DrupalDork.com was shut down on September 18, 2013. This is just a snapshot of the site as it appeared then.

Let's Talk About Sex

Submitted by Brock on Mon 28 May 2012, 4:59 pm

As it often is, sexism in the tech industry was the topic of a lot of back-and-forth on Twitter this past week. It started with the revelation1 that a modeling agency in Denver had been contracted to staff "booth babes" in the DrupalCon exhibit hall back in March, and continued (as it so often does) with debate over what behavior is appropriate at professional-ish industry events like DrupalCon.

The issue of "booth babes"2 is the one that got under my skin the most, so let's talk about that. First, allow me outline my basic position on the issue:

  • I have no problem with sex. Sex can be a natural, zesty enterprise, but that doesn't mean it has a place at professional events.
  • I believe that the mere presence of "booth babes" is actively detrimental to the gender equality of any event or the industry in which it takes place.
  • I do not think a dress code for booth staff or event attendees is appropriate, nor am I convinced (yet) that this is a problem that should be addressed by an official code of conduct or exhibitor agreement or anything like that.

The problem with booth babes is simple: hiring sexy ladies to stand at a booth and attract men to it results in those men assuming that beautiful women in the booths are only there to attract them.

That's it. It's not some puritanical view of sex, as was suggested to me, nor a problem with sexiness, as was suggested to others.

I don't know why this is so hard to get one's head around. Booth babes are there only to sexually arouse men3 and draw them into the booth. They cannot answer questions about the product or provide deep information about it.

Their knowledge of the company or product is not the problem, though; the problem is that everyone comes to assume that the sexy ladies in the booths are just that: sexy ladies who don't know anything about the product. Women who are actually active in the community and industry (and who already have a hard enough time being taken seriously in said) are then brushed aside by those who assume that they're just there as eye candy.

This fact was driven home for me when I was talking to a guy at DrupalCamp Maryland a few months ago. The topic came up, and he proudly announced that when he's interested in a company in an exhibit hall, he'll walk straight past any women to the nerdy-looking dude at the back of the booth, figuring that he's the guy who actually knows what he's talking about.

He could not have made my point better for me, but I still had to slowly spell it out for him: this exactly problem. The women you walk past may well be the lead developer(s) on the product, but you assume they're just there as eye candy because of the fact that booth babes are around.

This is why some of the conversation on Twitter this week infuriated me so. It's not about any puritanical view of sex. It's not about being uncomfortable with sexiness. It's entirely about further marginalizing women in an industry where gender equality is a long-standing issue that needs to be addressed. There's no way that this is hard to comprehend, nor did anyone actually answer to this point on Twitter, so I can only assume that they would rather pretend that it's not a real issue.

The closest thing I got to a real response on this was the assertion that the person I was talking to had sexy guys at his booth, and I was being sexist for assuming that "booth babes" had to mean women.

Seriously, dude?

This point—and the long conversation that followed the next day, about what constitutes appropriate behavior among people who are attracted to others at tech events—points to an incredible blind spot that plagues members of our community who refuse to see this as a problem:

There is not gender equality in our world right now.

You can argue that it's sexist to assume that "booth babes" refers to women. You can argue from the position that men and women should be treated equally, and that women can hit on men just as men can hit on women, and there's no difference between the two. I can understand why one would take this position, from a logical standpoint, but it simply has no bearing on reality. Behaving as if we have achieved gender equality—and thus, that these issues do not exist—does nothing to rectify those existing inequalities. We can't just pretend that treating everyone equally will eventually make it so; it's going to take more than that.

As I noted earlier, I don't believe that an official code of conduct is the best way to address these problems: tech events should have one in place, but it will take more than that to make a real difference, and there are issues that cannot be adequately addressed by rules and regulations. For example, I was also told I was being sexist for proposing that women at these events should be held to a dress code, to prevent the kind of outfits that booth babes might wear. To be clear, I never proposed nor inferred this, but it indicates the problem with addressing this by official means: should there be a dress code in place? Should exhibit hall staff be limited to full-time employees of each company exhibiting? How can you regulate stuff like that?

I maintain that peer pressure is going to be a much more effective solution. We need to make it clear that we will not do business with the kind of company that thinks women are only good for attracting horny geeks to their booth. We need to call out colleagues who behave inappropriately, who make sexist jokes or harass other attendees or staff at these events. We need to explain—again and again and with small words when necessary—why "booth babes" and "booth dudes" are inherently unequal.

We'd all like to believe that gender inequality is a thing of the past, but people are so willing to demonstrate, time after time, that we aren't there yet.

Further reading:

  1. It's worth noting that the modeling agency blogged about this months ago, but it only got any attention (as far as I know) when someone discovered the blog post last week. ↩

  2. Do I need to keep putting "booth babes" in quotes? I feel like I should just because it is such an air-quotey term, but we all know what I'm talking about. ↩

  3. Well, straight men and lesbians, but we know what the target demographic is. ↩

Tags:

Category:

Comments

stefon (not verified)

Mon 28 May 2012, 6:01 pm

thank you very much for this posting! its not easy to go against the sexist mainstream in open source or most of the world.

nick (not verified)

Mon 28 May 2012, 6:51 pm

Is it really that big an issue? The risk of someone walking past a female lead developer to talk to the neckbeard at the back of the booth?

FACT: Tech event attendance is dominated by males.
FACT: Males at tech events are not out to suppress female involvement in the industry.
FACT: There are better things to get your knickers in a knot about than this so-called "issue".

Brock

Mon 28 May 2012, 7:04 pm

You do recognize that this is a significantly larger issue than "someone walking past a female lead developer," right?

Pat (not verified)

Mon 28 May 2012, 10:30 pm

Fact 1 true
Fact 2 true
Fact 3 this doesn't support fact 2. So yes, it is something to get your knickers in a knot about.

Lin Clark (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 11:52 am

Hi nick,

Yes, this is an issue.

I happen to be an active Drupal contributor who has blogged about this issue before... the reason I stayed away from deeper involvement in geekdom before Drupal was precisely this issue.

I don't think that men at tech events are trying to suppress my involvement. However, if I'm in a group of techies and it's clear that they doubt me more than others because of my physical appearance and gender presentation, then I'm likely to just leave. Even though I know I can prove myself in technical conversations and come to be highly respected over time, the fact that I would be underestimated every single time by every new person (and that others would not face this underestimation because they fit a certain physical mold) is just tiring.

