back to article Palo Alto Networks execs apologize for 'hostesses' dressed as lamps at Black Hat booth

If you attended the Black Hat conference in Vegas last week and found yourself over in Palo Alto Networks' corner of the event, you may have encountered a marketing gimmick that has since been heavily criticized for misogyny. Security architect Sean Juroviesky's LinkedIn post and accompanying image, which was subsequently …

  1. IamAProton

    I assume that they were expecting to get some flak for this, so I'd say the goal was most likely to be on the news.

    I guess writing news about this 'incident' is the opposite of what should be done.

    On the other end, if the lamps were impersonated by 2 men wearing a suite nobody would have said a word.

    If their audience is mainly male, the same 2 ladies without lampshade would have worked perfectly fine to greet/attract guests, hence I go back to my opening line.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I am not surprised but am so tired of meaningless apologies.

      Ultimately, I have to agree that this was *no surprise* !!!

      We appear to be heading backwards towards the attitudes of the 70's ... was *not good* then and is still *not good* now !!!

      This is driven, to a point, by the acceptance of the attitude that anything can be excused by saying 'sorry, we made a boo boo !!!'

      Insincere apologies mean literally nothing, particularly when the apology is on behalf of a corporate entity !!!

      Some things cannot be apologised for, the hurt and pain is a done deed and cannot be clawed back by 'Oops Sorry !!!'.

      This is particularly true when the 'Boo boo' was blindingly obvious and allowed because 'we can simply apologise later'

      :)

      1. A.A.Hamilton

        Re: I am not surprised but am so tired of meaningless apologies.

        15 x ! in one post - must be a record, even for El Reg, surely?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I am not surprised but am so tired of meaningless apologies.

        Insincere apologies mean literally nothing, particularly when the apology is on behalf of a corporate entity !!!

        Money is the sincerest form of apology for a corporate entity. Effective immediately, every woman employed by them gets a salary bump to 20% more than every male coworker at the same job. Note 1: the men's pay would be unaffected. Note 2: how many men would suddenly feel themselves hard done by if this happened? Oooooh, welcome to situation normal for your female coworkers. Now go get me a coffee, luv.

        1. lidgaca-2
          Coat

          Re: I am not surprised but am so tired of meaningless apologies.

          Basic template for a modern apology ...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDrZpuGp6aA

          -- Chris

    2. Korev Silver badge
      Coat

      > On the other end, if the lamps were impersonated by 2 men wearing a suite nobody would have said a word.

      Well, you wouldn't be able to see them under the sofa...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Hopefully JD Vance wasn't at the conference.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Sofa so good!

      2. Efer Brick

        That's on way to couch it

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      >On the other end, if the lamps were impersonated by 2 men wearing a suite nobody would have said a word.

      Not sure they would have worn a full suite

      Best would have been a pair of Uncle Festors - with the bulbs in their mouths

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        "Best would have been a pair of Uncle Festors - with the bulbs in their mouths"

        That would be epic. I'll have to file the serial numbers off of that one and keep it in the filing cabinet.

      2. IamAProton

        Suit, not suite, i know the difference :)

        What I do not know is how to edit the post, so I left it alone and waited for comments :)

        1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
          Happy

          You get 10 mins edit time after posting (If you are a badge holder IIRC).

    4. jfw25

      > On the other end, if the lamps were impersonated by 2 men wearing a suite nobody would have said a word.

      To quote the excellent documentary "Spinal Tap", on a surprisingly related subject:

      There's a fine line between clever and stupid...

    5. An_Old_Dog Silver badge

      "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

      I found the lampshade thing very offputting.

      By what I've been reading, everyone has been assuming the models were women. How do they know those were women? I work with a trans who looks fully female. And, I've seen men with body mods (breast and lip enlargements) who (visually) achieved only a jarring, "neither fish nor fowl" look.

      But we don't know for certain here. Our only indication is our (possibly-erronious) extrapolation from the company's quasi-apology.

      1. IglooDame

        Re: "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

        "I work with a trans"

        A trans woman, or a trans man?

        1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

          Re: "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

          More like a transmission, to judge by the stick playing comment.

        2. mistersaxon

          Re: "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

          The word you are grasping for is "person", though they seem to female-presenting at this life stage, judging by the comment. Only way to be sure of what they want / intend would be to ask them, which the previous poster doesn't seem to have done (or shared here anyway).

          1. Snowy Silver badge
            Coat

            Re: "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

            I'm not sure you can ask them without them being offended?

            1. Snowy Silver badge
              Coat

              Re: "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

              Why the down votes?, which part did I get wrong?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

                @ Snowy: I think there are some griefers cruising these forums.

        3. JamesTGrant Bronze badge

          Re: "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

          am

          (Like KIT)

        4. An_Old_Dog Silver badge

          Re: "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

          A man who was transgendered into a woman.

          My sub-point is that the visual-fidelity of the results of the transgendering process varies wildly from case to case.

          1. katrinab Silver badge
            Megaphone

            Re: "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

            You mean a woman.

            1. An_Old_Dog Silver badge

              New Words Needed [was: "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

              What I meant was, "A person who had the visual appearance of a man, transformed into a person who then had the visual appearance of a woman, regardless of how their brain was wired."

              I think the English language needs some new words so we can talk about this in a sufficiently-brief manner, without causing confusion or giving offence. Perhaps there are such words, of which I'm unaware.

              The English words "man", and "woman", conflate a person's physical appearance with their internal brain wiring.

      2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        Re: "Dude Looks Like a Lady"

        Yup, whole lotta cisnormativity here. Moral: don't judge gender by appearance.

    6. martinusher Silver badge

      Not the 70s, that sort of thing went out with the Mad Men era., late 50s into the first part of the 60s.

