From sarah at pound.perl.org Fri Jul 7 13:09:04 2000 From: sarah at pound.perl.org (Sarah Burcham) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:00 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu>; from elaine@chaos.wustl.edu on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 08:35:12AM -0500 References: <20000706110631.B19900@pound.perl.org> <000201bfe783$ba189b10$f5876b0a@monsanto.com> <20000706152754.A135@pound.perl.org> <20000706190948.B8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> Booth babes really bother me... moreso that the same marketing ploy on billboards, tv, magazines, internet banner ads, etc. I think some of my reaction pertains to women's issues in general (This is what the cs field tells me I should look like and value) and part of it is the pure hypocrisy of having technical fields express concerns about gender ratios and how to improve them only to go to technical conferences and have the predominant message to women be "you are a sex object" and are useful for selling stuff to the Real Men who run the show. It's true that most of the major players here actually ARE men. I'm not claiming otherwise. And I admit that I do my fair share of blanket objectification, (cough, my recent A/C repairman) but c'mon... let's check that at the registration desk and at the doors to our offices for that matter. The message to women seems to be: we want women to work side by side with us at internet startups working 17 hour days but only if they're wearing heels and the latest greatest in makeup and surgical sculpting, and have a smashing modelling portfolio? I know from personal experience that this isn't the case. I've had great work environments and been highly regarded by my male peers and the powers that be. But I certainly don't feel that respect from the industry as a whole when I step onto the conference room floor. Thank You Marketing Majors! Am I being sensitive? Yes. Of course. I have feelings and issues and all that good stuff. But, it's true that women (and MEN) are sensitive about their bodies. I think technical women are a special breed that can look beyond the booth babes and see the swag. But if we're trying to push the envelope on attracting smart vibrant talented women into computing, I think the booth babes only serve to alienate a sizeable portion of your population. People are sensitive. If you say "well screw them, they weren't made out for it" you're being a boys club that discourages diversity and evolution of the computing culture. From elaine at chaos.wustl.edu Fri Jul 7 13:50:55 2000 From: elaine at chaos.wustl.edu (Elaine -HFB- Ashton) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:00 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org>; from sarah@pound.perl.org on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 01:09:04PM -0500 References: <20000706110631.B19900@pound.perl.org> <000201bfe783$ba189b10$f5876b0a@monsanto.com> <20000706152754.A135@pound.perl.org> <20000706190948.B8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> Message-ID: <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> Sarah Burcham [sarah@pound.perl.org] quoth: *> *>The message to women seems to be: we want women to work side by side *>with us at internet startups working 17 hour days but only if they're *>wearing heels and the latest greatest in makeup and surgical sculpting, *>and have a smashing modelling portfolio? I know from personal experience *>that this isn't the case. I've had great work environments and been highly *>regarded by my male peers and the powers that be. But I certainly don't *>feel that respect from the industry as a whole when I step onto the *>conference room floor. Thank You Marketing Majors! http://www.business2.com/ p. 152 of the latest issue [ currently not on the website ] has an article on booth babes. Be sure to catch the column at the back of the mag berating the industry for pandering to neanderthals. *>the booth babes and see the swag. But if we're trying to push the envelope *>on attracting smart vibrant talented women into computing, I think the boot *>babes only serve to alienate a sizeable portion of your population. People *>are sensitive. If you say "well screw them, they weren't made out for it" *>you're being a boys club that discourages diversity and evolution of *>the computing culture. Does this mean you aren't going to sign up for the 'Perl is my bitch' shirt at YAPC::Europe? ;) It's time to get tired enough of this behaviour, especially since we aren't going away. e. From pudge at pobox.com Fri Jul 7 14:37:49 2000 From: pudge at pobox.com (Chris Nandor) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:00 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> References: <20000706110631.B19900@pound.perl.org> <000201bfe783$ba189b10$f5876b0a@monsanto.com> <20000706152754.A135@pound.perl.org> <20000706190948.B8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> Message-ID: At 13.50 -0500 2000.07.07, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: >It's time to get tired enough of this behaviour, especially since we >aren't going away. Does this mean you didn't appreciate the Perl Mongers booth babe at yapc::America? -- Chris Nandor | pudge@pobox.com | http://pudge.net/ Andover.Net | chris.nandor@andover.net | http://slashcode.com/ From sneex at sneex.fccj.org Fri Jul 7 14:44:56 2000 From: sneex at sneex.fccj.org (Systems Hacker) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:00 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Booth Babe rant Message-ID: <200007071944.PAA07023@sneex.fccj.org> More Booth Babes! > It's true that most of the major players here actually ARE men. From joseph at 5sigma.com Fri Jul 7 14:54:14 2000 From: joseph at 5sigma.com (Joseph N. Hall) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:09:04 -0500 sarah@pound.perl.org (Sarah Burcham) wrote: * Booth babes really bother me... moreso that the same marketing ploy on * billboards, tv, magazines, internet banner ads, etc. On the other hand, I think women are free to do whatever they want, and if they want to be booth babes, that's fine. If they want to argue among themselves about whether it's more socially appropriate to be computer nerds or booth babes, that's fine too. Just don't expect me to take a side. I've seen women who are very effective as human lampposts, and I've seen brilliant women who are uglier than Abigail. -joseph -- Joseph N. Hall, 5 Sigma Productions mailto:" "@5sigma.com Author, Effective Perl Programming . . . . . http://www.effectiveperl.com Perlfaq Prime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.perlfaq.com From rachel.hubbard at isinet.com Fri Jul 7 14:56:23 2000 From: rachel.hubbard at isinet.com (Hubbard, Rachel) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Booth Babe rant Message-ID: What is a 'booth babe'? -----Original Message----- From: Joseph N. Hall [mailto:joseph@5sigma.