors trying to get the most-effective promotions' staff to the venue, the problem-to-tackle is women in gaming.
If women could hit even a respectably-sized minority of the attendee audience, the assumption would no longer be safe.
How about: Highly visible conference badges that differentiate spokespersons from developers?
There would be motivation for companies to game this, so that they could have spokespersons with "female geek cred." I think that this could be handled to within reason. Also, it might motivate companies to send their actual female employees, thus giving females more exposure at GDC.
Odds are, if you were recruiting for [promotional ] work 90% would be outgoing and attractive young women, just like recruiting programmers will get you 90% geeky white males.
Absolutely not true. There is no shortage of male actors and models. Whatsoever. And the prettier they are, the bigger the pay delta vis-a-vis the female actors and models. Whoever is hiring booth babes is actively excluding men, and paying through the nose to do it.
As was mentioned on this site before, burqa or bikini, there is always someone telling OTHER women how they must dress, how they must act, what they must be. It does not matter which sex the speaker is, they should respect the choice another makes.
If I'm understanding correctly, the author would prefer it if non-technical female expo floor workers were scantily-clad so she would be less likely to be assumed by other conference-goers to be non-technical herself..? I'm sorry, but I find that pretty offensive.
I don't claim to know what it's like to be a woman in a heavily male-dominated field (or just your de facto patriarchy, for that matter), but I also don't assume anyone I'm talking to at a conference has any reason to believe I possess any sort of prowess or authority without my convincing them of such even while donning my geekiest T-shirts.
More importantly, I assume anyone representing a product or service at a show is knowledgeable about its inner-workings until they give me some reason to believe otherwise regardless of their gender or attire.
While I appreciate that it is often difficult dealing with misogyny at conferences, I think it's unfair to lump a proper PR employee in with a model in a Princess Leia slave bikini who knows nothing about the product.
The author is simply pointing out that ending the booth babe situation isn't a panacea. The real issue is the shortage of actual technical contributors who are also women:
> Goodness knows, if I had the power to bring tons of other technical women at the conference that would be an optimal solution
>More importantly, I assume anyone representing a product or service at a show is knowledgeable about its inner-workings until they give me some reason to believe otherwise regardless of their gender or attire.
That must get pretty tiring at a conference like this (assuming the description in the post is accurate). People don't stereotype for fun, they do it because it's effective.
Women were being very clearly, intentionally objectified with the "booth babe" thing. Now, rather than something obnoxious and sexually overt, we have something that I'd call far worse in its subtlety: Using women for exactly the same purpose but in a much more approachable, casual, and probably effectively interactive way.
How did this happen? I seriously doubt it's because girls in bikinis stopped being effective. But when you can't get away with sexualized advertisement without being martyred, you're going to look for similarly effective marketing that won't offend the people throwing the stones, and in my opinion they've done exactly what we should have expected in this situation.
I'm not saying it's right or that women shouldn't expect to be treated as equals. I am saying that the tech community (and several others) have tried and are trying so hard to reject sex and sexuality and any application of it that might possibly offend someone that we're finally making it worse. Before it was just an obnoxious inability to be comfortable with ourselves. Now that we've gotten to the point where everyone knows how prudish and hyperconservative we are, they've also figured out how to keep marketing to us effectively without offending our delicate sensibilities. And we're still upset.
It's a shame that so many men have such a hard time conducting themselves well in mixed professional company. It's also a shame that we are so utterly unable to be men and women without pigeonholing ourselves and harassing each other over it. It's a sad situation.
> we have something that I'd call far worse in its subtlety: Using women for exactly the same purpose
Let's get this straight: It's not a sin. Objectification is just a particular functional state.
There is only a problem when there is a systemic imbalance that either consistently robs a particular group of agency. There is nothing inherently wrong with objectification. When you are being a spokesperson, you are voluntarily being objectified. You have basically taken on the role of an information appliance -- one with a friendly face and engaging manner, hopefully. This is fine. What would be wrong is if everyone treated you this way depending on some trait, like your gender or race. (Which is what happens when people assume female developers are paid shills or when people assume that the females in the current context are just decorative.)
The notion that "Objectification = Sin" is onerous nonsense. Denizens of a complex multicultural world need to turn on the brains and understand functional implications. We should stop using labels and tribal knee-jerks. Our new world is too complicated for those old heuristics.