    7. TG2.2

      > If their audience is mainly male, the same 2 ladies without lampshade would have worked perfectly fine to greet/attract guests

      Disagree ... It would have been the same scene, same sexualization and Sean Juroviesky would have just as likely posted that PA was using sexualization (women in tight clothing) as the attractant.

      The way this could have been different .. get body builders (men and women) the idea being paloalto strong ... special t-shirts with words and symbols for strong security ... at least in that sense they would be really performing some form of marketing .. but this, lampshade or not says nothing in marketing PA for what it stands for .. and especially for the lampshade, that was the only way to put PaloAlto on something ...

      Another marketing option since this was a more upscale event ... 4 or more people, 50/50 representation of women and men, all dressed as spy vs spy, also 50/50 of male/female white spy or black spy, ... classic character images, they are in suits, etc..

      What they could have done for "lampshades" would have been classic sconces, or to trash it up, replicas of the leg lamp from A Christmas Story ..

      The end run of this, the person that proposed this should be fired, the person that approved this kind of stupidity should also be fired. The only decent thing to do is fire them, maybe not disclose exactly who they are, because the firing would be a great lesson learned, or so we'd hope .. in their next job (assuming staying within their field) hell ... the whole marketing team in that meeting that wanted to use sexualization this way could be on the chopping block.

      1. Alan_Peery

        It wouldn't have been the same sexualization -- because it would be lacking the depersonalization from the lampshades.

        Not really keen on either approach, but the lampshades clearly made it worse.

      2. martinusher Silver badge

        Although this is weird, its a bit like using suitably dressed peasants as living statues at your garden party (yes, its a real thing) this "Off With Their Heads" mindset is far more objectionable IMO.

        It turns up a lot these days. Someone culturally transgresses and instead of just dumping on them to get them to see the error of their ways we've got to go full pillory on them, on in Victorian terms, 'ruin' them by depriving them of their job, their career and so on.

    8. MachDiamond Silver badge

      "If their audience is mainly male, the same 2 ladies without lampshade would have worked perfectly fine to greet/attract guests, hence I go back to my opening line."

      The derogatory term is "booth bimbo".

      Every trade show everywhere has booths with attractive ladies. Not every booth, not every company, but enough that it stands out. They'll also hire scantily clad women your mother would not approve of to hand out flyers and other marketing faff.

      News? No. It's "olds". Nothing to see here, move along.

      1. Korev Silver badge

        > Nothing to see here, move along.

        If everyone just ignored it then the companies would realise they're wasting money and then find some other way to draw in the punters.

        The fact this has worldwide attention means that having "Booth babes" actually worked...

        1. Sherrie Ludwig

          The fact this has worldwide attention means that having "Booth babes" actually worked...

          Yep, as a spectacularly stupid batch of gits to avoid at all costs.

    9. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Las Vagas Event Organizer

      The Champagne Creative Group, a Las Vegas based event organizer company, has the lamp shade models as one of their standard offerings. That's who Palo Alto hired.

      https://www.champagnecreativegroup.com/nightlife

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32NBCTJaB9g

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Las Vagas Event Organizer

        To boot, it's a small, woman co-owned event business. Their staff appears to be all women. Probably cocktail waitresses working a side hustle. If you've been to Vegas, this is not out of the ordinary. The lampshade idea was originally conceived by The Cosmopolitan, as part of it's "funky art/fashion" motif.

        The real culprit here is mega-company/conference outsourcing of "creativity" to vendors. Granted, you sometimes need a local group that knows venues, load-in/load-out, just to pull something off. The old days of sneaking people (and liquor) via crates into SEMICON are long past. But it does lead to loss of control and "caring". Just write a big check! The PANW staff probably just walked in, eyes glazed over from a dozen other confab events/meetings about events, and barely noticed.

        Sexism? Nah. Never seen lampshades be a "sex symbol". Objectification? Barely...but all hired "hosts" are to some degree.

        If anything, I have to feel for the small business/creative group, and hope they can carry on. It is hard work!

    10. sedregj
      Windows

      "If their audience is mainly male, the same 2 ladies without lampshade would have worked perfectly fine to greet/attract guests, hence I go back to my opening line."

      I have been to a few lampshade parties - they are not just for girls.

      However, this is quite obviously sexist wankery. If you can't see that then ... well ... get a grip.

      It is quite obviously objectifying some women and then stuffing a lampshade on their heads, so obscuring their faces, and hence anonymizing them too. You might play silly buggers at a fancy dress party but this is a multi billion corporate portraying their attitudes.

      Palo Alto are obviously criminally sexist, from stem to stern.

      Criminally ...

      1. the spectacularly refined chap Silver badge

        It's bad taste but if you assert criminal then you have to be able to cite a criminal law that has been broken. I can't see one so that is mere hyperbole.

        Personally I don't see an issue with the lampshades, in my mind that is within the remit of an "art installation". If these were men in business suits there would be no fuss, but they are not, they are women in evening wear.

        The neckline isn't too bad, that "window" exposing the cleavage is questionable but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. That thigh high slit in the skirt, sorry no, that would not be acceptable in the office so nor should it be at a trade show.

  2. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

    "tone deaf marketing"

    No surprise here, except for being honest about it. > 90% of every marketing seem to be tone deaf. And the 10%, they exist, but LOUD is obviously more important.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "tone deaf marketing"

      The problem with marketing is that it's right 50% of the time. You just don't know which 50%

      1. Jim Whitaker

        Re: "tone deaf marketing"

        As much as 50%? You are very generous. I always heard "98% of advertising spend is wasted, the trick is to find that 2%."

        1. mevets

          Re: "tone deaf marketing"

          Convincing people that ads don't work on them is job one in advertising.

          If people believed advertising was effective, it wouldn't be.

    2. Antron Argaiv Silver badge

      Re: "tone deaf marketing"

      They used to be called "Demo Dollies".

      Reminds me of the leg lamp from Christmas Story.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "tone deaf marketing"

        Had they been standing on one leg, I doubt this would have got as much attention.

