Slashdot Mirror
RSA: Ban On Booth Babes Has Been No Big Deal (networkworld.com)
netbuzz quotes a report from Network World: In March 2015, RSA Conference organizers made news by contractually insisting that vendors pitch their security wares without the help of "booth babes," a first such ban for the technology industry. Next week's event will be third under the new rules. With the use of "booth babes" long a source of contention -- and some would say embarrassment -- implementation of the ban has gone smoothly, according to RSA. "Overall I would say this has been received well by our exhibitors," says Sandra Toms, vice president and curator of the conference. "Several have thanked us for having a policy." If you compare the policy's contract language in 2015 with the language now used by Toms, you'll notice how much it has evolved and how it has been accepted by various stake-holders. Here's an excerpt from the "short Q&A" between Paul McNamara, news editor for Network World, and Toms: Has there been any need to enforce the code or have all exhibitors complied? "Enforce" always makes it sound like armed guards have come into play and dragged someone off the show floor. We share these guidelines with our exhibitors and we're clear that this is a policy that is expected to be acknowledged and complied with. We take our attendee experience seriously and expect our exhibitors to do the same. If we receive a complaint about a particular exhibitor, we will send someone over to the booth and examine the situation. If the attire matches our dress code, then they can proceed and we can explain to the attendee why that form of dress is allowed. If they are clearly in violation, we will ask them to change. This policy is equally applied to both men and women -- from Sumo wrestlers to scantily clad models.
Really this is taking away women's rights not enhancing them. Now they can't wear whatever they want.
Not just rights, this is just more misogynistic basement-nerds taking jobs away from women!
In a strange way - it is taking away jobs. While I don't see much of a purpose for them, yeah, some women are losing their jobs. Here's an interesting question. Let us take someone like my favorite pretty lady - Sophia Vergara. Say she worked for one of these companies, and was a perfectly competent employee. She could wear a horse blanket, and still look good enough to make most men stupid. Will we soon be banning attractive women because they are attractive?? Or strictly enforcing a dress code? Or we in the name of whatever the hell we are calling what we are doing, make women cover their heads in order to not use attractiveness in any way because then we can't see her face, and she will not be inciting lust in males?
tl;dr version. What a sexist move.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
They do serve a purpose - the same purpose served by putting attractive people in all other advertising contexts. A booth exists for the same reasons as a TV ad.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
How so? A booth can still hire promo girls, they just need to dress them appropriately.
At a security conference where there are vendors presenting countermeasures to social engineering, I would think that women dressed to pique male interest can be very appropriately dressed.