If Drupal weren't the community it is, then I wouldn't be here and neither would my commits.

A huge thank you to Brock and all the others who get their knickers in a knot about this issue and others like it, it makes me so much more committed to this community.

R.J. Steinert (not verified)

Mon 28 May 2012, 7:10 pm

Great post. To try an boil it down into two sentences, here's my best shot. Let me know if anyone thinks I missed something.

- "The women you walk past may well be the lead developer(s) on the product, but you assume they're just there as eye candy because of the fact that booth babes are around."

- To argue that the objectification can go both ways, thus we have equality, is to ignore the historical context of the situation.

Ian Thomas (not verified)

Mon 28 May 2012, 7:30 pm

While I'm not a fan of "booth babes" and can see plenty of objections to them, I'm not sure I agree with your argument that it's often easy to confuse them with women who know about the product.

Booth babes tend to be dressed to show off plenty of skin and hang around in groups at the front of the stand handing things out and collecting contact details (sorry, I mean accepting prize draw entries). Women who know about the product are usually professionally dressed and are more likely to be doing demos with the product or answering questions.

There probably is some overlap with things like girly-fit t-shirts but at that point I think they women can make a conscious decision about how much they want to show off their bodies. There are plenty of ways to look good without making yourself look like a booth babe.

/me looks down at CAPTCHA and wonders how it just happened to be "6Jugs"

Brock

Mon 28 May 2012, 7:50 pm

Perhaps I should have elaborated more.

The problem is not merely the presence of booth babes, or the ease of distinguishing them from women who are actually there for the event. The problem is the larger effect it has on the community, and the things it says about that community's priorities.

This is part of the reason that I'm not sold on a code of conduct to address the issue. I would like to believe that the Drupal community is mature and egalitarian enough to agree that this is not how we want to portray women's contributions to and presence at our events.

Lin Clark (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 12:04 pm

You suggest that we can use heuristics based on a woman's appearance and whether she's talking with other women to determine whether she is knowledgable about the product. This is something that people do already do. It is called stereotyping.

As someone who has more in common physically with a booth babe than with our culture's stereotype of an OS developer, the use of these heuristics is quite depressing and alienating. What people expect from me based on their stereotypes and my outer appearance is extremely different from my inner sense of self.

beejeebus (not verified)

Mon 28 May 2012, 7:33 pm

thanks for the great post!

during DrupalconDenver, someone tweeted some pictures of 'booth babes'. however, some of the women in the photos were not models hired to stand by the stalls, but drupal professionals staffing the stalls.

so women who were just doing their job as drupal professionals were mistaken for models who don't know anything about drupal. this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it harder for women to be taken seriously.

Brock

Mon 28 May 2012, 7:47 pm

Bingo!

Jeff Eaton (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 1:38 pm

There was a kerfuffle over blogger Violet Blue's coverage of the 2012 MacWorld Expo about this same issue. VB posted a picture of a tired-looking woman manning a booth and called her "The world's saddest booth babe," when in fact she was one of the company's technical producers staffing the booth after a long day.

Ken Whitesell (not verified)

Mon 28 May 2012, 8:03 pm

It amazes me that despite all the attention this issue has received over the past four years (at least that I've been aware of the publicity), that there are still people who deny that it's a problem. Even worse, there's still a lot of "shoot the messenger" reactions when these issues are raised again and again.

What is it going to take to open people's eyes?

Sam (not verified)

Mon 28 May 2012, 8:56 pm

It's my opinion that you, the writer, are on the correct and logical side of the issue. The opposing side really doesn't have any sort of leg to stand on. In my opinion, professional people or business people, people who are actually interested in the product and services, and furthering their progress and quality are separated from rhetorical hacks who are simply interested in making themselves look good.

Because of a bit money and thoughts of fame and glory, it seems to me we have invited all sorts of people who think that this is acceptable behavior and it is not and shouldn't be. Further I have found that arguing with these types is a waste of time, because they will attempt to distort the actual issue with all sorts of meaningless rhetorical questions to sway opinion in their favor, while not actually being concerned about seriously looking at the issue and honestly giving an answer. In my opinion they are not stupid, but just self-serving.

And it shows me from the side of the issue that they stand on whether they are actually interested in Drupal. I personally think it reflects on them poorly from the perspective of professionalism and I think other developers should identify them and shame them as it really shows what they are about.

What will it take to get booth babes out of these sort of events? If you ask me, when it socially unacceptable and seen as a sign of what it really is -- an expression of shallowness and lack of depth in who you actually are and what they are actually doing, and attempting to compensate for that lack of depth by using women as sexual objects.

Melissa (not verified)

Mon 28 May 2012, 9:14 pm

The elephant in the room here is what company is hiring them? I'm assuming it's not the DrupalCon organizers.

Overall, I'm not really offended, but it contributes to a trashy/tacky lame brogrammer atmosphere that would affect my desire to attend DrupalCon. I have become less and less involved with Drupal over time because most events and their atmospheres are not appealing to me, particularly in comparison to other tech communities. It's a shame because DrupalCons are typically in really cool cities.

"There probably is some overlap with things like girly-fit t-shirts but at that point I think they women can make a conscious decision about how much they want to show off their bodies. There are plenty of ways to look good without making yourself look like a booth babe."

Yeah, and um, I don't want to have to worry about what I wear at a tech conference. It's pretty distasteful to think I'd have to look at my wardrobe and ask "is this shirt too booth babe?" Especially since a lot of them just wear normal girl-cut t-shirts and not some Hooters stereotype. And that modeling agency seems to have low enough standards that it wouldn't be hard to be mistaken for one, even as a short non-blond woman. Actually now that I am looking at their pictures I wonder if I should just apply for a job there. Sounds easier than de-bugging code and I might get free admission to DrupalCon!

Drave Robber (not verified)

Mon 28 May 2012, 9:25 pm

...the site of said model agency runs Wordpress.

On a more serious note, I don't really know the extent of the problem (I'm antisocial and rarely ever attend events with more than four participants), but it might go beyond events. I'm aware of at least one company that employs a permanent 'booth babe' who knows little if anything about how stuff works (heard she has a diploma in 'public relations' though) and is busy with 'event organizing', 'relations' and all such stuff. She's on my ignore list. This would probably influence my reaction, should I receive a [Drupal-related] e-mail from an unknown female one day.