        I'm with you though, my immediate thought went to A Christmas Story.

        1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
          Pirate

          Re: "tone deaf marketing"

          As a Ex-Pat Brit in Canada, that's a film whose DVD\VHS cover has invoked such feelings of overtly saccharin sweetness of (50's?) North American life that it has killed any desire to watch it.

    3. hedgie Bronze badge

      Re: "tone deaf marketing"

      Not just tone deaf, but so much marketing these days seems frightfully dystopian, whether it's human furnishings that echo "Soylent Green", Faecesbook rebranding based on a dystopian novel, or Apple's crushing creativity into an iPad advert.

  3. mostly average
    Gimp

    Any publicity...

    Since everyone's talking about it, it seems the gimmick worked. Any publicity is good publicity they say.

    Icon because BDSM. There's a kink for everything, even indoor lighting, I guess.

    1. tonique
      Joke

      Re: Any publicity...

      They clearly thought that it would be a bright idea.

      1. mostly average
        Pint

        Re: Any publicity...

        A pint for Dad.

    2. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Any publicity...

      Are you trying to throw shade on them?

    3. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Any publicity...

      "There's a kink for everything, even indoor lighting, I guess."

      There doesn't seem to be any hits for "indoor lighting" on Pornhub that are relevant. Must be a kink with a single digit number of adherents.

      1. RT Harrison

        Re: Any publicity...

        The corollary to Rule 34 is that if there isn't pr0n of it there soon will be.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Any publicity...

        It’s objectophilia. Pornhub mainly focusses on giant penises spewing globs of semen over anything going. Doubtful a man sitting on a a woman pretending to be a chair will get many hits.

    4. Snake Silver badge

      Re: There's a kink for everything

      which is why Rule 34 exists! "I'll take that kink for a dollar!" :p

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And I suppose the women were coerced?

    Wokeness gone nuts. Still, no such thing as bad press.

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

      I think it's more about the concern of portraying women as window dressing at a trade show. It's weird.

      C.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

        There's no "portraying of women" going on. These are two women hired to stand around in full-body lace wearing a branded lampshade for hat. A face-covering hat, but anyway. Presumably these are "professional hostesses" who don't mind being paid for standing around and looking pretty. Whether that's like this or wearing skin-tight spandex with a sponsor's name all over, or whatever. As long as the paycheck is good, they don't mind. So it's not the women themselves who have or are the problem. So it's something else.

        And that something else is that this lampshade-hanging contravenes quite explicitly the message that we're not supposed to objectify women. "Look! Covered face! Equals object!" So we have a conference full of insecure males (why else obsess about "computer security" to the point of day job?) who get confused, and angry about the confusion. Then there's the people with the political agenda that tells them to "stand up for the oppressed" and boy, does this look nicely oppressed. But it only looks that way. The women could've said "no thanks" and looked for a paycheck elsewhere, no? Plenty more vendors looking to spice up their booths a bit. So I'm guessing the "tone deaf" line was rehearsed well in advance, along with a number of others. If so, the conference just got played, and their number taken.

        1. Tomato42

          Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

          I'm all for women's rights. If they are forced to do stuff like this, without prior consent, then it's bad. But if they are able to hire women to do it, and those women have no problem with doing it, where exactly is the problem?

          That sexy women can't be people that think and make choices for themselves? That they need to be protected from making "bad" choices? How's that empowering, exactly?

          1. isdnip

            Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

            The point is not that they are oppressing the paid demo dollies. The point is that demo dollies represent an objectification of women, as decorative, while in contrast the bros do the serious stuff. I can't imagine that PAN sponsored this event without knowing about this, either. Some bro just thought it would be cool to have a warm-blooded personification of Jean Shepherd's fictional leg lamp.

            1. MachDiamond Silver badge

              Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

              "The point is that demo dollies represent an objectification of women, as decorative, while in contrast the bros do the serious stuff. "

              Naw, it was the blue tint of the lighting that hinted at a necrophilia sort of thing. Ewww.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

              I have a great idea, just listen to me, OK. Let's make some laws that forbid women to work in any kind of job that might objectify them. You know, like hooker, dancer, waitress, stewardess, housekeeper, nurse, etc.

              /sarcasm

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

              perhaps they just want to acknowledge the light women shine on our lives?

              a source of ideas?

              amazed/smfh this creates such a stir. some peoples' sensitivities are a bit...

              frah-jeel-ay

              (I'll refrain from remarks about the CISo's linkedin clickbait)

          2. Cliffwilliams44 Silver badge

            Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

            As a man who's been married to a beautiful woman for 37 years I can speak from experience.

            The majority of the women (and the men for that matter) that complain about these things would never be asked to do something like this because they are butt ugly!

            It infuriates me that these skanks are so quick to push the narrative that "No, you cannot have that job and earn a living because it makes "me" feel uncomfortable (and inadequate)!

            I knew a young woman back in the day who worked for one of my customers, know what her entire job description was? Sit at the front desk, answer the main phone (most calls went direct) and look pretty and be nice to my customers clients. She got paid quite well to do that!

            1. JustAnotherITPerson

              Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

              Okay boomer, it's time to take your morning nap.

              Thankfully, people like you are retiring; the world will be a better place when we no longer have to deal with your sense of insecurity and entitlement.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                That's some grade-A projection you got there, kid.

                Man's been married longer than you've been alive and so knows what it takes to keep and please her. He's not going to be insecure or entitled. He knows what it takes. And you? All you can offer is "okay boomer". At some point you'll find that this won't cut the mustard. Where are you going to get your life lessons then, tiktok?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: That's some grade-A projection you got there, kid.

                  It's got nothing to do with what it takes to please and keep his wife, it's about what it takes to make sure women are generally comfortable working in the industry.