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 3:54 PM To: Sarah Burcham; advocacy@perl.org; marsneedswomen@happyfunball.pm.org; perl-hackers@stlouis.pm.org Subject: Re: [mnw.pm] Booth Babe rant On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:09:04 -0500 sarah@pound.perl.org (Sarah Burcham) wrote: * Booth babes really bother me... moreso that the same marketing ploy on * billboards, tv, magazines, internet banner ads, etc. On the other hand, I think women are free to do whatever they want, and if they want to be booth babes, that's fine. If they want to argue among themselves about whether it's more socially appropriate to be computer nerds or booth babes, that's fine too. Just don't expect me to take a side. I've seen women who are very effective as human lampposts, and I've seen brilliant women who are uglier than Abigail. -joseph -- Joseph N. Hall, 5 Sigma Productions mailto:" "@5sigma.com Author, Effective Perl Programming . . . . . http://www.effectiveperl.com Perlfaq Prime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.perlfaq.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.pm.org/archives/marsneedswomen-pm/attachments/20000707/d25a6ea2/attachment.htm From elaine at chaos.wustl.edu Fri Jul 7 15:01:25 2000 From: elaine at chaos.wustl.edu (Elaine -HFB- Ashton) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: ; from pudge@pobox.com on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 03:37:49PM -0400 References: <20000706110631.B19900@pound.perl.org> <000201bfe783$ba189b10$f5876b0a@monsanto.com> <20000706152754.A135@pound.perl.org> <20000706190948.B8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> Chris Nandor [pudge@pobox.com] quoth: *>At 13.50 -0500 2000.07.07, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: *>>It's time to get tired enough of this behaviour, especially since we *>>aren't going away. *> *>Does this mean you didn't appreciate the Perl Mongers booth babe at *>yapc::America? I can always appreciate the fact that tactics over 2000 years old, still work today. However, one can always lament how slow the industry is to realise that a good chunk of gamers, SAs, programmers, etc. are in fact women who may or may not appreciate said 'sexploitation'. I know quite a few men in the industry who don't appreciate it either so I'm not really certain who the target audience is for these marketing schemes. Besides, at $400-$600 per day for such services, I'm obviously on the wrong side of the business. Understanding how something works doesn't mean that it will lead to appreciation. e. From pudge at pobox.com Fri Jul 7 15:16:12 2000 From: pudge at pobox.com (Chris Nandor) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> References: <20000706110631.B19900@pound.perl.org> <000201bfe783$ba189b10$f5876b0a@monsanto.com> <20000706152754.A135@pound.perl.org> <20000706190948.B8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> Message-ID: At 15.01 -0500 2000.07.07, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: >Chris Nandor [pudge@pobox.com] quoth: >*>At 13.50 -0500 2000.07.07, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: >*>>It's time to get tired enough of this behaviour, especially since we >*>>aren't going away. >*> >*>Does this mean you didn't appreciate the Perl Mongers booth babe at >*>yapc::America? > >I can always appreciate the fact that tactics over 2000 years old, still >work today. However, one can always lament how slow the industry is to >realise that a good chunk of gamers, SAs, programmers, etc. are in fact >women who may or may not appreciate said 'sexploitation'. I know quite a >few men in the industry who don't appreciate it either so I'm not really >certain who the target audience is for these marketing schemes. > >Besides, at $400-$600 per day for such services, I'm obviously on the >wrong side of the business. Understanding how something works doesn't mean >that it will lead to appreciation. What bothers me is that we are saying it is OK to objectify people, to focus on appearance instead of substance. It annoys me greatly. I am sure many people don't feel as I do, but I think this kind of focus on the external is a seriously damaging force in our society, and I don't like it. -- Chris Nandor | pudge@pobox.com | http://pudge.net/ Andover.Net | chris.nandor@andover.net | http://slashcode.com/ From Peter at PSDT.com Fri Jul 7 15:25:39 2000 From: Peter at PSDT.com (Peter Scott) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: References: <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706110631.B19900@pound.perl.org> <000201bfe783$ba189b10$f5876b0a@monsanto.com> <20000706152754.A135@pound.perl.org> <20000706190948.B8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000707131950.00aa1bd0@psdt.com> At 04:16 PM 7/7/00 -0400, Chris Nandor wrote: >At 15.01 -0500 2000.07.07, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > > >I can always appreciate the fact that tactics over 2000 years old, still > >work today. However, one can always lament how slow the industry is to > >realise that a good chunk of gamers, SAs, programmers, etc. are in fact > >women who may or may not appreciate said 'sexploitation'. I know quite a > >few men in the industry who don't appreciate it either so I'm not really > >certain who the target audience is for these marketing schemes. > > > >Besides, at $400-$600 per day for such services, I'm obviously on the > >wrong side of the business. Understanding how something works doesn't mean > >that