3 ms·

> If I'm understanding correctly You most certainly are not. The author is simply pointing out that ending the booth babe situation isn't a panacea. The real

> If I'm understanding correctly 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

bluehat 14y ago
(I added that after he posted, because s/he brought up a good point.)
- mmcnickle 14y ago
  Could you mark your edits in the article as such? It's making the discussion here difficult to follow as people are referring to outdated versions.
  - bluehat 14y ago
    Done, edits are italics, thanks
jblz 14y ago
You're discounting the second half of the sentence you quoted: > but barring that, selfish as it may sound, if I could have substituted all the plain-clothes promoters for traditional booth babes, I would have done it in a heartbeat. Of course, progress isn't a panacea, but I'd take progress over the "old days," myself. I've personally seen the number of confidently technical women at conferences increase year over year for the past decade (please note, I'm not saying that the status quo is optimal, just that, in my experience, there _has_ been progress). Moreover, the _title_ of the piece concludes with "Thanks But You sort of Made It Worse" which contradicts what you said.