                  In an industry that still has a serious issue with men putting their hands on women without consent, particularly at conferences, having an exhibitor objectify women just aint it. The life lessons you're referring to come from looking at the mistakes made by Boomers, those who came before them and large swathes of more recent generations.

                  The previous poster's right - the attitude of the entire industry gets better off as people with those "qualities" retire.

                  > All you can offer is "okay boomer"

                  At the risk of speaking for the other poster

                  You've fully misunderstood the meaning and purpose of the phrase OK boomer.

                  It's not "I have nothing else to offer", it's "I'm not going to waste my time explaining this to because it benefits neither of us - you're not going to change".

                  When someone says "Okay boomer" it usually means you've just uttered something so cliche or outdated that you've been mentally written off. It's not our responsibility to help you understand.

                  In the case of the earlier post, there's a very good chance it was triggered by this

                  > The majority of the women (and the men for that matter) that complain about these things would never be asked to do something like this because they are butt ugly!

                  Even without the issues in the rest of the post, that sentence is derogatory, close minded and, frankly, not even close to being accurate anyway. They talk about being married for 37 years but say things like a 12 year old.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: That's some grade-A projection you got there, kid.

                    "It's got nothing to do with what it takes to please and keep his wife,"

                    It does, actually. "It" being "your sense of insecurity and entitlement." So points off for misreading.

                    "it's about what it takes to make sure women are generally comfortable working in the industry."

                    Safe space demand snuck in. Check. Notice that we're talking about a conference, not the office where the work gets done. Or the remote home office. Lots of that going on in this industry, too.

                    "In an industry that still has a serious issue with men putting their hands on women without consent, particularly at conferences, having an exhibitor objectify women just aint it."

                    I'm not quite sure what issue the industry has with this, since it's a small clique of fat ugly bitches (m/f) with unnatural hair colours that keeps on claiming there's problems. The rest of the industry? Probably too busy getting work done. Where's the revolt from the women that allegedly get problematically pawed? You'd almost think the real issue is people wishing they would be pawed getting huffy they aren't. Well, that's not how to get some. It's also not how to deal with actual problems. So on all sides: This shoutfest habit is no way to solve anything.

                    "The life lessons you're referring to come from looking at the mistakes made by Boomers, those who came before them and large swathes of more recent generations."

                    As found on tiktok, eh.

                    "The previous poster's right - the attitude of the entire industry gets better off as people with those "qualities" retire."

                    Given that the cyber security industry is a young'un and thus has very few actual boomers in it to begin with, this doesn't seem too likely.

                    "> All you can offer is "okay boomer"

                    At the risk of speaking for the other poster"

                    Curious how you're caring for that risk selectively.

                    "You've fully misunderstood the meaning and purpose of the phrase OK boomer.

                    It's not "I have nothing else to offer", it's "I'm not going to waste my time explaining this to because it benefits neither of us - you're not going to change"."

                    I'm seeing assumption upon assumption ending with an "I can't even!"

                    But you haven't even tried to explain, or to argue. And that's because you have nothing to explain, or to argue with. A lot to complain about, sure. But making this brave new world of yours actually work for everyone? No, not even for you and your own clique. The in-fighting gets deafening at times. The rest of us can just watch, because you're too loud to listen to anyone else and you're not even listening to your own. Shouting each other down, yes. Listening, no.

                    "When someone says "Okay boomer" it usually means you've just uttered something so cliche or outdated that you've been mentally written off. It's not our responsibility to help you understand."

                    In old world parlance this is spelled "arrogance". You don't write off people. Well, the rest of us try very hard not to. You start with it, then complain it's everyone else's fault you couldn't do anything else. Again, you haven't even tried. Wasted a lot of words blaming boomers for your failure, but not actually tried.

                    "In the case of the earlier post, there's a very good chance it was triggered by this"

                    Triggered! Oh noes!

                    "> The majority of the women (and the men for that matter) that complain about these things would never be asked to do something like this because they are butt ugly!

                    Even without the issues in the rest of the post, that sentence is derogatory, close minded and, frankly, not even close to being accurate anyway. They talk about being married for 37 years but say things like a 12 year old."

                    A good bit of character assassination, but without substance. A lot of labels, but no argument why they would apply.

                    Because you can't, because you run on thought-stopping cliches, not on actual thought. And that's why you "can't even". There's no thought.

                    1. YetAnotherLocksmith Silver badge

                      Did anyone bother to read that guff?

                      N/T

                      1. spacecadet66 Bronze badge

                        Re: Did anyone bother to read that guff?

                        I skimmed it. Apparently the problem is "fat ugly bitches", not misogyny, so I guess that's fine.

                      2. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Did anyone bother to read that guff?

                        As the person being replied to, I started - then I hit the bit that complained it's the fault of "fat ugly bitches", said "OK Boomer" and stopped reading.

                        I did pick up, as I scrolled past, that they think there are no boomers in the cybersecurity industry, on the basis that it's a relatively recent thing. Which, shows that they've not the first clue about the industry they're gobbing off about.

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: That's some grade-A projection you got there, kid.

                      OK Boomer

                  2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

                    Re: That's some grade-A projection you got there, kid.

                    They weren't objectifying women; they were womanfying objects. Does Thomas the Tank Engine objectify men?

            2. spacecadet66 Bronze badge

              Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

              Claims misogyny is not the problem, goes on to lay it at the feet of "skanks", claims it's fine because he's been married for 37 years and also "back in the day" people did that. I'm endorsing "ok boomer" on this one.

        2. bigphil9009

          Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

          It doesn't have anything to do with the women who are dressed up - as you say, they are probably happy to take the job and get paid for it.

          The issue is that you have a group of people who are under-represented in the cyber-security field. That group of people being women. Now, let's say you have the ambition to increase the number of women in the field, because you have decided that this is a good thing, to bring in fresh perspectives, to train and develop skills in that area, to improve their lives. All pretty admirable stuff. Now, the women that you are trying to encourage into this male-dominated space suddenly see that the only other women in the room are there purely for decoration - the message is, women are to be employed solely for their looks and bodies, not for what they bring to the space. Anyone can see that this is a massive own-goal.