I think the major source of OPs discomfort at the conference was that she is surrounding herself with gamers. I'm just saying gamers spend time playing video games they could be spending interacting with other human beings, going out. Two things that many gamers significantly undervalue. So they get weird.
I mean I don't really know how else to put it. No group of grown ups standing around at a conference would notice the number of "booth babes" and then get upset. Something which happened to gamers a little while ago.
So a bunch of pretty girls who probably didn't like being there in those places very much to begin with lost their jobs. The hyper insecurity of attendees at these conferences and previously mentioned "weirdness" are contributors. Many, from my research of the opposition to "booth babes" are insecure that they are not regarded as adults due to "booth babes" being around. Even some people in this thread have stated that they don't like being marketed to as knuckle draggers.
Well. The gaming industry is largely populated by adolescents, that is why the marketing that is chosen gets chosen. If they were adult enough to not mind the presence of "booth babes" and just enjoy themselves at the conferences, investigating the technologies they are interested in things could be a lot better.
But they're not. Things are weird. Interactions are stressful and now marketers need to awkwardly conceal their attempts at marketing.
Beautiful people, both male and female, work well in sales positions because they can draw you in by faking interest in you (the fake interest may be in the form of a question, familiarity, body language, etc.)
A lot of people find it hard to resist sales pitches from attractive people. Very few people can stay aloof of the social advances of attractive people.
Believe it or not, most companies with an attractive sales person, also have a technical sales engineer on hand to talk to you once you are hooked. I used to be a technical sales engineer, so I'm familiar with the hustle at the GDC. You have the attractive woman pull people in, and then she stands around while the engineers talk about the product. A lot of times the people have no interest in the product, but sometimes someone who came for the girl stays to hear about the product, and three months later is a client, because it turns out he needs your software after all.
It sucks, but its just the way most males work.
I'm used to this hustle, that is why at trade shows I avoid eye contact with the marketing/sales people and make a beeline directly for the materials/people I'm interested in.
Hmmm ... I'm not sure I can agree with the idea of dressing more of the booth babes in bikinis (seems like a step backwards), but I can understand the need to be viewed as technical. And at a conference like GDC, it can be hard for the guys to know who is technical and who isn't.
I propose the people that want to talk technical and be treated as "nerds" all wear propeller beanies from now on. That way we'll be able to tell our fellow hackers, and it will also root out those annoying fashion conscious nerds.
Sex sells. Actually one of the more popular search terms associated with E3 was "booth babes." Are companies willing to sacrifice their "dignity" in order to have their brand appear in more searches? Absolutely. Some of the most visited sites on the internet are pornography sites. Lets not kid ourselves - we were genetically designed to reproduce and value sexual attraction.
The problem is that every one treats women using their sexual attraction like it is a bad thing (or it somehow undervalues their intelligence -- which it does not; just because you value one thing does not mean you don't another). I don't think there is any shame in it. We have been promoting products with sexual appeal since the dawn of advertising. Everybody get off their high horse already and accept that we are beasts of nature. :)
Interesting read, but I have to say I'm a little put off by the conclusion
> [...] if I could have substituted them all for traditional booth babes, I would have done it in a heartbeat. Then I’d be free to have a great time being what I normally am at conferences: a curiosity, an anomaly, and an excitable nerd.
In my opinion, this trivializes what was, prior to its inclusion, a worthwhile lament. The conclusion makes it sound as if the author is ultimately dismayed not that she was dismissed as being unworthy of unadulterated engineer-speak, but more so bothered by the fact that she was no longer the center of attention and no longer unique. I'm sure in reality she cares much more about being the former, but it was quite a shallow consummation to an otherwise interesting piece.
I'm not familiar with this kind of event, but are there not usually badges that designate different kinds of participants? The writer could have a "attendee" badge, while advertisers and pushers would have a different color/label on their badge.
This problem isn't limited to conferences. I'm a woman and an engineer, and I can't count the number of times I've met someone at a casual tech meetup and the first thing out of their mouths was "You must be in PR." If you want to make a small difference in making the world a nicer place, just ask me what I do.
Booth babes and female sales reps are an interesting thing to discuss, but we can't individually change the whole marketing culture. But we can individually make the tech scene more inclusive just by being more sensitive about the way we interact with other people. So please, please, please don't make assumptions about me or start presumptuously explaining things to me without asking what I do.