That being said, "help a poor stupid girl" forum posts (not that there are lots of those but I still stumble onto one now and then) probably do more harm to women's chances of being taken seriously than all 'booth babes' combined.

ksenzee (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 11:06 am

I'm curious why "help a poor stupid girl" posts would harm women's chances of being taken seriously. Do stupid posts from men make you take men less seriously?

Brock

Tue 29 May 2012, 11:18 am

I can see the reasoning here: I've never seen "help a poor stupid boy" post. These "helpless girl" posts may be rare, but not so rare that they've gone unnoticed. It just goes to reinforce that misconception that women are less capable, or need more guidance, or whatever. I don't think I agree that such posts do more harm that booth babes or other factors, but they certainly don't help.

Lin Clark (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 12:21 pm

As a maintainer of a number of modules, I can say that my "help a poor stupid" person issues have all been from either self-identified males or people with male sounding usernames. I'm not saying that being a male means that you will post stupid questions, but that in my experience I haven't seen any "help a poor stupid girl" posts... and that if I had seen such a post, I would generalize it just as little as I generalize the ones from men.

nicl (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 3:25 am

Wow, I didn't realise there might be booth babes at DC Denver but I agree that this is terrible if it turns out to be the case. Booth babes are the worst of the tech-world macho atmosphere (I'm a guy). We want to foster an atmosphere of equality and respect and also one that is fun but also professional too. Booth babes are contrary to all of this.

This isn't about being puritanical over sex. It's about what kind of atmosphere we want at DCs for the future.

Jeff Veit (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 8:54 am

What an excellent post! Thank you.

It seems to me that booth babes don't have a place at DrupalCon because this is contrary to the spirit of gender and sexual equality that our community encourages.

But if an exhibitor wants to hire them, then in the spirit of Drupal, they should also have booth guys, models, showing an equal amount of skin and flirting with straight Drupal women and gay guys. They should also be hiring some transmen and women. And if a company is uncomfortable with all of this, then they should be uncomfortable with booth babes too.

TL;DR. Drupal is for everyone, regardless of gender or sexuality. Catering for just one group only is not ok.

Max Pecherskiy (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 9:37 am

Great article!!

Just to add an extra point against the "booth babes".

I don't have numbers to back this up, just personal real world experience. But from what I've seen, most developers (the ones that are worth their salt at least), and notice I say most, not all, are generally on the shier, more introverted side. On top of that, once again, most, not all, developers that have the seniority to make good decisions for their company are happily married. These two assumptions, assuming they are true become the reason why many good developers won't even walk to up to the booth in the first place.

The introverted kind is too shy to take a chance that he'll have to talk to someone he's not comfortable with and is there as eye candy to go into the booth and find out more about the company. And the married kind is most likely to have his opinion of the company altered just by seeing these booth babes.

But besides this, this whole phenomenon is just dumb. I always thought booth babes were stupid and useless at autoshows (to reinforce my point, ever seen a booth babe by a minivan or a Camry?), and now to bring them over to DrupalCon is just plain stupid. I would hate to see us be perceived or even worse turn into a community of brogrammers (if such a thing really does exist).

We have fun at DrupalCons, but the reason that many of us put down the price for the cross continental ticket isn't to see booth babes. We go there to talk about Drupal things with Drupal developers, and see old friends. Let's keep it at that

Brock

Tue 29 May 2012, 9:45 am

I especially like the point about the shy-and-married subset. And yeah, I've never got the point: as I've said before, if you need sexy ladies to attract attention to what you're doing, then what you're doing probably isn't good enough to be worth noticing anyway. Build something you're proud of so you don't need cheap gimmicks to get people to notice.

TechGirlGeek (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 11:19 am

Brock -- This is an excellent post, very to the point. As a female in this industry, and even more so, in this community, we are working really hard to be taken seriously. Something as seemingly simple, to some people, as "booth babes" cheapens everything we've worked for. Knowing that we have many men working to help us in our daily attempts to be taken seriously means so very much to me, and I think I speak for all of us women, means a lot to us. Thanks for this post. -- techgirlgeek

Dave (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 1:24 pm

IMO, Melissa makes the most relevant points here. The target of the Drupal community's criticism should be twofold: (1.) the firm that actually hired the booth-babes and (2.) the companies that would make an actual purchasing decision around the physical appearance of those monitoring a trade-show booth. With that said, can we publicly say and validate who the company is that hired these booth-babes at Drupalcon Denver? An effective form of protest would be starting a petition, sending it to the company, and asking them to not utilize this form of marketing again to promote their services for the reasons that Brock has articulated. We can make the petition public, which will discourage others that are considering engaging booth-babes at future Drupal events.
Thanks for the post, Dave (Mediacurrent)

Scott Reynen (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 1:34 pm

While this is certainly a useful conversation to be having regardless, I'd like to see some confirmation this actually happened at DrupalCon. Everyone I've talked to about this says they didn't notice anyone who seemed like a "booth babe" at DrupalCon Denver. Since the whole point of "booth babes" is to be noticed, I think the modelbuzz.tv post warrants some skepticism.

If it did happen, let's hear from the sponsor(s) involved and get a better idea of where our conference organizing process failed. If it didn't actually happen, let's hold the modeling agency accountable for lying about it and making DrupalCon look bad.

Brock

Tue 29 May 2012, 2:35 pm

It's entirely possible they weren't even at DrupalCon. As Gabor pointed out, the photos were from a 2010 event, and they may have just been looking for an SEO boost.

However, whether they were there or not, the response to this post last week tells me that it's an issue that needs to be discussed. Several people spoke out against it, and several people scoffingly dismissed them. As long as prominent members of the community will argue that booth babes are OK, it's still a problem.

Amitaibu (not verified)

Tue 29 May 2012, 1:46 pm

I also wanted to be a "Drupal booth babe", but that's the best I got --
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amitai-b/tags/drupalconposters/show/

Nata (not verified)

Wed 30 May 2012, 9:09 am

Funny. As a woman in IT, I've actually been told that it's easier to find a job than a man (I don't know if it has something to do with the diversity policy or simply IT people wanting to see more women in their midst).