          Now, you may disagree that it is a worthy ambition to bring more women into this space, and you are free to do so. If you do disagree, I'd be very interested in hearing your reasons why - genuinely.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Since you asked

            I don't think that there's much righting of "under-representation" to be done. Not even so much because the motivation is political, which I'll skip, but because of the underlying assumption that there is under-representation. In the case of "women", well, about fifty percent of us are female so the balanced goal would be about that, no? No, not so. Not all groups are equally interested in all sorts of jobs.

            Quick reverse-example: Go and try and "right the imbalance" in child daycare. That won't work, simply not enough males willing to wipe baby bottoms. Next to an unwillingness of wider society to let them. It's not universal, but it's there. So people have inclinations and some of those correlate (sometimes weakly, sometimes more strongly, and note well I'm not saying "causate"; mere correlate is enough for this argument) with certain people groupings. In this case, women tend to be more oriented on people and relationships, so there's relatively few willing to dive deeply into the dry minutiae of layers and piles of broken code, bugs and holes and the whole zoo of exploit typology.

            I'm not against women wanting to get into this game. But I don't think it's a worthy goal to try and lure them in. In fact, I heard an anecdote of someone studying CS and coming back a few years later to help teach. The faculty had sized up tenfold. But, he observed, the the absolute number of people with genuine talent had stayed about the same. Which intuits me that real talent is scarce and has no trouble going where it wants to. So I'm not sold on the idea that "giving the wrong example" is going to be strongly detrimental to attract more women of real talent for this sort of job.

            Scare quotes because one function that more often sees women filling the position is "eye candy". This is usually quite obvious so how someone doing a wildly different job is going to deter technically-inclined people from getting in on the technical game is a bit beyond me. It's again a politically-employed narrative that probably needs empyrical corroboration and then study into the mechanics at play, rather than storms in teacups.

            If your focus is on whether the hostess wears a lampshade you weren't focused on the code in the first place. Which is not to say that wearing lampshades is a good idea, just that it's a poor yardstick for your career choice. The wisdom of stuffing the field with the untalented and uninterested isn't clear to me either, claimed dire need to fill seats or no.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

            Ahem, only a dumb person would think those lamps are anything but hired entertainers.

          3. Tomato42

            Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

            the issue is the stereotype of "pretty == dumb" and "pretty in position of power == sleeps around", that stuff is damaging, not the fact that there are booth babes at shows

            but being outraged at booth babes is the easy pat yourself on the back for the white knights, so that's what's being done, not addressing the real problem

        3. JustAnotherITPerson

          Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

          "why else obsess about "computer security" to the point of day job?"

          Tell us you don't work in IT without telling us you don't work in IT. Lol.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Yeah except no: Obvious bs.

          "[W]e're not supposed to objectify women"

          Man: "What do you bring to the table?"

          Woman: "I AM THE TABLE!"

          They do a fine job of objectifying themselves when it suits their purposes. AC, because.

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

        "I think it's more about the concern of portraying women as window dressing at a trade show. It's weird."

        Come on, you've been to a few trade shows. In comparison to some, this is extremely tame.

    2. spacecadet66 Bronze badge

      Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

      Or you could go back and read the actual reasons people objected to this, but that's a lot harder than just yelling "wokeness" and walking away smugly.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

        I did and ... yeah. The women are models who would have been paid and happy to do it. You see this stuff all the time. If I see some shirtless buff guys doing some kind of marketing, I don't get offended. We live in a very strange world of late. And to top it off ... it's VEGAS for crying out loud. I dread to think how these poor people reacted to what was out on the strip!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

      One day I would like someone to explain what 'wokeness' is !!!

      It appears to be a general purpose insult to dismiss someones view simply because you disagree !!!

      P.S. There is such a thing as 'Bad Press' ... just when it hits you are usually too slow to get your side of the argument reported on !!!

      Think Ratners in the UK !!!

      :)

      1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

        Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

        As a starter for 10 how about 'wokeness' is Political Correctness gone mad and the ability to take offence on others behalf.

      2. desht

        Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

        I think in this case, "woke" means "not a mysoginist creep who crawled out of the 1950's".

      3. Ben Tasker

        Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

        Woke: to not be a racist or otherwise bigoted prick

        Source: look at the people who complain about it

      4. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

        Wokeness is anything the Daily Mail doesn't like. This includes feminists, foreigners, Muslims, Jews (unless they are killing Muslims), socialists, liberals, one nation Conservatives, Scottish nationalists, refugees, Welsh nationalists, greens, climate scientists, gay people, trans people, trades unionists, benefit recipients (except pensioners), black people, brown people, yellow people, French people, teenagers and, above all, Meghan Markle.

    4. desht

      Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

      It's creepy and weird, and if you think it's fine, then so are you. Not surprised you posted as AC.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

        “It's creepy and weird, and if you think it's fine, then so are you. Not surprised you posted as AC.”

        I always post as AC, nothing new there. Mostly on technical threads.

        It’s a bit weird, I agree. But put the same “installation” in the Tate Modern and people would be cooing over how artistic and blah blah blah it is.

        It’s two people dressed as lamps, in Vegas. It shouldn’t even be a story.

    5. YetAnotherLocksmith Silver badge

      Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

      They've gone all the way to Vegas and the hotel, then they get given those dresses and head gear. Are they really going to then say no, get fired on the spot, and lose a small fortune?

      So they take the discomfort and think of the money. It's a subtle coercion.

      1. gauge symmetry

        Re: And I suppose the women were coerced?

        'So they take the discomfort and think of the money. It's a subtle coercion.'

        Isn't that true of EVERY JOB EVER?