I can see how this could be a significant problem for women at GDC. I'm a guy who has been going to GDC for over a decade. Pretty much every year there are a few promoters using fairly aggressive "stealth" tactics to hook people walking around the expo floor. As in, reasonably attractive woman in plain clothes glances at your badge, waits a bit, then walks up quickly saying "Hey, Corysama! Good to see you! Hey, what do you think about..." After a few of these highly awkward encounters, the promoters have pretty effectively trained many of the men to insta-dismiss reasonably attractive women in plain clothes at the show.
Maybe a compromise: instead of extremes like latex bikinis or just plain-clothes why don't use a subtle corporate uniform? That way is not sexist nor something that a non-employee might be wearing.
Since in general few women are developers, I rather doubt the hiring of pr women has any bearing on the situation. If it is really so frustrating, maybe dressing accordingly would alleviate the pain - don't know, carry a Linux book, a T- Shirt that says "no, I won't fix your computer", or something like that.
I think I'm missing where the friction is in dropping your credentials? You don't have to storm in and say, "Do you know who I am??!". Isn't it easy and actually very polite to introduce yourself and what you do?
"Hi I'm {Name}, This topic fascinates me as I'm also a developer..."
It was an interesting blog post, that puts a new spin on the Booth Babe controversy. Thanks for sharing. Saying that she was less uncomfortable with a bunch of drunk guys yelling "take your shirt off!" at Defcon than at GDC is saying something...
When the guys were shouting, the rest of the crowd and security was frowning at them. It was really easy to see this problem was something everybody knew about, that good people had my back, and something we would solve shortly. It wasn't fun at the time, but I knew it would be done soon.
GDC was a worse experience because it was profoundly isolating, and made me feel like an outsider. Also, I don't see an easy solution coming to fix it, which makes the situation feel more depressing.
That's why I prefer to be an engineer, so I don't have to F#@$ing dress up like anybody! "Dress up like an engineer", WTF is that supposed to be? Am I the only person who is dumbfounded by this? We're all about judging worth based on who someone is and what they've done... The only time I ever "dress up" is when I have to deal with certain business types who are perfectly comfortable with a monocle & a pocket watch.
Holy Shitsnacks! Did I really just read that? We can't fucking win.
Last year: Holy mother of God we have so many hookers at this event. This has to stop! Now!
This year: Holy mother of Dog... we have too many regular looking people. This has to stop. NOW!
I can't keep it all straight. I'm pretty sure the only solution is for everyone to wear the same colored body suit that masks all indications of gender, a mask to cover the face and an auto-tune device to cover the voice. And everyone will just have a number badge so names are not a hint. I guess we should probably have a different color suit for the non-technicals?
But I hate the concept of giving up fighting for yourself. Why not put a few people in their place? If that's just not in your nature, fair enough; but I say make a few guys feel like idiots by stepping up to the plate with your expertise. If they don't like it, that's their problem.
And if that fails, I like davidrobert's idea as well -- maybe wear a shirt that has a really nerdy programming joke on it. Or, better yet, the HN shirt ^_^ -- http://teespring.com/hntees
Engineers are the group I would expect to understand this the best, since we tend to be proud of our disinterest in selling and marketing ourselves constantly. We want to do competent work, make things happen, keep things working, and move along. Our gold standard for correctness is that no one even knows we exist.
And yet on HN, I regularly find engineers who can't seem to grasp any of these things. Maybe it's because we're in the web age, when so much of our work is visible, or maybe it's because we're in the recession/post-recession era, when self-marketing is often essential to staying afloat in the economy. I don't know. We seem to have forgotten those core bits.
People who want to do their work don't want to spend time "putting people in their place." And once you do, you haven't gained much - there's still many other interactions throughout the day, and are you going to put them all in their place? That's the point, and the frustration: she wants to spend her effort talking about technical things.
[+] [-] bluehat|13 years ago|reply
And yes, I know everybody's probably sick of gender issues, and that's why I almost didn't bring it up, but I hoped it would be a chance for a good civil discussion, and I'm really glad to see it turning into that. Hopefully someday soon everything can be awesome, we'll never have occasion to talk about this garbage again, and we can all go back to nerding. I can't tell you how much I am looking forward to that day.