it will lead to appreciation. > >What bothers me is that we are saying it is OK to objectify people, to >focus on appearance instead of substance. It annoys me greatly. I am sure >many people don't feel as I do, but I think this kind of focus on the >external is a seriously damaging force in our society, and I don't like it. What bothers me just as much - I have written lengthy tirades on trade show brain damage in the past - is the lack of credit the vendor is giving to my intelligence. Why anyone would think that I would be more likely to shell out large amounts of cash for a product because of the women at the booth, or because they gave me a free T-shirt, is beyond me; but so many people do it that there must be a sizeable population that it works on. It bothers me that these vendors look at me and think I must be part of that population. I've practice what I call trade show kung fu... like turning your badge around once you get in so some stuffed shirt who's never seen you in his life can't call you by your first name and say, "So, how are things over there in these days?" -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies From sneex at sneex.fccj.org Fri Jul 7 15:27:03 2000 From: sneex at sneex.fccj.org (Systems Hacker) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant Message-ID: <200007072027.QAA07095@sneex.fccj.org> > What bothers me is that we are saying it is OK to objectify people, to > focus on appearance instead of substance. It annoys me greatly. I am sure > many people don't feel as I do, but I think this kind of focus on the > external is a seriously damaging force in our society, and I don't like it. You (we) are in the minority; many still think eye-candy is better than brain candy. -Sneex- :] - FCCJ * 501 W State St * Jacksonville, Fl 32202 * 904/632-3089 - From pudge at pobox.com Fri Jul 7 15:42:25 2000 From: pudge at pobox.com (Chris Nandor) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000707131950.00aa1bd0@psdt.com> References: <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706110631.B19900@pound.perl.org> <000201bfe783$ba189b10$f5876b0a@monsanto.com> <20000706152754.A135@pound.perl.org> <20000706190948.B8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20000707131950.00aa1bd0@psdt.com> Message-ID: At 13.25 -0700 2000.07.07, Peter Scott wrote: >Why anyone would think that I would be more likely to shell >out large amounts of cash for a product because of the women at the booth, >or because they gave me a free T-shirt, is beyond me; They don't. Those things are not about selling, usually, they are about getting your attention. It is hard to get someone to look at your booth unless you have name recognition or some flashy reason to get them to stop and look. -- Chris Nandor | pudge@pobox.com | http://pudge.net/ Andover.Net | chris.nandor@andover.net | http://slashcode.com/ From D at i-works.com Fri Jul 7 15:45:13 2000 From: D at i-works.com (Tushar Samant) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> Message-ID: >Does this mean you aren't going to sign up for the 'Perl is my bitch' >shirt at YAPC::Europe? ;) There's a shirt like that? Who thinks of these things? From elaine at chaos.wustl.edu Fri Jul 7 16:13:07 2000 From: elaine at chaos.wustl.edu (Elaine -HFB- Ashton) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: ; from pudge@pobox.com on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 04:42:25PM -0400 References: <20000706152754.A135@pound.perl.org> <20000706190948.B8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20000707131950.00aa1bd0@psdt.com> Message-ID: <20000707161306.T28497@chaos.wustl.edu> Chris Nandor [pudge@pobox.com] quoth: *>At 13.25 -0700 2000.07.07, Peter Scott wrote: *>>Why anyone would think that I would be more likely to shell *>>out large amounts of cash for a product because of the women at the booth, *>>or because they gave me a free T-shirt, is beyond me; *> *>They don't. Those things are not about selling, usually, they are about *>getting your attention. It is hard to get someone to look at your booth *>unless you have name recognition or some flashy reason to get them to stop *>and look. And sex or even the hint of sex gets attention. I'd certainly turn my head to see a couple of women in skin tight vinyl outfits just because it might be interesting to see. In typically male dominated industries, booth babes are terribly common, e.g. car shows, tractor pulls, and technology. Pornography has long been the industry at the forefront of profitable internet enterprises so there is something to the pricinple of 'sex sells'. I'm no marketing guru but I understand economics and obviously they have numbers to support the idea that booth babes at a tradeshow increase sales. Superficial and objectifying? Sure, but if it sells why should they care if the market doesn't? I wasn't thrilled by the PM endorsing this same sort of behaviour/marketing tactic, but considering that the majority of people at YAPC & TPC are male and show no signs of there ever being an influx of women and the men seem to enjoy this sort of thing who could blame them for using proven techniques? Now, if we could only make vines to swing from and loincloths mandatory for male attendees it could be very interesting :) It's not that it works that is disturbing, it's that it continues to be acceptable in an industry that likes to claim it is not sexist and gender neutral. e. From jeff at yoak.com Fri Jul 7 16:11:53 2000 From: jeff at yoak.com (jeff@yoak.com) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000707131950.00aa1bd0@psdt.com> Message-ID: <200007072108.e67L8Xw07074@lunar.ivenue.com> On 7 Jul, Peter Scott wrote: > What bothers me just as much - I have written lengthy tirades on trade show > brain damage in the past - is the lack of credit the vendor is giving to my > intelligence. Why anyone would think that I would be more likely to shell > out large amounts of cash for a product because of the women at the booth, > or because they gave me a free T-shirt, is beyond me; but so many people do > it that there must be a sizeable population that it works on. It bothers > me that these vendors look at me and think I must be part of that population. Everyone