        Seriously though, the generation (Z?) that proclaims sex work is work (especially trans sex work apparently) has a fit over professional models dressed as lamps... I must be old as I can't seem to keep up with modern logic!

  5. Khaptain Silver badge

    When will oxygen become offensive ?

    Why do some people seemingly take offense at almost anything and everything they see ?

    If they truly don't like society why don't they simply go and live as the Amish do, away from society, independent and autonomous ( almost), there is absolutely nothing stopping them.

    1. Bendacious Silver badge

      Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

      Sounds like you don't want to live in a fair and equal society. Might be time for you to leave. You are on the wrong side of history Khaptain.

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

        "Sounds like you don't want to live in a fair and equal society."

        Define fair and equal in a coherent manner and then I will explain to you how we are already there.

        What you don't want is a meritocracy whereby you have to actually do hard work in order to earn your life..

        Margret Thatcher phrased it nicely “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

        1. DS999 Silver badge

          Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

          If you think pushing anti "woke" and banning all "DEI" will make the business world a meritocracy, you're probably dumb enough to believe that it was a meritocracy until the day the first DEI policies were put into place.

          There were overwhelmingly white men in positions of power in the corporate world. You can bleat all you want that that's because they were the most qualified, but that's bullshit. A ivy league fraternity brother of the CEO calls him and says "hey my son is looking for finance jobs and has applied to your company, can you put in a good word with your CFO" and suddenly the son gets the job over others, regardless of whether those others were more qualified. Closet racists/sexists with hiring power kept companies whiter and more male than the world around them, or even the lower rungs of the corporate ladder, because their biases.

          But go ahead and bleat about woke and DEI. When someone calls Kamala Harris a "DEI hire", they are telling the world they're a racist, that they believe a black woman by definition can't be qualified to be the California AG, or the Vice President of the United States.

          1. Khaptain Silver badge

            Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

            Everyday I am learning a little more about how DEI is not working and that is is effectively creating a larger divide than we have ever seen.

            DEI at its base is just another ideology that will fail, why, simply because we are all biased towards ourselves firstly and our families secondly and this is true for the entire humankind. The problem with people like yourself blis that you bring race into the equation in order to hide the actual facts. Like most woke things you try to confuse simple issues by using abstract ideas.

            The black and and Asian people at my work detest the idea of DEI. I am in a worlplace where we talk openly. And we have seen the only people that seem to want DEI are the white middle class, why is that ? Please provide evidence is where you have seen DEI produce something positive, for all

            All you just did was rant the standard woke bile that people are now starting to truly hate. The wall of woke is falling and everyone will soon go back to living without all that hate that you people stirred up for nothing.

            1. Khaptain Silver badge

              Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

              Just ask yourself this question: How many of the woke people "actually" give up any of their creature comforts for others. How many will manifest and shout and cry on the streets for equality during the day only to return to their nice suburban comfortable homes in the evening. How many will become the managers and business leaders of tomorrow and benefit gratefully from the system that they pretend to hate.

              It's basically a repeat of the hippies, they too were educated people that ranted on about freedom/rights/injustice etc and yet many of them today are now in the positions of power that they so much hated ( And now that they are in those positions they prefer to change nothing because that would mean losing their comforts...

          2. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

            "that they believe a black woman by definition can't be qualified to be the California AG, or the Vice President of the United States."

            Oh please. The word-salad speeches and frightening cackle just hint at the WTF layers. I know a few black women (and Kamala's ancestry is more Indian according to some comments) that have the intelligence, education and demeanor to make a good President, but they're also to smart to dive in that cesspool.

            1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

              >and Kamala's ancestry is more Indian according to some comments)

              Because her father was black but both of her mothers were Indian

              1. DS999 Silver badge

                Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

                I think the implication some are trying to make is that she's "not really black" because her Jamaican father had some white ancestry. The ignorant people trying to scream that from the hilltops have the mistaken belief that making her "less black" will reduce her support among black people.

                You saw a lot of this with Obama in 2008, there was an ugly underground advertising campaign from some conservative PAC targeting black voters with overtly racist stuff saying black people shouldn't support Obama. Telling them he's not one of them because he's half white (which he was open about and everyone knew) so he was an Uncle Tom who wouldn't support black causes, "don't let the white man fool you" that sort of thing.

                What they don't understand is that the majority of black people in the US are not 100% African. They have some white or other races mixed in, even if 4 or 5 generations removed. These attacks make sense to racists, in the same sort of way that they pushed the "one drop rule" early in the 20th century where you were legally considered colored if you had any non white blood in your ancestry (though how they'd prove it more than a few generations back who knows) because they see race as a binary and if you are both then you are neither. That's why Trump jumped on the "she used to be Indian, then she was black" in a ridiculous attempt to diminish her "blackness", despite her graduating from an HBCU. If the size of the Indian and black populations was inverted in the US, no doubt he would have claimed the opposite.

                1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

                  Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

                  >What they don't understand is that the majority of black people in the US are not 100% African.

                  My understanding is that everyone everywhere is ultimately 100% African

                  1. DS999 Silver badge

                    Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

                    I'm talking about as far back as actual birth records go, either in the US Census or family records or whatever, not to the root of the homo sapiens family tree.

                    1. Khaptain Silver badge

                      Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

                      “My understanding is that everyone everywhere is ultimately 100% African""

                      We all can safely assume this to be fairly correct , the only other alternative that I have seen is somewhere around Mesopotamia. But the idea remains the same.

                      "I'm talking about as far back as actual birth records go, either in the US Census or family records or whatever, not to the root of the homo sapiens family tree."

                      Why Cherry Pick dates , the world has been fonctionning in a similar manner for far more years than just the start of birth records.

                      1. DS999 Silver badge

                        Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

                        Its not cherry picking dates, its just that people tend to view their heritage in terms of how far back they know the actual names and birthdates (or at least birth years, for enslaved people) of their ancestors.