Brock

Wed 30 May 2012, 9:42 am

I'd be curious who you're hearing it from. Certainly, there are diversity initiatives in place in a number of companies, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's easier to find a job as a woman. To be honest, I've really only heard this kind of point from the same guys who say things like, "There's reverse racism! I'm discriminated against for being white!"—which is to say, I don't give it a lot of credence.

Nata (not verified)

Thu 31 May 2012, 8:49 am

From my own husband, of all people. He's been in the industry since he was old enough to work and that has been his impression. He didn't mean that men are discriminated against, of course. More like "other things being equal, IT companies/departments would prefer to see more women in their midst".

Sure, it's just one man's opinion, so I would, indeed, take it with a grain of salt.

Alex UA (not verified)

Thu 31 May 2012, 2:58 am

Seriously, I'd happily fire two male developers for every female developer I could hire. I kid you not: female developers are in hot demand, at least in our biz.

Alex UA (not verified)

Thu 31 May 2012, 2:57 am

Brock- I know you mean well in your writing here, and I know that you (and others) felt you were valiantly standing up for these poor girls who couldn't defend themselves, but from where I sit, this is all kinds of off base. If I were to put on my Freud cap for a moment, I'd say it reveals more about your *personal* feelings about sex, sexual orientation, and gender, and I'd say it reveals you as more than a bit biased (nobody ever likes to hear that, so I expect you to get up in arms about that, but I'll explain anyway).

First of all, I have yet to see a good definition of what is so offensive about "booth babes". Is it their (lack of) intelligence and/or technical sophistication? Is it their looks? Is it their dress? Is it all of these? For example, if the women in the pictures you linked to came dressed in formal business atire, would you still be offended? If so, how?

Second of all, while I think it's pretty obvious that most appeals to sex are aimed at men, I wonder why you seem so adement that they are only tactics that women could use "against" men. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but some men are actually attracted to other men (shocking, I know), and if you look at ads aimed at those men, they still use sex to sell, but you know what they don't use as the objects of desire? Women. Just because it's less common doesn't make it less real, and by focusing only on women, I would say that you're falling right back into the tired old trap that *it's women's fault when men are sexually attracted to them*.

As far as your question in the comments, about what firms would actively try to hire female developers, I'd say that our firm has/does, but it's a LOT more difficult than hiring men, because of the pre-existing gender gap in the IT/Dev world. But with that said, the first time I saw what Jody (my business partner) was doing with tech I knew one thing: there was nobody better than her, which is the reason why I asked her to join me as an equal partner instead of trying to hire her.

Brock- I know you mean well in your writing here, and I know that you (and others) felt you were valiantly standing up for these poor girls who couldn't defend themselves, but from where I sit, this is all kinds of off base. If I were to put on my Freud cap for a moment, I'd say it reveals more about your *personal* feelings about sex, sexual orientation, and gender, and I'd say it reveals you as more than a bit biased (nobody ever likes to hear that, so I expect you to get up in arms about that, but I'll explain anyway).

Before I get into that, I'd like to state what I think the problem is (and is not), and what I think we should do about it. At the most simple level, I believe the problem arises from attempts to "sexualize" our professional community. When you posted "let's talk about sex" as a topic on the planet I thought, "let's not talk about sex." Sex has no place in a professional environment (outside of psychologists, perhaps), and I can't think of the last time I (personally) gave even the smallest consideration to a person's gender or gender orientation when evaluating them/their skills. Sex is a minefield, where man vs. woman is only the start of the "battles", and where people have all sorts of turn-ons and hang-ups. My suggestion is that we adopt something similar to the Pycon Code of Conduct, which states, in part, (I'm bolding one part that obviously is a point of contention between us):

Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.

Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately.

Exhibitors in the expo hall, sponsor or vendor booths, or similar activities are also subject to the anti-harassment policy. In particular, exhibitors should not use sexualized images, activities, or other material. Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment.

Now, back to why this is all twisted, at least from where I sit:

1) I have yet to see a good definition of what is so offensive about "booth babes". Is it their (lack of) intelligence and/or technical sophistication? Is it their looks? Is it their dress? Is it all of these? For example, if the women in the pictures you linked to came dressed in formal business attire, would you still be offended? If so, how?

2) While I think it's pretty obvious that most appeals to sex are aimed at men, I wonder why you seem so adamant that they are only tactics that women could use "against" men. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but some men are actually attracted to other men (shocking, I know), and if you look at ads aimed at those men, they still use sex to sell. You know what they don't use, at least as the objects of their sexual desire? Women. Anyway, just because it's less common doesn't make it less real. You are also excluding all others who may fall outside of your ideas of "gender and sexual norms" by dictating that only the dominant societal sexual roles are what's important to guard against. And it's not just about sex, there are all sorts of marginalized groups within our community who I believe (for example, what's the normal racial composition at a Drupal conference?) That's why I like the PyCon CoC- it's aimed at maintaining a comfortable and professional environment within their community, for all of their "marginalized" and/or underrepresented members, not just for the group that you feel the strongest urge to valiantly protect.

3) By focusing only on women, I would say that you're falling right back into the tired old trap that *it's women's fault when men are sexually attracted to them*. I also find it intriguing that you would come right out and say the following when arguing *against* sexism: "he proudly announced that when he's interested in a company in an exhibit hall, he'll walk straight past any women to the nerdy-looking dude at the back of the booth, figuring that he's the guy who actually knows what he's talking about... He could not have made my point better for me". (and you, sir, could not have made my point better for me) So, you and your (straight male) friend were talking about how attractive women don't actually know what they're talking about, and... you discovered that it's the fault of booth babes! How dare those women tempt you with their looks, clothes, and femininity into disregarding what they say? I wonder, would he pass by Jody and go to one of our booth babes (who are dudes, despite your statements that this isn't possible)?

4) Dress code is obviously a big part of this, so when you say "I do not think a dress code for booth staff or event attendees is appropriate, nor am I convinced (yet) that this is a problem that should be addressed by an official code of conduct or exhibitor agreement or anything like that." what I hear is an unwillingness to face the facts of the situation (that it is the dress of the ladies that offends you, since I obviously know that you didn't take the time to find out if they know a node from a whole in the ground), or to take the only logical steps in the right direction (defining what is offensive, and making a CoC to empower community members to counter it in a non-offensive way). With that said, I do think that defining what is appropriate for women to wear, is itself a very slippery paternalistic slope. For example, how long do shorts/pants/skirts have to be? Are we talking to the knees (conservative Jews), to the ankles (orthodox Jews), or should we just go all the way and insist on burqas or chadris? Either way, given how male dominated our community is, I'm sure we can find enough men to decide what is, or isn't, appropriate for women to wear when they first encounter our community- it's the male way of doing things.

