The Ban on Booth Babes (or Fuck Sexism in Geekdom)
I’m sitting here grabbing my face, slowly scratching out my eyeballs in frustration while listening to Third Eye Blind in an attempt to organize my thoughts about PAX without losing my mind. Apparently it’s not working because I’m listening to Third Eye Blind. A big departure from the folk music I normally listen to.
For the past year (at least), there has been a ban on booth babes at Penny Arcade Expo. Gabe and Tycho decreed, “Hark! In order to not pander to gross sexist men, we’re banning booth babes!” And all the women gamers cheered; and all the male gamers sang! It was truly a righteous moment for sexism in gaming! Oh, wait no. It wasn’t. It’s straight up bullshit sexism just from a different angle, marketed to seem appealing to geeks because: GROSS. Booth babes! Companies just selling out women, treating the men like creeps! REAL GAMERS ONLY! These chicks don’t know about anything geeky ever and therefore should be banned!
“You know what really grinds my gears?” Peter Griffin, wise sage, once said (and by wise sage, I mean the worst character on television). Well, I’ll tell you what, reader! What really grinds my gears is that, as a promotions girl, we’re assumed to be some sort of useless entity in marketing. Gaming dudes just assume we stand around, pout our lips and seduce men into our respective booths. And while sex appeal definitely is a part of the scheme, these are our jobs. This is what I do for a living. I work promotions for various films, partnerships, etc. And while I’m not necessarily wearing booty shorts and an XS tee, I’m doing the exact same thing that “booth babes” do.
My job is legitimate. And it also involves marketing and promoting a product that I may not particularly like, but it’s my job to get other people to like it. That’s what promotions is. “Booth babes” aren’t going to ever go away, they’re just going to be told to cover up. But once they’re covered up, it’s all okay, right? They can hang around doing promotions as long as they aren’t showing boobs or a little derriere, hmmmm?
I have a huge problem when anyone tries to “de-sluttify” a woman, especially because – GOSH! We’re pandering toward men! I’m so sorry you feel like we’re exploiting you, straight male gamers, I’ll try to cover up my breasts so that you feel like less of a creep, while you can still walk around almost buck naked with your chest hair puffing out towards the world. What it comes down to is that PAX and all the asshole geeks who worship at the temple of Gabe & Tycho Ltd. want to passively control what women working the convention are wearing. And that’s wrong. Period.
After the last rage-induced article/open letter that I wrote to PAX I had a conversation with Gabe (Mike Krahulik) over Twitter. And by conversation I mean I asked him simple questions on why he thought it was okay to ban Jessica Nigri from wearing two of her Lollipop Chainsaw outfits and he responded like a petulent child, telling me that he “doesn’t give a shit” what anyone says because: “ME GABE. ME BIG HERO OF INTERWEBS AND GAMING. ME BFF WITH WIL WHEATON.” And then he pounded on his chest, revealing a Donkey Kong neck tie tattoo.
Gabe told me that there were complaints over the gaggle of Duke Nukem booth babes last year (don’t even get me started on Duke Nukem in general). I guess people commented that either they were too tarty, the complainants felt pandered to or… it was sexist? Because that’s the answer to sexism: BAN ALL ATTRACTIVE WOMEN WORKING AT PAX! According to our dear friend Gabe, he was just so confused! What is he supposed to do?! People were complaining the year before and this year over WOMEN, what is a webcomic hero to do?!
He then told me that I can talk to him again “once I run a giant convention myself”. Right. It’s not like he doesn’t have a huge group of staff and volunteers to do most of the foot work for him, hm? Gabe and Tycho need to hire better PR representation stat because they really have no fucking clue how to deal with public relations.
What this comes down to, again and again, is the “real geek” versus “fake geek” time old argument, which seems to be dictated by straight dude geeks these days, which is really depressing. Women working the convention must be “true blue geeks” or get their asses kicked to the curb. ‘Cause, you know, it’s not like it’s a giant commercialized event sponsored by corporate giants who have employees and staff and prom– oh wait, it is.
I’m tired of this angry, territorial stomping ground geekdom has claimed as “their own”. I’m tired of us bumrushing the “fake geeks” out the door. Where do we draw the line? In what way is it ever okay to dictate how much of their bodies women should cover up? I can hear the responses a-tweeting, “But it doesn’t affect the women at the convention, just the booth workers! They should know what they are talking about! Sexy clothes just demean women and pander to men!” First off, that’s bullshit. Adrienne Curry was kicked out of Comic Con for a “too revealing” costume and that’s not the first time that has happened to a female cosplayer. The sheer fact that this is a gender-targeted rule makes it sexist as hell.