                        Yeah people like submitting their DNA to services that claim to tell you how much Neaderthal you have in you, or you might be surprised to find 2% Asian and wonder if you have Attila the Hun as a 45th great grandfather or something. But the accuracy of those results is rather suspect. Ultimately we all trace back to some slime near a volcanic vent 4 billion years ago.

                        1. Khaptain Silver badge

                          Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

                          "just that people tend to view their heritage in terms of how far back they know the actual names and birthdates (or at least birth years, for enslaved people) of their ancestors."

                          "Its not cherry picking dates"

                          Yes it is.

                          Enslaved people have existed long before the creation of America. Example the "Slavs - Eastern Europeans) ( know you know where the word comes from) were enslaved by the Muslims around the 9th century, I doubt that there are many heritage records still available in the local govt offices).. And I doubt very much that anyone will go out into the street and manifest for them, especially since they are caucasien.

                          Here is a little Harris salad. One of her more intelligent ones. Imagine what she will be like in a few years if this is currently her best years..

                          HARRIS: "The work of community work and in particular violence intervention is about investing in community, understanding our capacity, understanding the greatness, and then being motivated with that knowledge to do what we can to reduce harm, but not for the sake only of reducing harm, but in investing in the potential, and the greatness. That is the essence of this work."

                2. MachDiamond Silver badge

                  Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

                  "That's why Trump jumped on the "she used to be Indian, then she was black" in a ridiculous attempt to diminish her "blackness""

                  If the narrative kept changing to suit a story, that's just pandering plain and simple. I've got ancestry from all over Europe from what I know with the largest identifiable percentages as Scot and Irish. It's difficult to go back really far unless you have prominent people in your family tree or you have a family that's been good a keeping records. There's definitely levels of completeness in record keeping. If your family has lived in the same area for many generations and are church members, that might also contribute to better records being kept.

                  1. DS999 Silver badge

                    Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

                    If the narrative kept changing to suit a story, that's just pandering plain and simple

                    No it is just usual Trump making shit up, like he always does. She's never claimed to be anything other than who she is. Its racists like Trump who try to label her as whoever they want in an attempt to try to embroil her in some conflict.

                    He's flailing because he's terrified at how much energy she's been stirring up, because she's the "new shiny" that's getting people's attention (something Trump absolutely can't stand) and Trump is the tired old loser singing the same songs has since 2015 - so even many of his supporters are bored of seeing the same act repeated day after day.

                    Someone called this Trump's "fat Elvis stage" and I haven't heard a better description of what's going on with him. Like fat Elvis had, he's still got a dedicated fanbase who will never tire of hearing his greatest hits like "Hound Dog" and "drill baby drill" again and again. But most people have moved on and consider him to be sort of a sad pathetic figure from the past that doesn't need or deserve an encore.

          3. This post has been deleted by its author

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

            completely OT but when someone announces they will be selecting someone based solely on their gender / race / sexual orientation - before considering ANY candidates for said position - that is the definition of a DEI hire. (i.e. qualifications being secondary)

            1. Khaptain Silver badge

              Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

              "that is the definition of a DEI hire."

              And we all know that Harris definitely wasn't chosen for her intellect, absolutely no-one doubts that.

        2. YetAnotherLocksmith Silver badge

          Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

          The tories ran out of money agreed 12 years of "austerity", while they all got 7 figures and more. Did not realise they were the real socialists all along!

        3. Citizen of Nowhere

          Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

          >Margret Thatcher phrased it nicely “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

          Ah, yes, the milk snatcher. Who initiated the flogging off of public goods, services and properties on the cheap to the capitalists who funded (and still fund) the Conservative Party. Who extracted money while providing absolutely shit (literally in the case of the water companies) services. Who flogged council houses to people who couldn't afford them so her banking buddies could take both their money and eventually their houses and move them on to rentier landlords. A thief and parasite who knew loads about taking other people's money but sod all about socialism.

          Warren Buffett phrased it nicely: "There's class warfare, all right. But it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”

          1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

            Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

            "Ah, yes, the milk snatcher. Who initiated the flogging off of public goods, services and properties on the cheap to the capitalists who funded (and still fund) the Conservative Party."

            Ah, but it worked out ever so well, what with railroads having shattering rails due to experienced workers being made redundant until they could not recognize that rails were worn out and about to fail and innumerable infrastructure failures for the same reason.

            Then, still blame everyone but the corporate types that make Dilbert's pointy haired boss look competent.

            Nope, gotta be commies and not the guys in the white hats and orange hats in the US, because they have the signage that says that they're the good guys, ignore the swastika armbands.

            Meanwhile, shiny gets held up by the press for all to admire, all to distract from the latest outrages, as more bread to accompany the latest circus while ignoring the decay of one's society. After all, it worked well in Rome's final years. It'll work out well until a certain island can be renamed Airstrip One.

            And it works out well for every other pickpocket in the land, a distraction and your wallet is in the rubbish bin and quite empty.

      2. LybsterRoy Silver badge

        Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

        -- You are on the wrong side of history Khaptain. --

        Would that be the history of the last couple of decades or the history of the last several millennia ?

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

      Exactly, PaloAlto networks make switches for TCP/IP = man's network protocol

      If women want their own equal network protocol they can go and invent it themselves

      1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge

        Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

        Grace Hopper would agree and have it written befor the end of the day.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

          Perhaps being forced to write a network stack in COBOL would be sufficient punishment ?

          (ps I'm assuming that an el'reg silver medalist got the sarcasm in my reply to the origin commenter)

          1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

            Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

            This thread has reached the point where Poe's Law applies to pretty much every post. You should probably assume that half the audience will interpret anything at face value.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: When will oxygen become offensive ?

        This might be sarcasm, but I'm downvoting it anyway because it's unhelpful without the "/s". Some commenters believe your statement literally, feeling vindicated and supported by the online IT community. They think booth babes aren't a problem, because they believe the target audience of the conference is mostly important men and a few unimportant women.

