3 ms·

Let's speculate. Let us say that we were to end all booth babe jobs tomorrow. Result: 1000s of women lose a job that brings them some extra (and perhaps neede

Let's speculate. Let us say that we were to end all booth babe jobs tomorrow. Result: 1000s of women lose a job that brings them some extra (and perhaps needed) cash. But we all get to feel better about ourselves. Except for the women, because they have one less source of income. Alternative: we embrace the fact that we are sexual beings. Maybe sex appeal does not work on everyone, but it is a tried and true form of advertising. I do not think it is demeaning to women - I think it is empowering. What is demeaning is treating women like they should not have the choice to take these jobs.

sp332 15y ago
The main problem is using them at a trade conference. They are basically dead weight if they don't know anything about the products. This article isn't about being demeaning, but about encouraging anti-women bias in tech circles. BBs are hurting our society.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  Call it whatever you want, being demeaning, bias, objectification, I don't care - the article has a weak argument. "This is wrong on every level, and it’s an insidious form of objectifying women" "By being conditioned to treat women as intellectually inferior to men, we are actively discouraging them from joining our environment" I love it when people make up non-existent problems. The booth babes could care less - they are getting paid. No one is twisting their arm, and they probably don't want you to feel "sorry" for them. Women have suffrage, that battle is long over, get over it. He is arguing that we should not have booth babes because they do not know anything about the product, which actually is not true -- plenty of booth babes are actually required to memorize many facts about the product. So in essence, the author is the one being sexist, assuming right away that the booth babes know nothing about it. And his so-called "solution" is just to get rid of them? Why stop there? We should get rid of cheerleaders too, right? Because they just get in the way of the football game. Its not like people benefit from these jobs...oh no.

sp332 15y ago

The main problem is using them at a trade conference. They are basically dead weight if they don't know anything about the products. This article isn't about being demeaning, but about encouraging anti-women bias in tech circles. BBs are hurting our society.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
gavanwoolery 15y ago
Call it whatever you want, being demeaning, bias, objectification, I don't care - the article has a weak argument. "This is wrong on every level, and it’s an insidious form of objectifying women" "By being conditioned to treat women as intellectually inferior to men, we are actively discouraging them from joining our environment" I love it when people make up non-existent problems. The booth babes could care less - they are getting paid. No one is twisting their arm, and they probably don't want you to feel "sorry" for them. Women have suffrage, that battle is long over, get over it. He is arguing that we should not have booth babes because they do not know anything about the product, which actually is not true -- plenty of booth babes are actually required to memorize many facts about the product. So in essence, the author is the one being sexist, assuming right away that the booth babes know nothing about it. And his so-called "solution" is just to get rid of them? Why stop there? We should get rid of cheerleaders too, right? Because they just get in the way of the football game. Its not like people benefit from these jobs...oh no.