What about toilet cleaners at exhibitions they are objectified as
sanitation machines.
Booth babes know they are being objectified and get paid well to be
objectified.
Many men like to look at sexually attractive women which is very natural.
Booth babes can be great for promotions.
Nice thing about bitcoin is you can set up a company anonymously and if you
do that as women you know that there will be absolutely no discrimination
against you.
Satoshi maybe a black Serbian lesbian for all we know.

On Thursday, 30 January 2014, Aimee Maree <aimee@???> wrote:

> When performing surveys it is one of the number 1 reasons women don't
> attend tech conferences... So diversity is affected
>
> So booth babes are not about allowing women to be women it's about
> objectification which is wrong for men women and children oh and by the way
> those who are born with multi genders or a-sexual and animals etc we need
> to allow people to be themselves but we also need to allow minorities to
> feel comfortable if we are ever to change the rule of White Anglo men...
>
> So if you want sex you go to a sex shop that's all cool I'm fine with that
> I would like to see unions set up for prostitues personally however if I
> attend a tech conference I'm there for other reasons just like when I go to
> an underground party or when I attend a trans gender meet-up etc etc see my
> point here is horses for courses in regards to the booth babes
>
> Anyway these are just some points no way are they saying change your mind
> but just hey this is what the people who attend your conferences say and I
> personally would never attend a conference with a booth babe I have had
> enough problems being a technical women in IT let alone to be in a room
> where my gender is subjectified. So you can have your booth babes but a
> high number of women won't be at your conferences and you will sending a
> message to young girls sorry in IT your still seen as a joke!
>
>
> Anyways just some thoughts?
>
> On 30 Jan 2014, at 1:38 pm, Robert Jakob <rsjakob@???> wrote:
>
> That being said, there is a point to be made. I think "booth babes" are
> rather harmless. That kind of superficial lust can snowball into worse
> things like prostitution, sexual slaver, child marriages, etc... It's like
> the symptom of a deeper sickness. However, when you start down that path
> of dictating how a person should live, or act, or dress, or what kind of
> personality they should have, it becomes a slippery slope. It becomes a
> new disease. The whole reason we are all anti-establishment in the first
> place. If you infringe on another's right to be free and express
> themselves in any way that makes them happy, you become the oppressor.
>
> So I do agree with both sides of the argument. I abhor the
> objectification of human beings, and the superficial, and the
> materialistic, but I also believe free-will is the most fundamental human
> right.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Anthony D'Onofrio <iamtexture@???>wrote:
>
> Yes, obviously what I wrote was equivalent to calling Amir a whore and
> getting
> a group of people to ignorantly nod their heads in agreement.
>
> Anyway...
>
> Based on the overwhelming ridiculous response by everyone here today -
> this
> group is obviously not what I thought it was. Good luck with your
> lynchings.
>
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:09 PM, Robert Jakob wrote:
>
> And condemning someone for their opinions is just as judgmental and
> hypocritical.
> On Jan 29, 2014 7:50 PM, "Anthony D'Onofrio" <iamtexture@???> wrote:
>
> You didn't attack "culture". You attacked people. You didn't call culture a
> whore, you called actual people whores. People you don't know and who
> you have generalized about. You are spoken about as a genius and a
> visionary. Forgive me if I hold you to a standard you are not prepared to
> meet.
>
> If you hate your own nature then feel free to hate it. But we are all human
> and subject to the follies that come with that. Our individual
> circumstances
> are rolls of the dice. Calling someone a whore because she does not fit
> into
> the cultural stereotype you wish to prevail seems unnecessary.
>
> So what if you can get a few people to agree with you or a few women to
> back
> you because they feel the same way? A mob may be right insomuch as it may
> destroy all opposition, but that does not imply actual truth. Are
> beautiful women
> who aren't really very intelligent and end up in a circumstance where they
> are
> compelled to be a "booth babe" really to be hated so deeply? They can
> hardly
> be one of the primary threats to global peace and human unity.
>
> To me it seems apparent that the real enemy is fear and the actions that we
> commit out of fear - murder, violence, war, and lynching - verbal or
> physical.
> If we're going to claim some moral superiority then we should be prepared
> to
> live up to it. "I'm smart and you're dumb, so fuck you!" isn't really a
> great
> argument.
>
> If I am born smart does that make me virtuous? No.
> If I am born with less intelligence does that ensure my worthlessness? No.
>
> Some people are born beautiful, some aren't. Some are born intelligent,
> some
> aren't. Some are neither beautiful nor intelligent, and some are beautiful
> and
> intelligent. What does it matter? These are all rolls of the dice. Can we
> in good
> conscience hate based on race or gender? I think not. So why based on other
> arbitrary metrics do we consider it okay? Do you really feel like you have
> liberated yourself from the chains of your history? Have you overcome
> yourself,
> your relationship to your family, your ethnicity, and your intelligence to
> find
> yourself resting in a place of peace and lucidity so that you may move
> only with
> conscious volition? It seems the answer to that question is obvious.
>
> If you can't - with all your brains and superiority. Then what chance do
> these
> people you look down upon have? With genius comes power and with power
> responsibility. You may see t
>
>