Anyway, I have to run for now, but I'll come back to this later. I'm sure I've left enough for you to get worked up over for now.

Brock

Thu 31 May 2012, 3:12 pm

Alex—

Thanks for taking the time to reply. It looks like two drafts of your comment were included there, but I'm assuming you meant to post the second version.

I'm not going to respond to your comments here, and I meant it when I said that I would rather speak to you in person. I'd love it if we could find a chunk of time during or after Drupaldelphia when you and I (and maybe some other people who have been involved in this ongoing conversation) can sit down and discuss this, because we must be losing in translation here, especially on this one—it seems like you're pulling things out of thin air. I don't know where you got things like women using "tactics" against men, the idea that I have some kind of problem with any manner of dress, or that a dress code was ever on the table. I can only assume that you're referring to things someone else said in a conversation to which I am not privy, because none of it came from me, so there's no sense in taking the time to respond to it.

Alex UA (not verified)

Thu 31 May 2012, 7:47 pm

Hey Brock- I'm happy to talk in person, for however long it takes. However, I'd really love it if you could address #1 in writing.

Also, you clearly aren't aware of what happened that started all of this, but it started when those women came to DrupalCon SF. They were escorted from the conference for their overly sexualized dress, so how exactly is this not about a "dress code" when we are kicking people out of the conference for their dress?

Brock

Thu 31 May 2012, 10:39 pm

Sounds good—I'll talk to you in Philly, I hope.

1) I have yet to see a good definition of what is so offensive about "booth babes". Is it their (lack of) intelligence and/or technical sophistication? Is it their looks? Is it their dress? Is it all of these? For example, if the women in the pictures you linked to came dressed in formal business attire, would you still be offended? If so, how?

I don't know how much simpler I can make what I said, or what I could add that hasn't been said by any number of more eloquent writers. It's not what they're wearing, it's not their lack of knowledge about the product or service: it's what it implies about the purpose of women in the industry.

Again, other people have said it better so I'm just going to quote this guy:

I’ll admit, as Stephen does in the article I linked to above, that they do get my attention. I’m a heterosexual male, and as such, I’m sort of hard wired to pay attention to that type of thing. Fortunately, we have the ability to control our hormones and use reason. Because we have these abilities, no one pays any attention to the booth babes in terms of talking about the business of the company because they’re contracted specifically for the conference.

And really, this is the core of the problem, and the effects are much more harmful than just ignoring scantily clad women at a trade show. What you end up with is the situation where you, as a conference goer, walk up to a booth and, because you’re no stranger to how this works, ignore any attractive woman and talk directly to a male at the booth. You assume immediately that any attractive female is there simply for their physical appearance, not for the value that their knowledge brings. This is wrong on every level, and it’s an insidious form of objectifying women – it happens gradually, over time, and the more booth babes you see, the more ingrained it becomes.

No matter how much you insist that booth babes can be guys, you won't change the reality of existing gender inequalities that lead to this being a problem when the booth babes are women, and a non-issue when they're men. That's just the way it is. If the same women were in business attire, as you propose: yes, I'd still find it offensive, because it still implies that the only place for women in our conference is to be charming and attractive, instead of equal peers in knowing-how-shit-works.

Alex UA (not verified)

Fri 1 Jun 2012, 11:22 am

Brock- forget about men as booth babes. You say "It's not what they're wearing, it's not their lack of knowledge about the product or service: it's what it implies about the purpose of women in the industry."

So what is it? How can you tell if a woman at a booth is a "booth babe" or (as in the article Eaton linked to) a female developer? Since you're relying on neither their appearance nor the words that come out of their mouths I can only assume that you have some "booth babe" divining powers?

Again: you seem to want to ignore the facts of the situation here to make a broader point about gender inequality, which is imo a pretty silly thing to do. Those women in SF *were* asked to leave, and it was because of the way they were dressed. Nobody needed divining powers, the women made it obvious through their too-short skirts and revealing tops that they were there to look sexy at a booth.

I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but I still feel like you're trying to dance around the meat of the subject, and in doing so I believe you are reinforcing the very gender stereotypes you wish to fight, and at the same time you are helping to marginalize other already marginalized groups within our community.

You also haven't offered anything resembling a solution to the problem you see, probably because you still haven't defined what exactly you see as the problem (yes, I read the links to the "booth babe" article you linked to). I'll ask one last time: can you actually define what it is that makes a woman a "booth babe"? If not, then I'll just have to assume that you don't know what you're talking about...

Melissa (not verified)

Fri 1 Jun 2012, 2:46 pm

Interestingly, eye "heatmaps" show that curvy ladies are effective for getting the attention of even straight women. Both sexes linger on breasts and buttocks. Open a ladies magazine and there are plenty of sexy women advertising things to women.

I don't think it's the business of the Drupalcon organizers to tell exhibitors how to advertise or anyone how to dress. This is really all just a matter of taste and it should be up to the community at large to make judgements about how that company handles itself at Drupalcon. We can't do that because no one seems to want to say who is doing this. And then it's up to the community at large to make a judgement about how tacky this is and shun/ostracize/blog about how lame they are.

Alex UA (not verified)

Tue 5 Jun 2012, 1:00 am

I think the public shaming/shunning route is the right one. Don't talk to those companies, or even better, talk shit about them. But... I really hope people don't shun anyone because of their apperance or dress without at least talking with them first. Removing them from the con, when their entrance was paid for, is more wrong than whatever imagined or actual exploitation within the context of being a paid model.

Sam (not verified)

Sun 3 Jun 2012, 6:22 am

Alex, it's very simple. The answer to whether woman is a booth babe or not is whether she was paid for being a booth babe. If she has no employment with the company, or if her employment is based around going to these sort of events with over sexualized clothing to attract men to the product.

You seem to want to make the case that from anyone's perspective it's just an arbitrary judgement, when it's not. There are material facts here, where it's not women on their personal time and at their own volition, going to these events for the fun of it. They have a contractual relationship to be there, and for a purpose determined by those people who hired her.