is an above average driver and when telemarketers call, boy does everyone I know really let them have it. And no one reads spam. The fact is that all these undesirable things work on the majority of people, and the fact that they don't acknowledge it even to themselves doesn't change that. Booth maintainers aren't trying to get the thought to cross your mind that, "Hey. She's cute. I'll buy that." They want to increase by some small percentage that they will catch your eye and that you will wander by, and maybe make the inessential aspects of your visit more pleasurable. And it probably works. If it doesn't work with you specifically, perhaps because it explicitly it offends you, then it *does* work on the majority and that's why they do it. Processes like these are pretty efficient. Things that don't work generally aren't done long. The only way to stop them it to somehow make them work less. That's the problem with sillily parading women at shows and conferences. That's the problem with spam. Denying that it is effective currently clouds the issue. Cheers, Jeff -- Jeff Yoak 626-705-6996 ---------------------------------------------------------- I create nice things...because it pleases the Author of my story. --Larry Wall From silver at oreilly.com Fri Jul 7 16:20:11 2000 From: silver at oreilly.com (Ellen Maremont Silver) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> Message-ID: I'm in marketing, and it's terribly frustrating to me to see sexist ads in our magazines (more business than technically-oriented), as well as at the shows. We're ahead of where we used to be a bit (when I first started going to shows, more women had to dress up in heels and skirts; now more companies let everyone where pants) but the battle won't be won anytime soon. Thanks for writing, Sarah. --Ellen From dha at panix.com Fri Jul 7 17:22:05 2000 From: dha at panix.com (David H. Adler) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000707161306.T28497@chaos.wustl.edu>; from elaine@chaos.wustl.edu on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 04:13:07PM -0500 References: <20000706190948.B8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20000707131950.00aa1bd0@psdt.com> <20000707161306.T28497@chaos.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <20000707182205.A17616@panix.com> On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 04:13:07PM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > > I wasn't thrilled by the PM endorsing this same sort of > behaviour/marketing tactic, but considering that the majority of people at > YAPC & TPC are male and show no signs of there ever being an influx > of women and the men seem to enjoy this sort of thing who could blame them > for using proven techniques? Now, if we could only make vines to swing > from and loincloths mandatory for male attendees it could be very > interesting :) "Interesting" is one of those words... :-) Although I'm not going to take a side in this discussion, if only because I don't really have the time for it, I do find it interesting that there appears to be an implicit assumption that if one acts as a "booth babe", that is all that one is. Personally, I think of it as a job description more than anything else. I certainly have no interest in interacting with anyone that has nothing more to offer than a big smile and a bikini-friendly figure. Hmm... that must be why I tend not to go to tractor shows... :-) As I happen to know the PM booth babe, I know that that is probably the least of her talents (and I only say probably because she may have some even less interesting talent of which I am unaware...). Furthermore, if you do think that's all she is, I would advise you not to mention it to her, for the sake of your health, if for no other reason. :-) Dave, paring this down to one list because he's sick of having three of these show up in his mailbox... -- David H. Adler - - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ Trained Philosopher: Will Think For Food - R. Dan Henry From elaine at chaos.wustl.edu Fri Jul 7 18:01:29 2000 From: elaine at chaos.wustl.edu (Elaine -HFB- Ashton) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000707182205.A17616@panix.com>; from dha@panix.com on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 06:22:05PM -0400 References: <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20000707131950.00aa1bd0@psdt.com> <20000707161306.T28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707182205.A17616@panix.com> Message-ID: <20000707180129.A18439@chaos.wustl.edu> David H. Adler [dha@panix.com] quoth: *> *>As I happen to know the PM booth babe, I know that that is probably *>the least of her talents (and I only say probably because she may have *>some even less interesting talent of which I am unaware...). *>Furthermore, if you do think that's all she is, I would advise you not *>to mention it to her, for the sake of your health, if for no other *>reason. :-) David, don't be stupid. I met and like Amelia quite much and find exploiting the prime directive of human males to be smart marketing. However, this doesn't mean I think highly of the men who continue to say that sexism doesn't exist in this industry out of one orifice and compare notes about booth babes out another. Women aren't the stupid ones in this equation :) $600 a day for smiling ain't bad work if you can get it. e. From lnyman at Census.gov Fri Jul 7 18:11:56 2000 From: lnyman at Census.gov (Lisa Nyman) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000707161306.T28497@chaos.wustl.edu> Message-ID: Hi, On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > I wasn't thrilled by the PM endorsing this same sort of > behaviour/marketing tactic, Me, too. > but considering that the majority of people at > YAPC & TPC are male and show no signs of there ever being an influx > of women I think we need to address this issue. I, for one, think that if the Perl Community reached out more to the Web Community (in a non condescending, non just-ranting-over-bad-code way), we might reach more women. Any other ideas? -lisa From pudge at pobox.com Fri Jul 7 20:36:47 2000 From: pudge at pobox.com (Chris Nandor) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 