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)?
Simple?
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).
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).
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.
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)?