If we are wrong in our judgements, it is very easy to ascertain that from material facts by asking the question: were these women paid to be just here or are they employed by the company in other roles? Perhaps your argument is to encourage people not to be judgmental about the situation, but these are not arbitrary social relationships... they are very specifically defined through economic coercion.

Also, in attacking Brock I feel you have not given him benefit of the doubt, and instead made all sorts of spurious allegations against him, and further created straw men that have no actual resemblance to his position. Instead of calmly discussing the issue, you have instead instigated a sort of flame war.

Brock

Sun 3 Jun 2012, 1:43 pm

That last paragraph is exactly why I've stopped responding here.

Alex UA (not verified)

Tue 5 Jun 2012, 12:55 am

The answer to whether woman is a booth babe or not is whether she was paid for being a booth babe. If she has no employment with the company, or if her employment is based around going to these sort of events with over sexualized clothing to attract men to the product

Let's break that down a bit. There's no way you have a right to demand that someone at a Drupalcon booth provide you with proof of employment (where are your papers!?!?!), so that's not actually a good criteria. To suggest that you could tell whether a woman was hired because of her looks is in itself a pretty darned sexist statement on its own (he who is without sin), so I'm going to say that's out. So what are we left with in your "simple" argument? Over sexualized clothes. And that makes sense, because this all started when the "booth babes" Brock so hastily linked to (I'm sure they thank you for the SEO assist) were physically removed from DrupalCon San Francisco because of what they were wearing, which means you are advocating for a dress code (but not as bad, one assumes, as Orthodox Jewish or strict Islamic rules).

There are material facts here, , where it's not women on their personal time and at their own volition, going to these events for the fun of it. They have a contractual relationship to be there, and for a purpose determined by those people who hired her.

The facts have been ignored ad naseum in this thread- this all started around actual events, but those events don't actually seem to matter here. It's bizarro world. Anyway, Sam, I really want you not to take this the wrong way, but this sounds unbelievably sexist. Are you seriously claiming the women in SF, or on the site Brock linked to, were not there on their own volition? It seems that you have equated being hired to be a professional model with either slavery or prostitution (or someplace in between). You know what I call guys who profess to speak for what women should or should know, do, say, etc? Sexist. (Seriously, do I need to go to the dictionary or wikipedia here? This is straight patriarchy).

... they are very specifically defined through economic coercion.

I do not think that word (coercion) means what you think it means. Anyway, I'm sure women everywhere will thank you for telling them what is or isn't the right job and/or life choices for them. If it wasn't for the gun to the back of their heads, no woman would ever use her looks for personal or economic gain... You know what most people call "economic coercion"? Work.

Also, in attacking Brock I feel you have not given him benefit of the doubt, and instead made all sorts of spurious allegations against him, and further created straw men that have no actual resemblance to his position. Instead of calmly discussing the issue, you have instead instigated a sort of flame war.

I did not start attacking anyone, I am and have been responding to Brock's deluge of tweets and this post itself. I do like the rather weak rhetorical trick you attempt in this paragraph, cleverly attacking me with the following sentence: "not given him benefit of the doubt, and instead made all sorts of spurious allegations against him, and further created straw men that have no actual resemblance to his position." (it's clever because that's precisely what you've done).

Now that we've determined that we're all sexist, can people just wear what they want and get left alone at events, without some well-intentioned liberal liberator attempting to eleviate a lightly dressed lady from the bonds of her servitude (otherwise known as a crappy job)?

Sam (not verified)

Tue 5 Jun 2012, 7:55 pm

[Please note: Sam has posted an updated/corrected edit of this comment below. Leaving this one in place to keep us all honest—Brock, June 6, 2012]

There's no way you have a right to demand that someone at a Drupalcon booth provide you with proof of employment (where are your papers!?!?!), so that's not actually a good criteria.

First of all, no one said that any arbitrary individual should go to a booth and ask anyone for papers and the idea that this is all that could be employed is less than imaginative. This is just rhetoric that you are creating and these are straw men for you to attack. You never asked me for what I would suggest we do, and I get to that below. From your ramblings, it's difficult to tell whether you are against the concept of booth babes, or against the implementation of any rules against them as that would be sexist.

I can put words in your mouth about why I think you or your company might be interested in hiring women to sexually coerce men into showing interest for your products or services. And if this is not the case, then there must be some other reason other than purely altruistic ones of why you would choose to go on a crusade about this. However, I will not delve here. Whether I am sexist, which is a rhetorically loaded term, or not, is irrelevant because we don't even know what that means and no the Wikipedia article is not the authority on sexism and neither is a feminist college professor – everyone has their own biases and takes on the issue. What matters is that the issue is understood well enough for someone to have an opinion on it. Your style of argumentation has not be conducive to that.

Personally, I don't see any difference between your rhetoric and that which would provide justification for any business to employ other people in a similar direction as it's a slippery slope. I mean why stop at booth babes, I think I want to bring strippers to the next DrupalCon. Now it's probably the case, Alex, with your ideals there is definitely a point to which strippers are okay, perhaps if they leave on pasties and the thong that would be acceptable behaviour and I also have absolutely no right to ask them what they are they doing there. And why stop at strippers, let's go all the way and bring prostitutes to Drupalcon to serve the needs of nerds and then argue for the fact that no one has the right to ask them about what their commercial relationship is to the event. These are all jobs, we're talking about here.

And yes economic coercion is a job, that's how I meant it. There are socio-economic reasons why people end up in these professions, there may also be personal choices involved. There are also some theories that attempt to justify the idea that a job given to a booth babe might go to someone more qualified if the company had not spent the money on a booth babes and it makes sense – an actual developer may still market the product without using sexual coercion, and that's a different game to play than a booth babe. And really that's what we want to encourage, for more women to be in the actual business of Drupal, rather than in the business of looking pretty and sexually exciting men in the public sphere to increase their interest in the product -- men who they have no sexual interest in whatsoever. And that's the rub. To economically coerce people to be sexual objects, is sexist in some people's books -- but your definition runs counter to that; most likely because your argument is that being a booth babe is a personal choice, and to deny them that would be sexist. That's really where the divide is. The truth is that either position is a simply a theory, you may be sexist either way. And that creating an economic environment changes people's behaviour – so we have these memes about fuck it, I'll be a stripper: see http://memearchive.net/memerial.net/2564/ill-be-a-stripper.jpg .

