Hear That Noise? That’s Violet Blue Back-Pedalling… ⇥

Shawn King:

Again, Blue’s attempt at redefinition of the term notwithstanding, the term “Booth Babe” has always been used to refer to scantily clad women used to lure people into a trade show booth. I’ve never heard anyone ever claim anything different. Until now.

While King doesn’t quote the revision Violet Blue added to her crass article on ZDNet, it shows a clearly idiotic attempt at back-pedalling:

“Booth babe” is a job description. Some people (none of whom are booth babes) seem to think the term indicates a gendered insult.

It isn’t an insult—it’s just a pejorative, demeaning description of what many consider to be a blatant attempt at sexualised marketing where it isn’t even relevant. It’s an Apple-related trade show, not AVN.

I have no problem with booth babes and women that want to be sexy in tech […]

She’s a developer, not a “booth babe”. Why is this so difficult?

[…] – unless they don’t know anything about their products or are unapproachable. The problem I have is with booth babe culture is the way men treat them, and the way men see and define booth babes.

You saw, defined and treated a non-booth babe in the way that you claim to despise.

This article is impressionistic, and not review or investigative.

As King put it in his article, someone on Twitter who wasn’t even at Macworld was able to find out who she is.

As it happens, the woman described in the beginning of this article was one many thought was a hired model in a sea of hired models.

Many? Again, as King points out, you were the only one.

She was, in fact, the unhappiest looking female company rep at Macworld. After that, how you view booth babes is up to you.

She isn’t a booth babe.