Instead of banning “booth babes”, why the hell aren’t we trying to correct the behaviour of the men and boys that oogle and treat them like objects only there so solve their sexual frustration? Isn’t that the bigger problem here? By banning the promo models we’re saying, “Hey, guys! You can’t help yourselves, and that’s okay, because you’re dudes! So we’re just gonna get rid of the problem so you don’t need to be worried any more.”
Wouldn’t it be better to write up a ToS about treating the employees at the convention? As in, like, “Hey, guy, please don’t sexually harass the ladies at the convention! Thanks a bunch, champ!” And if some dude sexually harasses a promo model or hell, even just a run-of-the-mill woman cosplayer, have them kicked out instead? Why not ban problematic behaviour? Why are we letting the creepy dudes off the hook so easily? These are all questions I would love to ask Gabe, but hey, he has me blocked on Twitter. Oop!
I really don’t want to disagree with you. But I have a couple of problems with your argument. Not the sentiment – just the framework of the argument – so please don’t take this as a flaming or a trolling – I don’t mean it to be.
While I agree that women should have the right to wear what they want without fear of unwelcome advances or worse, I don’t think this is a ban on ALL attractive women. Though, to context my argument, I’ve never been to PAX, and my only resource for information on this is your posts.
It sounds to me like it’s more of ban on using a promotional tool that both objectifies women and drives down the moral boundaries of men. The whole point of the ‘booth babe’ is to be a desirable sexual object to attract men to ogle, and then redirect their attention to a product. Or worse, insinuate that by using said product, that perhaps said ‘booth babe’ might suddenly be an attainable object for said nerd.
I feel like you’re failing to draw the distinction between free expression and being used as promotional bait. That’s probably because a cosplayer or two got caught up in the sweep (and we all know that the staff at conventions have never misinterpreted instructions and been total assholes because they’ve been given a small fiefdom of temporary power, right? which says to me that sometimes – and here’s where I think the rub is – that theres little tolerance from women for the collateral damage they collect in wearing an outfit that says – LOOK AT THIS BODY. I WORK OUT. *cue LFMAO*
So that argument, to quote Admiral Akbar – “It’s a trap!”
Arguably Mike and Jerry’s approach probably isn’t the best one. But in America, where the war on freedom is fought in the arenas of sex and guns, it’s probably not going to have an elegant solution. There’s always going to be an offended party. I think they recognized there’s a problem that’s grown in the cons – as they become more and more commercialized – is this promotional tool that is (also arguably) lowering the tone, encouraging poor behavior and distracting fans from what these cons are supposed to be about: celebrating geekery communally.
If you can come up with a better way to filter out girls that are there just to push a product that doesn’t have enough pull without it being jiggled by a pair of disinterested breasts from the promotional girls that have a genuine interest in geekery and want to sell geek stuff to every geek while wearing stilettos and a cheerleader outfit (with or without a chainsaw), then I’d totally love to have that discussion. Not that discussing it with me is going to get it going anywhere, but I love debating – from politics to the pointless, I love finding solutions.
All the best – love this site,
D
I don’t take what you wrote as flaming or trolling, trust me, haha. I appreciate your input but here is where I disagree:
How, exactly, is banning women (any sort of women) from a corporate event (specifically booth babes, who show a lot of skin) an answer to anything? Nobody has seemed to be able to give me a clear answer on this one because there isn’t. It’s not a solution. It’s a band-aid, not a long-term solution.
I’m sorry if to me the solution isn’t something that lets gross dudes of the hook while once again putting the onus of guilt on women. This isn’t about having sexual attractions, it’s about how you treat women in general. You shouldn’t be looking at someone’s breasts for an extended period of time unless they consent. I really don’t care how “hard it was” growing up, it’s just common courtesy. There is a difference between noticing something like that and being sexually attracted and gawking, staring and not controlling your actions because of it.
It is equally as hard, as a woman, to navigate your “sexuality” as an adolescent and I kind of resent the idea that it isn’t. It wasn’t exactly an easy ride for us, either. And on top of that, we have a society that believes we should be “quiet” and “personal” about our sexuality constraining us, which is something else men never had to deal with.
