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.
Defining what you're talking about
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):
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.