Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Booth Babes, Street Clothes, and GDC: Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse

blog.katylevinson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 227 posts

Re: Booth Babes, Street Clothes, and GDC: Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse

#211

Post by obviouslygreen »

stcredzero wrote: post #184
obviouslygreen wrote: post #89

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.…

> 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 vol…

I'm not sure if you're just adding your two cents, which is cool, or wherever you're trying to suggest that I made or agree with the assertion that objectification is a "sin." I do not, and never suggested as much, I simply stated that it was clearly happening.

Re: Booth Babes, Street Clothes, and GDC: Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse

#212

Post by jack-r-abbit »

Tichy wrote: post #207
calibraxis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's why you retaliate against such advertisers. Boycotts, public campaigns, etc. Through such efforts, corporations have become noticeably less overt about using people of color and women as inferior objects for the amusement of the dominating classes.

So pretty people would find it harder to find employment in advertising. Wouldn't that be severe discrimination?

If I have learned one thing the past couple weeks it is this: It seems to be a common thought that it is not possible to discriminate against a privileged class. :/

Re: Booth Babes, Street Clothes, and GDC: Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse

#213

Post by rurounijones »

cdtwigg wrote: post #194
rurounijones wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might sound bad but... I cannot actually see a problem with #2, it would be my preferred solution. When I go to trade shows / conferences it is to talk to brains, not bodies, the sex of the brain is immaterial to me. To me, making sure the bodies are 50% equal in gender means nothing if 80% of the female bodies are only there to make up a body quota but have no interest / knowledge of what is going on. Maybe cha…

Why assume that anyone who isn't deeply expert in the technical details of a product isn't a full-time employee of the company? Many companies hire sales/marketing people of both genders that may have a relatively superficial understanding of the inner details but are more enthusiastic and outgoing than the engineering staff.

With the idea I stated above there is nothing stopping sales / marketing people from going. While they may not be techies per se I expect them to be knowledgeable out their products.

My proposal is purely to get rid of the "Pretty face, no knowledge, hired solely for the event" style of "booth-babe".

Of course companies could hire people for the require X months but I am hoping the monetary aspects of that would discourage them.

Also, enforcing the proposal would be tricky I think.

Re: Booth Babes, Street Clothes, and GDC: Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse

#214

Post by mtrimpe »

derleth wrote: post #166
mtrimpe wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While trying to learn how to sell I once tried to sell charity on the street for a single day. Already in that first day one of the less attractive, but probably more skilled, co-workers told me that in most cases you're actually selling 'having an attractive person be very friendly to me for a while.'

> I once tried to sell charity on the street for a single day. This sentence intrigues me. Were you working for a specific charitable organization or were you out there trying to sell one of the cardinal virtues as an abstract concept? > in most cases you're actually selling 'having an attractive person be very friendly to me for a while.' This is true, and it has been rediscovered over and over again in many industr…

I don't know if it exists everywhere in the world, but this was basically an organization that would run campaigns for specific charities.

One week you'd try to get people to donate to a child cancer charity and the next to WWF and the sales company would get the first few months to half a year of that person's donations.

Re: Booth Babes, Street Clothes, and GDC: Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse

#215

Post by icambron »

jblz wrote: post #138
lmm wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

In general, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're knowledgeable about things they purport to be knowledgeable about. I don't think that's so different from the instant situation here. Walking a crowded expo floor is a chore in and of itself (maybe more-so for introverts like myself :) ), but the '10 GDC I attended wasn't particularly challenging in this regard.

I find this challenging. I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but when you get let down over and over, you start taking mental shortcuts, even unfair ones. Humans are good at that. I was at PAX East, and there were a lot of hired-gun women doing hired-gun women stuff, mixed in with a small number of women who actually worked at those companies. It was really hard not to start assuming things.

Re: Booth Babes, Street Clothes, and GDC: Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse

#216

Post by Killah911 »

potatolicious wrote: post #62
Killah911 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "WTF is that supposed to be?" A de facto norm that arises out of any subculture. When you have enough people all hanging around each other all the time, all kinds of things develop, including fashion. > "We're all about judging worth based on who someone is and what they've done..." > "is when I have to deal with certain business types who are perfectly comfortable with a monocle & a pocket watch" So... you balk at…

Monocle & a pocket watch aren't exactly fashion choices. I was hinting at "dress codes" as being more reflective of the 18th-early 19th century thinking and not quite so relevant in the 21st century and the Information Age. I was trying to be succinct.

Re: Booth Babes, Street Clothes, and GDC: Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse

#217

Post by potatolicious »

Killah911 wrote: post #216
potatolicious wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "WTF is that supposed to be?" A de facto norm that arises out of any subculture. When you have enough people all hanging around each other all the time, all kinds of things develop, including fashion. > "We're all about judging worth based on who someone is and what they've done..." > "is when I have to deal with certain business types who are perfectly comfortable with a monocle & a pocket watch" So... you balk at…

Monocle & a pocket watch aren't exactly fashion choices. I was hinting at "dress codes" as being more reflective of the 18th-early 19th century thinking and not quite so relevant in the 21st century and the Information Age. I was trying to be succinct.

Those two concepts aren't as separate as you want them to be. At the end of the day you're still suggesting a link between a mode of thinking and a mode of dress - while at the same time objecting to that link being drawn for yourself.

You can't make a post complaining about people stereotyping engineers, while stereotyping "business types" in the same sentence.

Re: Booth Babes, Street Clothes, and GDC: Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse

#218

Post by theorique »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #175
theorique wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that men pay attention to supermodel shaped women is (1) sexist (2) very mistaken. Do you know any men in real life? Unless you're just trolling, I find it hard to believe that you actually believe this.

Do you know how to distinguish attention from horndogging? Hint: attention is that which is paid to the subject of the conversation. If all you can remember afterwards is "bow chicka wow wow", you're doing it wrong.

It is possible to do both - e.g. talk to a hot chick who is also technical about C++ templates ... and simultaneously about how to bang her.

A man has both brains and balls, to expect that he can switch one of those off or pretend it does not exist is unrealistic. (Obviously, this does not excuse a man if he sexually harasses a woman or otherwise behaves badly.)

Re: Booth Babes, Street Clothes, and GDC: Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse

#219

Post by theorique »

rada wrote: post #119
blhack wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck with that first one. This isn't tech, this is every business since the beginning of business.

They said the same thing about flight attendants.

Yeah, and now look at them - all middle aged hags and gay dudes.

At least first class seems to skew toward the younger and hotter (but still competent). (Especially in Asian and Middle Eastern airlines where they haven't gone all PC yet.)

Re: Booth Babes, Street Clothes, and GDC: Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse

#220

Post by bluehat »

Tichy wrote: post #210
pouletencolere wrote: post #123

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…

Why is it such a problem, though? It is statistically unlikely that a woman is developer, so people react accordingly. Does it really hurt so much to say "no, I'm a developer"?

Yes, it makes the very demographic people are trying to reach out to the most feel very unwelcomed. It also means that many people never challenge their assumptions and the lady doesn't get to correct them.
Post reply on HN