But, seriously, the civility and respect here have totally blown me away. Really proud to be a part of this community. Thanks everybody, you give a lady hope!
[+] [-] mnicole|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] physcab|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiggy2011|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattmaroon|13 years ago|reply
There are some pretty obvious booth babes (the energy drink girls, ones with swords, etc.) There are women who, while perhaps non-technical, legitimately work for the companies they're hawking. I don't get the impression they're hired guns, though I haven't done a survey.
Perhaps it's easy to say because I'm not a woman, but I think I'd feel less uncomfortable here than anywhere else where I was outnumbered 10:1.
[+] [-] peterevans|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
You highlight a real issue, though. Given the percentages, if a technical conference has a large percentage of non-technical attendees, it is likely women will be seen to have the "technical" bit off. Certainly more women in tech would fix it, but that isn't the solution, because we won't get more women in tech if they continually feel uncomfortable.
Conference organizers could do more. Instead of "attendee"- and "vendor"-type badges, they could have more detailed badges that are noticeable quickly and easily. I know I would appreciate knowing at a glance, in any technical conference, how technical the person I'm talking to is. Saves us time talking past each other or covering ground we both already know.
[+] [-] spocktacular|13 years ago|reply
a) exhausting to have to change every person's perception of you prior to being able to really engage in conversation b) demoralizing when your male peers are treated with more respect automatically based on their gender c) a sad loss of opportunity to engage in the discussion, when no opportune moment arises where you can comfortably communicate that you are qualified to participate
The author cited conversations where men she was with did not have the same experience as her. She essentially had to work harder in order to be seen as an equal participant.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] joezydeco|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] furyofantares|13 years ago|reply
I would assume those people are technical until evidence to the contrary presents itself.
[+] [-] onemorepassword|13 years ago|reply
Sending people to do product promotional is perfectly legitimate depending on the type of event. Even if you weren't deliberately targeting a male audience with attractive females (although I'm sure that was the case), odds are that if you were recruiting for that kind of work 90% would be outgoing and attractive young women. Just like recruiting programmers will get you 90% geeky white males.
[+] [-] JPKab|13 years ago|reply
If you have "booth babes" (I think she did a great job in the article of defining what that term means), I'm not going to buy your product. I hate it and always have. Its trashy and demeaning, and I resent being grouped into the lowest common denominator when I go to view a product I actually care about. As demeaning as it is to women, I think a lot of men would agree that its demeaning to be treated like a dog who can be baited with a doggy treat.
If you have a good product, you don't need to lure in knuckle draggers who let themselves be led around by their reproductive instincts.
[+] [-] AJ007|13 years ago|reply
Here are our options:
1. Require a strict dress code for booth babes as to not offend anyone with scantily clad women. Result: we can't tell booth babes from technical females.
2. Require everyone working at the conference to be an active and knowledgable employee of the company which has purchase the booth space. Result: number of females on the show floor drops precipitously.
3. Require a 1:1 ratio of males to females. Result: booths are understaffed or companies don't even bother showing up.
4. Wait until ratio of males to females in the given industry is 1:1. Result: conferences cancelled.
If I was a female, and I'm not, I would be insulted that other females were trying to stop me from getting a job. I know a lot of girls who work as "booth babes" and they are busting their asses just as much as any of us are. It's not easy traveling around and standing all day long in uncomfortable shoes for pay that is slightly better than peanuts.
[+] [-] roc|13 years ago|reply
The problematic assumption here is that a given woman was paid to be there. This was a reasonable assumption on the part of the other attendees, only because there are so few women in the games industry.
So rather than the problem-to-tackle being a cat-and-mouse with vendors trying to get the most-effective promotions' staff to the venue, the problem-to-tackle is women in gaming.
If women could hit even a respectably-sized minority of the attendee audience, the assumption would no longer be safe.
[+] [-] stcredzero|13 years ago|reply
How about: Highly visible conference badges that differentiate spokespersons from developers?
There would be motivation for companies to game this, so that they could have spokespersons with "female geek cred." I think that this could be handled to within reason. Also, it might motivate companies to send their actual female employees, thus giving females more exposure at GDC.
[+] [-] rada|13 years ago|reply
Absolutely not true. There is no shortage of male actors and models. Whatsoever. And the prettier they are, the bigger the pay delta vis-a-vis the female actors and models. Whoever is hiring booth babes is actively excluding men, and paying through the nose to do it.
