4 ms·

I think the issue people have with "booth babes" is that it presupposes men will be the ones perusing the booths, or the ones whose attention is worth grabbing.

I think the issue people have with "booth babes" is that it presupposes men will be the ones perusing the booths, or the ones whose attention is worth grabbing. There's nothing wrong with valuing someone for their good looks, but in a field like tech where we are trying to encourage women to participate more, using BB's at tech events is a reflection of the event organizers choosing to cater only to men, since it's mostly men that the BB's will entice.

rmrm 9y ago
Cheerleaders would be another example. Is it sexual objectification to have scantily clad attractive women on the sidelines? Most probably. Is having not attractive scantily clad women on the sidelines the answer? No, probably not. Is getting rid of cheerleaders the answer? Maybe. Do a lot of girls and women like to be cheerleaders? Apparently. It seems like the fundamental issue is that men like to see scantily clad attractive women. Efforts to shame or unemploy females who can make money from this is an attempt to fix the symptom, not the cause.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nicky0 9y ago
  Except that cheerleading it a highly skilled role that takes a lot of hard work and training, they are not just standing around looking nice. And there are male cheerleaders. Booth babes, maybe this is highly skilled too. I don't know. But I don't think they compare.
  - rmrm 9y ago
    I dont understand what your point is.
    - intopieces 9y ago
      The point is that cheerleaders are skilled athletes who are valued for their skill and looks. A beautiful cheerleader standing around is not in demand. Booth Babes are not valued for their skill in holding things, they are valued for their looks only. They are not recognized for their talent. They are treated as objects among objects.
      - rmrm 9y ago
        I agree that is true, but I dont think it changes anything about my post being true as well. A comparatively higher skilled sexual object doesnt change its nature, or why it exists as a job. Maybe you find it more respectable.

rmrm 9y ago

Cheerleaders would be another example. Is it sexual objectification to have scantily clad attractive women on the sidelines? Most probably. Is having not attractive scantily clad women on the sidelines the answer? No, probably not. Is getting rid of cheerleaders the answer? Maybe. Do a lot of girls and women like to be cheerleaders? Apparently. It seems like the fundamental issue is that men like to see scantily clad attractive women. Efforts to shame or unemploy females who can make money from this is an attempt to fix the symptom, not the cause.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nicky0 9y ago
Except that cheerleading it a highly skilled role that takes a lot of hard work and training, they are not just standing around looking nice. And there are male cheerleaders. Booth babes, maybe this is highly skilled too. I don't know. But I don't think they compare.
- rmrm 9y ago
  I dont understand what your point is.
  - intopieces 9y ago
    The point is that cheerleaders are skilled athletes who are valued for their skill and looks. A beautiful cheerleader standing around is not in demand. Booth Babes are not valued for their skill in holding things, they are valued for their looks only. They are not recognized for their talent. They are treated as objects among objects.
    - rmrm 9y ago
      I agree that is true, but I dont think it changes anything about my post being true as well. A comparatively higher skilled sexual object doesnt change its nature, or why it exists as a job. Maybe you find it more respectable.