19.11 -0400 2000.07.07, Lisa Nyman wrote: >I think we need to address this issue. I just added a story to use.perl.org about it, so more people can join the discussion. :) >I, for one, think that if the Perl >Community reached out more to the Web Community (in a non condescending, >non just-ranting-over-bad-code way), we might reach more women. I don't follow this (perhaps because of my ignorance). Does the "Web Community" have a lot more women in it? Would those women have a tendency to learn Perl? -- Chris Nandor | pudge@pobox.com | http://pudge.net/ Andover.Net | chris.nandor@andover.net | http://slashcode.com/ From lnyman at Census.gov Fri Jul 7 20:54:22 2000 From: lnyman at Census.gov (Lisa Nyman) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Chris Nandor wrote: > At 19.11 -0400 2000.07.07, Lisa Nyman wrote: > >I, for one, think that if the Perl > >Community reached out more to the Web Community (in a non condescending, > >non just-ranting-over-bad-code way), we might reach more women. > > I don't follow this (perhaps because of my ignorance). Does the "Web > Community" have a lot more women in it? Would those women have a tendency > to learn Perl? Yes it does. Many women entered the web world from related fields like graphics arts, publishing, etc., not traditional 'hard-core' tech fields or programming. My local web women group, DCWebWomen has over 3000 members. I'm sure some of these women have a desire to learn perl, just as they learn other techniques for web development. -lisa From uri at sysarch.com Fri Jul 7 21:02:01 2000 From: uri at sysarch.com (Uri Guttman) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: (message from Lisa Nyman on Fri, 7 Jul 2000 21:54:22 -0400 (EDT)) References: Message-ID: <200007080202.WAA26241@home.sysarch.com.> >>>>> "LN" == Lisa Nyman writes: LN> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Chris Nandor wrote: >> I don't follow this (perhaps because of my ignorance). Does the "Web >> Community" have a lot more women in it? Would those women have a tendency >> to learn Perl? LN> Yes it does. Many women entered the web world from related fields like LN> graphics arts, publishing, etc., not traditional 'hard-core' tech fields LN> or programming. My local web women group, DCWebWomen has over 3000 LN> members. LN> I'm sure some of these women have a desire to learn perl, just as they LN> learn other techniques for web development. i was meeting randal at a web developers conference he taught at this spring and we met some female attendees. we talked with them about that very subject and i agree with lisa. many women are getting into web development from the artistic/text/publishing side. and they are starting to learn perl as it is a popular web technology (duh!). the numbers of women web designers learning perl is small but growing. it is not to be sniffed at. they may not turn into full time perl hackers and some will never get it (some people just can't grok programming no matter how smart they are). many will attend perl classes at web conferences but not likely go to yapc or tpc. and many/most only want to know about perl from a web/cgi/maybe dbi point of view. uri -- Uri Guttman --------- uri@sysarch.com ---------- http://www.sysarch.com SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com From sarah at pound.perl.org Fri Jul 7 23:46:36 2000 From: sarah at pound.perl.org (Sarah Burcham) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Booth Babe disclaimer In-Reply-To: <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org>; from sarah@pound.perl.org on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 01:09:04PM -0500 References: <20000706110631.B19900@pound.perl.org> <000201bfe783$ba189b10$f5876b0a@monsanto.com> <20000706152754.A135@pound.perl.org> <20000706190948.B8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> Message-ID: <20000707234635.A23502@pound.perl.org> After reading through the responses, I feel the need for a clarification. The emotions and feelings represented in my Booth Babe rant were not about Amelia (the now famous Perl Monger's booth babe at YAPC). I genuinely enjoyed her presence at the conference and by no means did I think that she was just a pretty face. I personally thought the Perl Monger flyers were funny, but I think that's because I respect brian d foy. I was hoping to keep things abstract, especially with TPC around the corner. But everyone keeps going back to Amelia (Sorry Amelia!!). -sarah From ziggy at panix.com Fri Jul 7 23:59:29 2000 From: ziggy at panix.com (Adam Turoff) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000707180129.A18439@chaos.wustl.edu>; from elaine@chaos.wustl.edu on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 06:01:29PM -0500 References: <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20000707131950.00aa1bd0@psdt.com> <20000707161306.T28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707182205.A17616@panix.com> <20000707180129.A18439@chaos.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <20000708005929.C13771@panix.com> On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 06:01:29PM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > David H. Adler [dha@panix.com] quoth: > *>As I happen to know the PM booth babe, I know that that is probably > *>the least of her talents (and I only say probably because she may have > *>some even less interesting talent of which I am unaware...). > *>Furthermore, if you do think that's all she is, I would advise you not > *>to mention it to her, for the sake of your health, if for no other > *>reason. :-) > > David, don't be stupid. I met and like Amelia quite much and find > exploiting the prime directive of human males to be smart marketing. Yes, that was a factor, but it wasn't the only factor. I'd go so far as to say it wasn't even the primary factor. So Amelia was selling raffle tickets this year, but how many of you bought a lanyard from that crazy guy with an amish beard last year? Whomever works the crowd with a smile in the name of all that is wholesome and camel-haired will get sales. It's as simple as that. Amelia staffed the fourth Perl Mongers table. As a staffer in each of the