[+] [-] JulianMorrison|13 years ago|reply
1. Do not hire eye candy as eye candy. Of either sex. Dressed up or dressed down.
2. Product promotion staff should be clearly labeled as such.
[+] [-] chc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] WiseWeasel|13 years ago|reply
I could see male booth attendants having similar issues.
[+] [-] jblz|13 years ago|reply
I don't claim to know what it's like to be a woman in a heavily male-dominated field (or just your de facto patriarchy, for that matter), but I also don't assume anyone I'm talking to at a conference has any reason to believe I possess any sort of prowess or authority without my convincing them of such even while donning my geekiest T-shirts.
More importantly, I assume anyone representing a product or service at a show is knowledgeable about its inner-workings until they give me some reason to believe otherwise regardless of their gender or attire.
While I appreciate that it is often difficult dealing with misogyny at conferences, I think it's unfair to lump a proper PR employee in with a model in a Princess Leia slave bikini who knows nothing about the product.
[+] [-] danilocampos|13 years ago|reply
You most certainly are not.
The author is simply pointing out that ending the booth babe situation isn't a panacea. The real issue is the shortage of actual technical contributors who are also women:
> Goodness knows, if I had the power to bring tons of other technical women at the conference that would be an optimal solution
[+] [-] lmm|13 years ago|reply
That must get pretty tiring at a conference like this (assuming the description in the post is accurate). People don't stereotype for fun, they do it because it's effective.
[+] [-] DucktourDreams|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] obviouslygreen|13 years ago|reply
How did this happen? I seriously doubt it's because girls in bikinis stopped being effective. But when you can't get away with sexualized advertisement without being martyred, you're going to look for similarly effective marketing that won't offend the people throwing the stones, and in my opinion they've done exactly what we should have expected in this situation.
I'm not saying it's right or that women shouldn't expect to be treated as equals. I am saying that the tech community (and several others) have tried and are trying so hard to reject sex and sexuality and any application of it that might possibly offend someone that we're finally making it worse. Before it was just an obnoxious inability to be comfortable with ourselves. Now that we've gotten to the point where everyone knows how prudish and hyperconservative we are, they've also figured out how to keep marketing to us effectively without offending our delicate sensibilities. And we're still upset.
It's a shame that so many men have such a hard time conducting themselves well in mixed professional company. It's also a shame that we are so utterly unable to be men and women without pigeonholing ourselves and harassing each other over it. It's a sad situation.
[+] [-] stcredzero|13 years ago|reply
Let's get this straight: It's not a sin. Objectification is just a particular functional state.
There is only a problem when there is a systemic imbalance that either consistently robs a particular group of agency. There is nothing inherently wrong with objectification. When you are being a spokesperson, you are voluntarily being objectified. You have basically taken on the role of an information appliance -- one with a friendly face and engaging manner, hopefully. This is fine. What would be wrong is if everyone treated you this way depending on some trait, like your gender or race. (Which is what happens when people assume female developers are paid shills or when people assume that the females in the current context are just decorative.)
The notion that "Objectification = Sin" is onerous nonsense. Denizens of a complex multicultural world need to turn on the brains and understand functional implications. We should stop using labels and tribal knee-jerks. Our new world is too complicated for those old heuristics.
[+] [-] Kequc|13 years ago|reply
I mean I don't really know how else to put it. No group of grown ups standing around at a conference would notice the number of "booth babes" and then get upset. Something which happened to gamers a little while ago.
So a bunch of pretty girls who probably didn't like being there in those places very much to begin with lost their jobs. The hyper insecurity of attendees at these conferences and previously mentioned "weirdness" are contributors. Many, from my research of the opposition to "booth babes" are insecure that they are not regarded as adults due to "booth babes" being around. Even some people in this thread have stated that they don't like being marketed to as knuckle draggers.
Well. The gaming industry is largely populated by adolescents, that is why the marketing that is chosen gets chosen. If they were adult enough to not mind the presence of "booth babes" and just enjoy themselves at the conferences, investigating the technologies they are interested in things could be a lot better.
But they're not. Things are weird. Interactions are stressful and now marketers need to awkwardly conceal their attempts at marketing.
[+] [-] TheMagicHorsey|13 years ago|reply
A lot of people find it hard to resist sales pitches from attractive people. Very few people can stay aloof of the social advances of attractive people.
