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.
#1
Sounds good—I'll talk to you in Philly, I hope.
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:
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.