previous three tables, I can assure you that we can get swamped because of the swag, whether a pretty woman sells tshirts or four balding bearded men sell tshirts. At TPC3, the table was a logistical nightmare. We had three people selling shirts and ten people gather around the table to hang out, eat lunch, get in the way, gather and regroup, generally block access to the ladies room or what have you. In fact the table was such a cause of problems that we got flack about it each and every day of the conference. And, yes, this happened at TPC2 and yapc99 to some degree, but at least we were fortunate enough not to be blocking access to the loo. If Perl Mongers is going to operate a table to sell anything at all, it is unrealistic to expect that it be staffed by Perl Mongers anymore; it just causes too many headaches. We need booth staff. > However, this doesn't mean I think highly of the men who continue to say > that sexism doesn't exist in this industry out of one orifice and compare > notes about booth babes out another. Call them what you want, but paid booth staff are pretty much a requirement now. Would it help if we replaced Ameila with a bevy of booth boys next time? Yes, I'm serious. Z. From gnat at frii.com Sat Jul 8 00:05:18 2000 From: gnat at frii.com (Nathan Torkington) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: References: <20000706110631.B19900@pound.perl.org> <000201bfe783$ba189b10$f5876b0a@monsanto.com> <20000706152754.A135@pound.perl.org> <20000706190948.B8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000706201637.C26297@panix.com> <20000707083512.C8010@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <14694.46734.296639.112196@prometheus.frii.com> Chris Nandor writes: > What bothers me is that we are saying it is OK to objectify people, to > focus on appearance instead of substance. It annoys me greatly. I am sure > many people don't feel as I do, but I think this kind of focus on the > external is a seriously damaging force in our society, and I don't like it. Blah blah blah. It's easy to be pissed off in general. I want to see specifics, like Amelia. I like Amelia. Sarah's rant wasn't about Amelia. I hope to see Amelia at TPC. I think if someone suggested a wet t-shirt contest, or a prize of a date with the babe, or "trade your business card for a kiss" or any other concrete actions, then I'd be pissed off too. Those are concrete real bad things. The mongers poster at YAPC was borderline, so I wouldn't mind discussion of that (even though it's been done to death and Brian and Amelia won't be making that mistake again). Until someone *does* something objectionable, though, I'm sick of reading general rants against body image propaganda and hypocrisy. If I wanted those, I'd reread Naomi Wolf[0] or something else. But when I read something on the Perl advocacy list, I want to read about Perl advocacy. Following Glorious Leader Foy's advice, I have stated my position and will now remain stoicly silent even though the froth will inevitably continue. Yes, I do want a medal :-) Nat [0] Mmm, lipstick. My favourite flavour of feminist. ;-) From elaine at chaos.wustl.edu Sat Jul 8 12:01:33 2000 From: elaine at chaos.wustl.edu (Elaine -HFB- Ashton) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Re: Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: <20000708005929.C13771@panix.com>; from ziggy@panix.com on Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 12:59:29AM -0400 References: <20000707130904.A28267@pound.perl.org> <20000707135055.R28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707150125.S28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20000707131950.00aa1bd0@psdt.com> <20000707161306.T28497@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000707182205.A17616@panix.com> <20000707180129.A18439@chaos.wustl.edu> <20000708005929.C13771@panix.com> Message-ID: <20000708120133.I18439@chaos.wustl.edu> Adam Turoff [ziggy@panix.com] quoth: *> *>Call them what you want, but paid booth staff are pretty much a *>requirement now. Would it help if we replaced Ameila with a bevy *>of booth boys next time? *> *>Yes, I'm serious. Why? The number of women is small and growing smaller for each conference. The market is men, enjoy them. You are marketing her not as the 'human at the booth' but specifically as a 'booth babe'. You ask why Perl has so few women milling about out of one orifice and say 'what booth babe?' out of another. e. From ziggy at panix.com Sat Jul 8 17:21:18 2000 From: ziggy at panix.com (Adam Turoff) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Perl Mongers booth staffing Message-ID: <20000708182118.B23915@panix.com> I hope we can put the whole "booth babe" debate behind us and return to our regularly scheduled advocacy of all things perl. Yes, Mistakes Were Made (tm). Yes, a lot of people were insulted on a handful of counts. Yes, some valid concerns were raised that will be addressed at future booths. I don't think these mailing lists were created to promote harmony between the sexes. I do think all of us who are guilty of spreading disharmony want to fix our errors and move on to the task at hand. I thank everyone who has highlighted these concerns. Here's a tidbit I received from brian about the issues at yapc: > i didn't hire Amelia based on her ability to attract people to her. i > hired her because she has excellent people skills (the priority), a > temperate stage personality, and can do the work without much help from > me. she did an excellent job on all counts, and even in the complaints > people have said so. > > [...] i made a mistake and it's my fault. tell people as much if they ask > about it. that's the official line - "brian messed up but he won't do > that again". however, Amelia will be at TPC and YAPC::Europe. we'll work > out the bugs as we go along. :) > > -- > brian d foy > Director of Technology, Smith Renaud, Inc. > 875 Avenue of the Americas, 2510, New York, NY 10001 > V: (212) 239-8985 I'm confident that the mistakes made at yapc won't be repeated. Following pudge's lead, I've said everything I want to say and now bow out of the discussion. Z. From joseph at 5sigma.com Sat Jul 8 22:25:30 2000 From: joseph at 5sigma.com (Joseph N. Hall) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Perl Mongers booth staffing In-Reply-To: <20000708182118.B23915@panix.com> Message-ID: If it's got to the point where a pretty blonde with a good personality isn't an appropriate choice for a ".pm table representative," and the alternative is instead, what, some grubby bearded overweight guy with the personality of a dial tone, then that's yet another reason for me to add to my ever growing list of reasons Why Perl Culture Sucks. You people who complain about the sexism of a pleasant, attractive person in a situation where a pleasant, attractive person is desirable, just go get some clues. Hopefully this is the last I'll have to say on the matter. The time is approaching when I will have nothing at all to contribute to Perl culture due to its no longer making any sense to me on any level. -joseph -- Joseph N. Hall, 5 Sigma Productions mailto:" "@5sigma.com Author, Effective Perl Programming . . . . . http://www.effectiveperl.com Perlfaq Prime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.perlfaq.com On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 18:21:18 -0400 ziggy@panix.com (Adam Turoff) wrote: * I hope we can put the whole "booth babe" debate behind us and return * to our regularly scheduled advocacy of all things perl. * * Yes, Mistakes Were Made (tm). Yes, a lot of people were insulted * on a handful of counts. Yes, some valid concerns were raised that * will be addressed at future booths. * * I don't think these mailing lists were created to promote harmony * between the sexes. I do think all of us who are guilty of spreading * disharmony want to fix our errors and move on to the task at hand. * * I thank everyone who has highlighted these concerns. * * Here's a tidbit I received from brian about the issues at yapc: * * > i didn't hire Amelia based on her ability to attract people to her. i * > hired her because she has excellent people skills (the priority), a * > temperate stage personality, and can do the work without much help from * > me. she did an excellent job on all counts, and even in the complaints * > people have said so. * > * > [...] i made a mistake and it's my fault. tell people as much if they ask * > about it. that's the official line - "brian messed up but he won't do * > that again". however, Amelia will be at TPC and YAPC::Europe. we'll work * > out the bugs as we go along. :) * > * > -- * > brian d foy * > Director of Technology, Smith Renaud, Inc. * > 875 Avenue of the Americas, 2510, New York, NY 10001 * > V: (212) 239-8985 * * I'm confident that the mistakes made at yapc won't be repeated. * * Following pudge's lead, I've said everything I want to say and * now bow out of the discussion. * * Z. From pudge at pobox.com Sat Jul 8 23:13:00 2000 From: pudge at pobox.com (Chris Nandor) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Perl Mongers booth staffing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 20.25 -0700 2000.07.08, Joseph N. Hall wrote: >Hopefully this is the last I'll have to say on the matter. The time >is approaching when I will have nothing at all to contribute to Perl >culture If this is how you wish respond to other people's opinions, then that's fine by me. -- Chris Nandor | pudge@pobox.com | http://pudge.net/ Andover.Net | chris.nandor@andover.net | http://slashcode.com/ From cwanta at dra.com Mon Jul 10 16:49:26 2000 From: cwanta at dra.com (Christine Wanta) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Booth Babe rant Message-ID: I'm not a marketing major or in sales, however, I've been involved in decisions about how to spend booth $'s as well as spending about 20 years in the IT field in many roles. I wasn't able to attend YAPC so I do not know what we are defining as a booth babe (I was at a Solaris class I think ;-) Also, I'm not sure I know what the advocacy@perl.org is for but if its the promotion of perl at all then this whole tangent should be considered there as well. Some stats that are being mistated or not considered in this thread is that women comprise about 51% of the population, about 25% of all bachelor degrees being issued in the computer and information technology programs are to women (based on early 90's stats) and that women comprise about 20% of the IT workforce. Men still dominate this field as they do most, but the demographics are changing. There are concerns on how to make entry into the sciences less gender-oriented as most programs currently are and many groups are working on this not just for the IT field. My personal observance is that those numbers do not realistically reflect the number of women in this field. In most of the larger firms that I've worked at or consulted at the numbers were closer to 30% of the workforce. I've seen a growth spurt in the last 5 years of women attending shows, particularly women who make decisions in purchasing, etc. The shows tended to be more an annoyance because they were so male-oriented. So if you are the slightest bit interested in promoting Perl to the IT field professionals, you may want to see how to draw more of this potential growth market and pay attention to what is found offensive by possibly 30% of your potential market (more since many men find this form of marketing offensive as well) Couple of other things... Creating a negative image at any show does nothing to help promote Perl. The promotion of Perl and its implementation in the professional field by IT professionals as well as the distribution of information related to Perl and the IT industry is, I believe, the reason for this conventions. So what was the goal of the booths that had eye-candy as its drawing mechanism? To sell a product to a certain demographical base? promote the use of a product by IT professionals? If the goals was to draw the two demo targets that the "booth babe" addresses, namely, males under 25 or the under $50,000 income bracket then the marketing strategy probably worked. In general, this ploy works well in small appliances and distributor shows, car and truck shows oriented to these target markets, beer markets, etc. Sex only sells if your demo target is susceptible to that type of ploy. If you think the majority