The mismeasure of linkspam (1 February 2013)

You can suggest links for future linkspams in comments here, or by using the “geekfeminism” tag on delicious or or the “#geekfeminism” tag on Twitter. Please note that we tend to stick to publishing recent links (from the last month or so).

Thanks to everyone who suggested links.

5 thoughts on “The mismeasure of linkspam (1 February 2013)

  1. Alan Bell

    I am unsure that complaints about the presence of greeters/booth babes from conference attendees (or non-attendees) are going to be perceived as having much weight by the organisers. I believe a more effective strategy would be to target the large number of smaller organisations who attend the show and don’t use greeters, and get them to complain about the unfair marketing tactics of those who use actors and models who don’t know about the product concerned. They are likely to be up for this, it sucks to pay thousands for a booth and have crowds gather somewhere else because another booth with an inferior product paid a model to strut about.
    I would also rather that the focus generally was on the lack of product knowledge rather than what they are wearing – if someone on the product development team wants to tell me all the details whilst wearing a bikini or mankini then that is fine with me. If someone in a saville row suit wants to sell me stuff but doesn’t know what it is they are selling then I am not impressed.

  2. quill

    I understand that your concern is about the knowledge salespeople have and not about their attire or the ways their presentation may contribute to a sexualized environment or make some people feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or objectified. It’s great for you that you’re comfortable with that kind of thing, but a lot of other people aren’t. To be frank, I care about creating inclusive spaces for everybody a lot more than I care about random dudes telling me how they’re not offended by sexualized space existing.

    1. Alan Bell

      Fair point, I should not have said that I don’t care what people wear, my thoughts on that are irrelevant. I simply believe that the problem of a sexualized environment can be solved without adding the problem of telling women what they can’t wear.

      1. tekanji

        But policies on Booth Babes have zero to do with telling women what they can/can’t wear. It is the COMPANIES that decide the Booth Babe uniforms, so dress code rules for them are about limiting what COMPANIES can mandate their (female) models/employees wear on the floor.

        Framing that as infringing on female agency has the result of acting as an apologist for the sexualization of female workers in a non-sexual environment. It also deprioritizes the negative impact that the sexualized environment has on the women at the con (both the IT professionals working at the booths/presenting/etc and the con attendees).

        1. Jessica

          As someone who was a booth babe for E3 2005, I can confirm that it’s the companies that decide the booth babe uniforms. BTW, I’m glad I had the experience as it’s the reason why I support banning booth babes.
          As for telling women who aren’t booth babes what they can’t wear, I wouldn’t be bothered if dress codes were implemented. I have no problem with women who like showing off their body (I’m one of them) but I understand how a sexualized environment can affect other women.

Comments are closed.