Another consideration outside of general economic freedom is a question of harassment. At some point people visiting the event are going to feel harassed by other people's actions because they may not have come to be sexually stimulated. We choose our venues, for instance going to a strip club or not depending on what we want. By saying anything goes, you take that choice and personal freedom away.

It is simple to put a policy in place that says if a company employs someone in such a capacity they, the company and not the individual, will be banned from exhibiting at DrupalCon in the future. Now you could be totalitarian about this and police it, but why bother. The policy is in place, and you take it on good faith that people are not going to violate it. It much like the law, there are all sorts of laws on the book that are extremely broad with harsh punishments, but most of the time they are not enforced. Once in a while it's so blatantly obvious that it's easy to bring down the hammer and solve the problem. The point is to foster a culture that is about business, commerce, and development. Not about sex and marketing, at least that's my position on it. I do not want a sexualized public sphere and I want policies that try to encourage companies not to do that. Not to make people feel harassed for the way that they dress. And again if in the case where it's obvious, and we are wrong, like I said it's easy enough for the organisers to ask them for them to disclose the nature of employment relationships with the company -- privately and confidentially. To me it's no more than saying all visitors must declare if they are visiting for a company and what's their role with the said company and I have no problem disclosing that to anyone and would not feel harassed if so asked.

Sam (not verified)

Wed 6 Jun 2012, 8:17 am

Note, Brock, this is an edit of what was posted right before. What was posted right before this and contains much of the same thing should be deleted.

First of all, no one said that any arbitrary individual should go to a booth and ask anyone for papers, and the idea that this is all that could be employed is less than imaginative. This is just rhetoric that you are creating and these are straw men for you to attack. You never asked me for what I would suggest we do, and I get to that below. From your ramblings, it's difficult to determine whether you are against the concept of booth babes, or against the implementation of any rules against them as that would be sexist.

I can put words in your mouth about why I think you or your company might be interested in hiring women to sexually coerce men into showing interest for your products or services. And if this is not the case, then there must be some reason other than purely altruistic ones of why you would choose to go on a crusade about this. However, I will not delve here. Whether I am sexist, which is a rhetorically loaded term, or not, is irrelevant because we can't define what that means, and no, the Wikipedia article is not the authority on sexism and neither is a feminist college professor – everyone has their own biases and takes on the issue. What matters is that the issue is understood well enough for someone to have an informed opinion on it. Your style of argumentation has not been conducive to that.

Personally, I don't see any difference between your rhetoric and that which would provide justification for any business to employ other people in a similar direction which are more easily unacceptable, as it's a slippery slope. I mean why stop at booth babes, I think I want to bring strippers to the next DrupalCon. Now it's probably the case, Alex, with your ideals there is definitely a point to which strippers are okay. Perhaps if they leave on pasties and wear a thong it would be acceptable behaviour and I also have absolutely no right to ask them what they are they doing there, or to complain about it even for the fear of being labelled sexist. And why stop at strippers, let's go all the way and bring prostitutes to Drupalcon to serve the needs of nerds and then argue for the fact that no one has the right to ask them about what their commercial relationship is to the event. These are all jobs, we're talking about here. And perhaps you think this is hyperbole, but it doesn't seem like there are any limits in what you're purposing because anything you say about anyone's dress could potentially infringe on the rights and freedoms of people there not to be judged.

And yes economic coercion is a job, that's how I meant it. There may be socio-economic reasons why people end up in these professions, there may also be personal choices involved, and there also may be a trillion other reasons why someone ends up in a certain profession. From the perspective of hiring, there are theories that attempt to justify the idea that a job given to someone like a booth babe might go to someone more qualified if the company had not spent their money on a booth babes and it makes sense – an actual developer may still market the product without using sexual coercion, and that's a different game to play than a booth babe. And really that's what we want to encourage, for more women to be in the actual business of Drupal, rather than in the business of looking pretty and sexually exciting men in the commercial sphere* to increase their interest in the product -- men who they have no sexual interest in whatsoever. And that's the rub. To economically coerce people to be sexual objects, is sexist in some people's books -- but your definition runs counter to that; most likely because your argument is that being a booth babe is a personal choice, and to deny them that would be sexist. That's really where the divide is. The truth is that either position is theoretical, and you may be sexist either way depending on your understanding of the issue and the implications you draw from that. Also, and this is important, creating an certain economic environment changes people's behaviour – so we have these memes about kids saying fuck it, I'll be a stripper: see http://memearchive.net/memerial.net/2564/ill-be-a-stripper.jpg .

Another consideration outside of general economic freedom is a question of harassment. At some point people visiting the event are going to feel harassed by other people's actions because they may not have come to be sexually stimulated. And yes there is no way to determine who we try not to offend as it may vary a lot between people as to what is acceptable and what is offensive. Some people will be offended by certain business casual attire even – see Weird Al's Amish Paradise. However, there are general society norms that can be used as a guide for what is considered relatively normal for the times and labels such as business casual are commonly used to define what sort of attire is acceptable and what sort of attire is not. And that doesn't really get people riled up about being oppressed. We choose our venues, for instance going to a strip club, or not, depending on what we want. By saying anything goes, you take that choice and personal freedom away from some attendees while trying to give other individuals their personal freedom. I think we can all agree that one personal's freedom should not infringe on other people's freedom to a reasonable extent – and I don't believe anyone is attempting to be unreasonable here. I, however, threw this in here not to argue for some policy but attempt to understand and explain this issue better. It doesn't matter to me how anyone dresses. If they want to parade around naked, let them for all I care – I am not offended or harassed.

It is simple to put a policy in place that says if a company employs someone in such a capacity as a booth babe or a stripper they, the company and not the individual, will be banned from exhibiting at DrupalCon in the future. Now you could be totalitarian about this and police it, but why bother. The policy is in place, and you take it on good faith that people are not going to violate it. It is much like the law, there are all sorts of laws on the books that are extremely broad with harsh punishments, but most of the time they are not enforced. Once in a while, it's so blatantly obvious that it is easy to bring down the hammer and not feel bad about it.