Believe it or not, most companies with an attractive sales person, also have a technical sales engineer on hand to talk to you once you are hooked. I used to be a technical sales engineer, so I'm familiar with the hustle at the GDC. You have the attractive woman pull people in, and then she stands around while the engineers talk about the product. A lot of times the people have no interest in the product, but sometimes someone who came for the girl stays to hear about the product, and three months later is a client, because it turns out he needs your software after all.
It sucks, but its just the way most males work.
I'm used to this hustle, that is why at trade shows I avoid eye contact with the marketing/sales people and make a beeline directly for the materials/people I'm interested in.
[+] [-] smoyer|13 years ago|reply
I propose the people that want to talk technical and be treated as "nerds" all wear propeller beanies from now on. That way we'll be able to tell our fellow hackers, and it will also root out those annoying fashion conscious nerds.
[+] [-] gavanwoolery|13 years ago|reply
The problem is that every one treats women using their sexual attraction like it is a bad thing (or it somehow undervalues their intelligence -- which it does not; just because you value one thing does not mean you don't another). I don't think there is any shame in it. We have been promoting products with sexual appeal since the dawn of advertising. Everybody get off their high horse already and accept that we are beasts of nature. :)
[+] [-] jgj|13 years ago|reply
> [...] if I could have substituted them all for traditional booth babes, I would have done it in a heartbeat. Then I’d be free to have a great time being what I normally am at conferences: a curiosity, an anomaly, and an excitable nerd.
In my opinion, this trivializes what was, prior to its inclusion, a worthwhile lament. The conclusion makes it sound as if the author is ultimately dismayed not that she was dismissed as being unworthy of unadulterated engineer-speak, but more so bothered by the fact that she was no longer the center of attention and no longer unique. I'm sure in reality she cares much more about being the former, but it was quite a shallow consummation to an otherwise interesting piece.
[+] [-] unethical_ban|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saraid216|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pouletencolere|13 years ago|reply
Booth babes and female sales reps are an interesting thing to discuss, but we can't individually change the whole marketing culture. But we can individually make the tech scene more inclusive just by being more sensitive about the way we interact with other people. So please, please, please don't make assumptions about me or start presumptuously explaining things to me without asking what I do.
[+] [-] corysama|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JVIDEL|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tichy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gavinlynch|13 years ago|reply
"Hi I'm {Name}, This topic fascinates me as I'm also a developer..."
And go from there?
[+] [-] unreal37|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluehat|13 years ago|reply
GDC was a worse experience because it was profoundly isolating, and made me feel like an outsider. Also, I don't see an easy solution coming to fix it, which makes the situation feel more depressing.
[+] [-] davidroberts|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Killah911|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jack-r-abbit|13 years ago|reply
Last year: Holy mother of God we have so many hookers at this event. This has to stop! Now!
This year: Holy mother of Dog... we have too many regular looking people. This has to stop. NOW!
I can't keep it all straight. I'm pretty sure the only solution is for everyone to wear the same colored body suit that masks all indications of gender, a mask to cover the face and an auto-tune device to cover the voice. And everyone will just have a number badge so names are not a hint. I guess we should probably have a different color suit for the non-technicals?
[+] [-] sharkweek|13 years ago|reply
But I hate the concept of giving up fighting for yourself. Why not put a few people in their place? If that's just not in your nature, fair enough; but I say make a few guys feel like idiots by stepping up to the plate with your expertise. If they don't like it, that's their problem.
And if that fails, I like davidrobert's idea as well -- maybe wear a shirt that has a really nerdy programming joke on it. Or, better yet, the HN shirt ^_^ -- http://teespring.com/hntees
[+] [-] bluehat|13 years ago|reply
And yes, I have a lot of geeky T-shirts. I don't like the idea of having to dress a certain way to be taken seriously, it seems very "un-engineering."
[+] [-] saraid216|13 years ago|reply
And yet on HN, I regularly find engineers who can't seem to grasp any of these things. Maybe it's because we're in the web age, when so much of our work is visible, or maybe it's because we're in the recession/post-recession era, when self-marketing is often essential to staying afloat in the economy. I don't know. We seem to have forgotten those core bits.
It makes me sad.
[+] [-] scott_s|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blhack|13 years ago|reply