You can appreciate a woman’s body without being a total creep. Just because someone is showing skin doesn’t mean they want to be gawked at like some sort of foreign creature. Promo models exist in every realm and facet of marketing, gaming included.
“You shouldn’t be looking at someone’s breasts for an extended period of time unless they consent.”
I would tentatively suggest, that stuffing them into a skin tight costume in a manner that makes them look like they are about to explode out of the top at any moment, is consent to look.
And here’s the crux of the argument – How does a man appreciate a woman’s body on display ‘without being a total creep’? What exactly is the non-subjective criteria for that?
I wasn’t talking about adolescence. I was talking about fighting the hetero male instinct to look at your breasts, which happened during adolescence. for most of us (and is where most geeks are permanently stuck in social development. Let’s be honest. Most men don’t get beyond ‘farts are funny and boobs are awesome’).
I don’t think you should be quiet. In fact, I just think there’s more of a dialogue that needs to happen. I don’t see that in this post – but that’s understandable. You’re angry about it.
‘Just because someone is showing skin doesn’t mean they want to be gawked at like some sort of foreign creature.’ …in a vacuum.
“I would tentatively suggest, that stuffing them into a skin tight costume…is consent to look.”
You were be very wrong in that regard. Wearing anything, anything at all, is not to be taken as consent. Wearing a bikini is not an open invitation to ogle and hoot at and harass a woman. Wearing a turtleneck sweater and baggy pants isn’t, either, but no one seems to argue that.
The whole argument that “men have an instinctual need to look at a woman’s body” is not only degrading to women but to men as a whole. We’re not autonomous robots programmed to look at a pair of tits even if it makes a woman uncomfortable. We have a choice: do we make someone uncomfortable because it gives us a boner, or do we respect a woman’s right to wear what she wants and not give her a tough time about it?
So when you ask how a man can “appreciate” a woman’s body without being a creep, here’s the short answer: why do you need to do this in the first place? You don’t. You’re only looking for a way to stare at tits or an ass without revealing the gross dude you are. You honestly, truly, REALLY don’t need to “appreciate” a woman’s body by staring at it.
There doesn’t even need to be a dialogue about this, because the concerns are not on the men. Men are not at risk here: it’s women. The only dialogue that needs to happen is for women to say “stop” and for men to finally, once and for all, respect the God-given autonomy women have and leave them the hell alone.
I can’t take this seriously.I can’t … I… What? How? Women can do and say whatever they want, but men cannot. LOL. No.
And as someone who has been sexually assaulted by a woman, I regret to inform you, wrong.
Well G33KPRON, I’ve got to thank you guys for giving us a topic for this week’s Lazyreviewzzz video. We just filmed it today and even mentioned the first couple of comments that were on the site by the time we filmed. Rather than give stuff away, I’ll just say “Watch on Wednesday!”. And we’ll be including a link here so more people can read the article and keep the discussion going.
That is very terrible and I am sorry you have had to deal with that, nobody should have to be sexually assaulted by anyone ever. It’s very sad that men have to deal with the taboo of hyper-masculinity so talking about their sexual assaults is hard. Everyone, no matter their gender, should feel safe and understood when talking about their experiences with sexual assault.
That being said, I am specifically addressing sexism and sexual assault against women at conventions. Period. It is perfectly acceptable to focus on that specifically, because while men do experience sexual assault, you cannot argue that (especially in a convention environment) it is anywhere near as prevalent or rampant.
May I ask… huh? lol
I didn’t post that to invite a pity party. I posted it because it’s true, And I’m not going to pretend I don’t talk about it because of some hyper-masculinity. When it comes up, it comes up. When it doesn’t, it doesn’t. I’ve never defined my existence by that one experience, and although I felt violated at the time, I compartmentalized that to one that one person, and moved on.
Sexism and sexual assault, though linked are two different things. If you’re being sexually assaulted, that goes beyond the powers of the convention organizers and should be addressed by the authorities.
Yes – it’s far more prevalent male -> female, as opposed to my situation. But.. that’s not what this booth ban is about.
Eli runs another site that does movie, comics etc. reviews and commentary. Apparently you have provided fodder for their most recent vlog.
Hey now! Let’s all play nice. 🙂 We decided to post our TIFF-related video this week, so the video on this fine topic will have to wait till next week. It is filmed already though. So keep an eye out for it next week (but feel free to visit the site any time).