of Perl users or IT professionals are males under 25 and under $50,000 in income, I'd suggest you fire your demo research company. Also, those users that fit into that category have very little to do with determining if Perl is used in most companies. Rarely do members of these groups have any real purchasing power in the IT field. Since generally IT booths are looking to draw those with purchasing power and decision-making capabilities, anyone who decided on 'booth babes' may have failed to understand their demographic targets. Unfortunately its not unusual to see this lack of understanding and misuse of standard marketing tools and applications at developing shows and trade shows for new markets. Bad marketing is bad business. The next time you attend a car, boat, truck show, etc., you may notice that the old "booth babes" are fewer and far between. You will see it at the car wax booth, but more subtle applications at a dealer (unless the target market is 23-25, $35-50,000 income base ;-) The decision-makers and purchasing powers (hopefully your attendees) are more persuadable when bombarded by images that project a positive comfort zone for conducting business...this doesn't mean eliminate the sex factor, simply polish it and make it less confrontational or embarrassingly obvious. Don't confuse show strategies with sales strategies, its two different forums with different goals. You will find that smart marketers are staffing booths (industry independently) with positive, often good-looking or at a minimum well-groomed, reasonably knowledegable sales types. That's because the primary goal is to motivate or initiate sales. Please don't misunderstand my feelings on this, I do not hesitate to incorporate the male/female flirtation factor to promote goals but there is a tasteful limit that booth babes goes beyond. Marketing statistics are finding that most IT shows attendees want (in this order ;-) useful information, good giveaways and food. Now free peek-shows may be considered a 'giveaway' but most the geeks I know would (eventually ;-) define a giveaway as the nifty toolkit. So ultimately there had to be a goal of the booths at these shows and who are their target audience. Unfortunately this probably was never addressed or was addressed by ameteur or inexperience marketers. Then again, it could be that the whole goal of YAPC was to give a bunch of immature, easily hog-washed, barely post-pubescent, socially-stunted males a chance to actually talk to a female that wouldn't give them the time of day otherwise. As I said, I didn't make it this year. Any organization that fails to factor into its marketing $'s the growing female market with growing purchasing power ends up wasting good money. There are several good "women in technology" type org's out there helping to promote positive non-gender environments as well as address issues directly related to women in technology. A good starting place is the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing 2000 http://www.sdsc.edu/Hopper/REGISTER/index.html FYI...I had decided to stay out of this tangent since its usually a circular discussion. But as I politely step off my soap-box I just wanted you to know that you can blame Mike808 for my change of heart. *grin* I hope everyone has a wonderful evening. --christine ps. my favorite flavor of chauvinist is roasted, on a spit *grin* From D at i-works.com Mon Jul 10 19:11:09 2000 From: D at i-works.com (Tushar Samant) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >feelings on this, I do not hesitate to incorporate the male/female >flirtation factor to promote goals but there is a tasteful limit >that booth babes goes beyond. OK, moderators, feel free to disallow this post... just wanted to say that the above seems to me to be the crux of the situation. It is *tasteless*, even if it's half-a-joke, or ironic-take, or whatever else. And it would be awesome and worthy of respect if Perl advocates/user groups could successfully run a booth without "babes" (thus demonstrating that they expect their audience to be different from a boat-show audience). BTW, calling it tasteless is exactly what it sounds like--snobbish. I am a snob and I like Perl. (And I dislike "arguments" like "humans happen to be animals", "women are free to be booth babes if they want", and "it's business", because as a snob I happen to think that humans have a developed taste, freedom to be booth babes is irrelevant, and it's bad business practice.) -- Tushar Samant ~ ~ :wq From bill at fccj.org Tue Jul 11 08:46:10 2000 From: bill at fccj.org (Bill Jones) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Booth Babe rant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Also, it is very 'pas se' [sp?] Conference Promoters need to realize this is y2k -- time to rethink the promotional qualities. -Sneex- :] - FCCJ * 501 W State St * Jacksonville, Fl 32202 * 904/632-3089 - > From: Tushar Samant > ... and it's bad > business practice.) From klb1316 at pressroom.com Thu Jul 13 10:57:57 2000 From: klb1316 at pressroom.com (Kathleen Ballard) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Netscape problem when calling script Message-ID: Dear list, I am calling a perl script with an link like: This works fine in IE 5, but in nn, CurPage is not getting sent. Does anyone see what I am missing? Kathleen From waltman at netaxs.com Thu Jul 13 18:44:13 2000 From: waltman at netaxs.com (Walt Mankowski) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:29:01 2004 Subject: [mnw.pm] Netscape problem when calling script In-Reply-To: ; from klb1316@pressroom.com on Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 11:57:57AM -0400 References: Message-ID: <20000713194413.A17029@netaxs.com> On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 11:57:57AM -0400, Kathleen Ballard wrote: > Dear list, > I am calling a perl script with an link like: > > target="mainFrame"> > > This works fine in IE 5, but in nn, CurPage is not getting sent. > > Does anyone see what I am missing? It probably doesn't like that space in the url. Change the space to a +, or better yet escape all the non-alphanumeric characters. Perlfaq9 has a discussion of how to best to this. Walt