So in my opinion, the point is to foster a commercial culture* that is about business, commerce, and development. Not about sex and marketing, at least that's my position on it. I do not want a sexualized commercial sphere*, well at least in terms of Drupal and technology in general, and I want policies that try to encourage companies not to do that. Should sex not be in the commercial sphere* at all, that's not something that I can comment on, there is probably so much sex in the commercial sphere* that it's stupid to attempt to do anything about it or even argue against it – it's just a fact of life these days. Is that sexist? It's again open to argument.

The point then is not to make people feel harassed for the way that they dress. And again if in the case where it's obvious, and we are wrong, like I said, it's easy enough for the organizers to ask them for them to disclose the nature of employment relationships with the company -- privately and confidentially. To me it's no more than saying all visitors must declare if they are visiting for a company and what's their role with the said company and I have no problem disclosing that to anyone and would not feel harassed if so asked.

* Note above, I used commercial sphere and commercial culture, and that's probably not a good term for it. At the moment I can't think of a better term. I think it's more or less understood what I mean, essentially commerce related with business to business, business to employee, employee to employee interactions, etc.

Ryan Cross (not verified)

Fri 1 Jun 2012, 1:10 am

This is such a controversial topic, I hesitate to even raise my hand. So, I'll try to preface my comments with the fact that I do understand your point about how booth babes facilitate the pattern of attractive women not knowing much (about the product/service in the case of a booth).

I am honestly curious if this is not more related to the fact that DrupalCon is no longer primarily for developers, and the difficulty in judging someone's area of interest (or level of skill/knowledge) when looking at them.

In the example used above about the friend ignoring the woman to go directly to the nerdy guy at the booth, this assertion definitely illustrates your point but I feel it also illustrates another stereotype which is that the skilled person is the glasses-clad male that isn't dressed professionally. I wonder if non-technical men that wear glasses are offended when someone asks them a technical question?

To be clear, I'm not trying to deny the stereotype of women in tech or ignore the real gap that exists in our profession. I'm just really unsure if the situation being described is really the whole issue and isn't a larger one.

Physical appearance is (rightly or wrongly, and gender is only a part of that) a horrible indication of someone's knowledge or skill level. How many people would've taken a look at Dmitri (dmitrig01) and brushed him off as just some little kid, probably making the assumption he was only at drupalcon with his parents? How many people might look at Keiran Lal's (Amazon) nice suit and assume he's just a sales guy or some empty executive suit that isn't really part of the community? Or brush off Karen Stevenson (KarenS) as some senior citizen, help vampire? Is fedora-wearing Morten (mortendk) just at DrupalCon to find cheap developers to cut up his uncompromising designs? (apologies to those above for abusing your appearance - Morten has also written on a similar issue http://morten.dk/blog/second-rate-citizens-drupalcon)

Within every other tech groups I've been part of and even in casual small groups of techs, I find so commonly that people tend to engage in a nerdy form of dick measurement by trying to "out tech" everyone else. Who hasn't been part of a discussion like:
"Ah, fond memories of my first laptop"
"Oh yea? what was it? I remember my first desktop - a pentium 1!"
"Yea, my first desktop was an old apple 2e"
"Yea, I remember building my first computer"
"Yea, Drupal 6 is so crummy compared to Drupal 7"
"haha - yea, I remember how bad Drupal 5 was"
"Oh - you should try to run Drupal 4.5 some day - you'd all thank your luck stars"
"Yea, good times - i remember my first modem - saved up all my allowance"
"Yea, remember finding files on bbs?"
"Oh yea, i used to run a bbs"
and ad-naseum until in a light hearted way, everyone has effectively been "placed" on their pecking order in terms of tech knowledge and therefor determine how much weight and credibility everyone else will treat their comments. (Once I noticed this myself, I now try to catch myself doing it and actively avoid these conversations). I have also noticed women who participate like this as well, so its not just a man thing. Its not really any different that other forms of posturing for social order and our general need to rank people via games and scoreboards.

Having our community online tends to have the complete opposite problem. People can only really attach a judgement based on your screenname. On the face of it "supergenius524" or "flowerpants2011" don't really indication about their age, sex, background, or skill level.

Which would you trust more?
(A) a 500 word explanation that provides a mathematical proof for 300 lines of code to be committed in the drupal boot strap from username "kleptopaul"
(B) a screenshots that compare performance test results for 3 lines of code to be committed to SimpleNews module by username "DriesK"
(C) "+1 - I wrote this code last night" by username "Dries Buytaert"
(D) "I am not sure this is the right approach" by username "Dries"
(note, these are all real usernames - apologies again)

There is already work being done to help address this issue on d.o, but back to the original point which is that I think this is more than just about judging females on equal footing.

DrupalCon used to be primarily for developers (perhaps that is still the primary audience) and it was much easier to know what to expect from attendees which provided some type of playing field (perhaps after some tech posturing) for developers to discuss problems and ideas and have some ability screen out the noise of naive participants. Now that DrupalCon is much more that just for developers, there isn't a common framework for people to position themselves on in a way that people know who's opinion is the most relevant any more - so we often revert to more broad stereotypes to help us navigate the 4,000+ people we can talk with.

This comment has been a bit longer than expected, but my main question is whether our community (primarily drupal developers) are overly dismissive of any input from people who can't code?

IMHO, we've made great strides to make sure that UX/Design was seen as a more respected and important part of our development process. I think that developers should look at DrupalCon as an opportunity to get a much broader set of contributions and opinions instead of simply dismissing anyone who can't code. I also think that people should try to be less offended if the stereotype of your appearance doesn't match your actual situation. Perhaps be willing to mention how you built your own modem from a magazine schematic back in the day or casually point to your name badge where it says, "drupal docs contributor" or even adjusting your appearance by wearing your old drupalcon t-shirt or something. Its not any different than people putting on suits so other people will take them seriously in a business meeting.

Maffoo (not verified)

Thu 7 Jun 2012, 8:02 am

I personally don't think the issue is as much that female developers get regarded as models, I mean who is honestly going to confuse the two? I think on a whole these 'booth babes' probably dress a lot more provocatively than female developers, and they probably have big fake smiles and permatanned faces rather than the dreary sallow paleness that can only be created from staring at a laptop screen all day!

The issue really is more the view of the community and of women in general. Are we all really trying to give away the impression of being a bunch of pasty nerds who need scantily clad women to ogle over? If I ever go to a drupalcon I will make an effort to level the playing field by dressing in my skimpiest clothing. Any excuse to wear a dress! ;)

Add new comment