I can’t believe you called it sexist to ban the objectification of women at company booths. Even if being a booth girl is your job, it doesn’t change the reason you are being used. It doesn’t matter if you yourself like doing it and are “totally a real geek guys”! You are there ONLY to get (mainly) men to look at you and maybe they might get a little interested in what you are hired to stand infront of. That’s it. If that’s not a little sexist, I don’t know what is.
No one is stopping women from cosplaying whatever they want. The ban was enacted to prevent companies from using sex to sell their product. They also wanted to keep the con 100% family friendly. Many families would be uncomfortable taking their 10 year olds through a con full of scantily clad women. Many of these women would be promoting games said kids would be interested in. Also it is completely up to con policy to allow booth babes and also to decide how much skin is allowed to be shown. The convention hall is a privately rented space and thus up to the con heads. There’s nothing wrong with this either, consider it a dress code.
This also isn’t about “fake geeks”. Most people don’t even care how much the booth babe knows even if they even get the chance to talk. This is about companies using tits to sell games. Penny Arcade believes that using sex to sell a game instead of using the game’s own MERITS is a bad thing. I agree with them. This is a GAMING con. Let the games sell themselves.
Nailed it. The ban is a stand against the “Sex sells, so use it to sell” strategy used by everyone everywhere.
A booth babe is a sales strategy. It’s a person paid to arouse potential customers, and use that basic sexual desire brought forth by the booth babe to redirect attention to the product associated with it.
So here we have a company that has decided to disallow this strategy from use at their conventions, because they believe it is inappropriate for the attending families with young kids.
That being said, I think there’s a better solution that can be made to the rules of “booth babes”, rather than this black and white approach…but I get it.
I don’t believe a dress code is sexist. You seem to misunderstand the rule for PAX. Women are still allowed to represent products. They just need to wear more than a thong and bra. You yourself seem to acknowledge PAX as a workplace for these women. This isn’t the only place with a dress code.
A dress code can absolutely be sexist (ie: the international tennis association trying to implement a rule that forces women tennis players to wear skirts). And I personally don’t subscribe to “women should only wear this” dress codes. Offices have dress codes for everyone, not just women.
This is in no way banning the “objectification of women”. It is saying, “Hey, let’s ban too much skin on these women because people at the convention feel pandered to and uncomfortable with women’s bodies”. Period.
If you want to really do something about the “objectification of women” you would go to the root of the problem which is why anybody sees “scantily clad women” as a horrible thing. Those women all consented to be there. Working as a promotional person, I know for a FACT you can decline events you are uncomfortable with and they won’t hold it against you. Those women consented, signed contracts and agreed to appear. You don’t get to decide that they should cover up.
That con is not family friendly at all, what a fucking contradiction. Any child can walk up and see a giant Gears of War banner flying 20 feet in the sky glorifying violence, but nobody is complaining about that. I don’t give a fuck if people are “uncomfortable” with it not being a “family” event. Last time I checked, every type of video game is promoted there and a whole lot of the popular titles are M rated. Again, nobody complaining about that not being “family friendly”.
Dress codes affect every gender, not just women. In an office, men and women are instructed on certain fabrics they can’t wear, certain lengths of shorts/skirts/pants/everything. It’s enacted for both genders.
And what is PAX now, an administrative office? A Mormon family gathering? It’s an event meant to sell products, many of which exploit women considerably more than a booth babe dresses in in booty shorts does.
Banning any sort of women for ANY reason is sexist; banning exhibitor employees from wearing a certain type of dress is ABSOLUTELY sexist and uncalled for. If you read down to the rest of the article, you’d see I addressed that female cosplayers have and will continue to be kicked out for not “covering up” enough. It’s puritanical bullshit and it needs to stop now.
I’ve been going to conventions for twelve years now, I’ve racked up about 20+, I am not unaware of how large conventions are run.
Wow. The women are NOT paid to “arouse sexual desire”. Marketing and promotions girls are not sex workers, so get your facts straight. Sensuality may be a part of the ploy, but those women are hired to promote products, period.
And last time I checked, “booth babes” weren’t approaching ten-year-old boys and seducing them. Conventions are not puritanical, religious safe spaces for children and fundamentalist Baptists. They’re venues for people to sell their shit. Period. PAX isn’t a fan run convention, it’s massively corporate and will continue to be.
Oh, and on top of everything else, Penny Arcade is NOT a “family safe” website or comic. Give me a break.
Excuse you? I am not “pitying” you. I am a CSA and date rape survivor, I’m showing you this little thing called “sympathy” because I’ve been there before.
Okay then.