  6. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

    "tone deaf marketing"

    No surprise here, including the apology. But over 90% of marketing seem to be tone deaf. The 10% are good, but loud seems to be more important.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Misogyny...

    Because the models were paid handsomely and welcomed the work in these harsh economic times?

    Mayhaps they should've been left to eat from a soup kitchen in the name of equality?

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      >Because the models were paid handsomely and welcomed the work in these harsh economic times?

      What about all the poor unemployed BOFHs who would also have welcomed the work having been laid-off from a FANG ?

      1. Yorick Hunt Silver badge
        Devil

        Good luck with getting a BOfH to stand there cordially without wanting to reach out and throttle anyone who ventures near!

        I'd dare add though that any worthy BOfH wouldn't have allowed him/her/itself to be laid off without taking several corporations down with them.

        1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

          -- without wanting to reach out and throttle anyone who ventures near! --

          Unlike many (it seems these days) I believe its not the wanting but the doing that's important

          1. Yorick Hunt Silver badge

            You would think so, wouldn't you?

            Sadly we've gone straight past 1984.

            1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
              Headmaster

              Not very Christian of her:

              https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/6.html#5

              "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

  8. Adrian 4

    I'm curious as to what 'steps are being taken',

    Wholesale re-education of the marketing team ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      rest assured

      we have top men working on it right now.

      who? you may ask?

      Top.. men

      /s

  9. herman Silver badge
    Devil

    My future is so bright

    Shows without booth babes just won’t work. Enlightened booth babes, with shades, sure was not the worst idea.

  10. tony72
    Coat

    I could tell them what I think of them, but that would just be throwing shade.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Benny Hill...

    ...would have known how easy it is to push all the wrong buttons!

  12. b0llchit Silver badge
    Coat

    So, why didn't they just add some juicy male companion flash-lights, with buttons to push?

    1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge

      ...chains to yank?

      ...switches to flip?

    2. Wellyboot Silver badge

      And a dog with a head cone sitting on a desk...

      A little bit of effort and it could be taken for a surrealist art piece.

  13. remainer_01

    I’m genuinely curious about the chain of events and discussions that ended with “ok, so we’ll have two booth bunnies with branded lampshades on their heads”

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Well, they were drinking at the Korova Milk Bar and....

      1. Wellyboot Silver badge

        ... it had very 'dusty' tables?

  14. Excused Boots Bronze badge

    Remember the old saying - there is no such thing as ‘bad’ publicity!

  15. Doogie Howser MD

    Madness by committee

    I'm far from a feminist but in this day and age, this stunt was just ridiculous. As has been mentioned in countless LinkedIn threads though, how did this decision pass through all the modern layers of committee review to be approved in the first place?

    Hard to imagine they did this just for press. After all, they have John Wick jumping through time now to sell their Frankensoftware.

    1. I am the liquor

      Re: Madness by committee

      Here's a guess. Someone said this, and someone else took it too literally:

      "In this day and age, the only way you could get away with decorating your booth with young women in tight outfits would be if you hung a lampshade on it to make it look ironic."

  16. Robert Halloran

    Back to "booth babes", really?

    You'd think in These Enlightened Days the idea of stationing "booth babes" in tight/short outfits to help draw the presumably-male gaze to your products would be gone.

    Guess not.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Back to "booth babes", really?

      I was a booth babe at a trade show

      I was made to dress up in a skin-tight corporate polo shirt (to be fair most T-shirts are skin tight on me) and I was forced to answer questions all day from a bunch of stupid men

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Back to "booth babes", really?

        "Forced to" is going to require some sort of explanation here. We're talking... slavery?

      2. Spazturtle Silver badge

        Re: Back to "booth babes", really?

        So do you think all people who ask questions to learn more about something are stupid or just men?

      3. Doctor Evil

        Re: Back to "booth babes", really?

        "I was a booth babe at a trade show

        I was made to dress up in a skin-tight corporate polo shirt (to be fair most T-shirts are skin tight on me) and I was forced to answer questions all day from a bunch of stupid men"

        So was I! But I was required to wear a "suite"

        1. collinsl Silver badge

          Re: Back to "booth babes", really?

          > But I was required to wear a "suite"

          Must have been heavy. Was it with two chairs or one?

      4. JamesTGrant Bronze badge

        Re: Back to "booth babes", really?

        As an Engineer supporting our sales team at a trade show, forced to wear a poorly fitting ‘branded work shirt’ (there may have been some natural fibres in the cardboard box that the bulk shipment arrived in - but those shirts were 100% something unnatural), I too was forced to spend all day answering stupid questions from a bunch of stupid men.

  17. Nightkiller

    Now we know where the lamp came from in "A Christmas Story".

  18. trevorde Silver badge

    Q: What is better than a booth babe?

    A: One of Elon Musk's Optimus robots (aka man in a spandex suit)!

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Q: What is better than a booth babe?

      "A: One of Elon Musk's Optimus robots (aka man in a spandex suit)!"

      That reeked of "mime" and I take the same stance over mimes as the Patrician.

  19. spold Silver badge

    It makes sense that whoever thought of this was obviously a complete hatstand (or should that be a Red Hatstand).

  20. TaabuTheCat

    How did it ever get approved?

    Easy, it's the same group that approves one broken PANOS release after another.

  21. Kev99 Silver badge

    How about flaming those who have no sense of humour or think everything that isn't plain, straight lines is some kind of insult?

  22. Dostoevsky Bronze badge

    Who in their right mind...?

    I mean, c'mon. It didn't even look good aesthetically. What was the point?

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Who in their right mind...?

      I think it's fair to say the person who thought this up was a significantly dimmer bulb than these two

      1. ghp

        Re: Who in their right mind...?

        Unless s/he/it was light headed?

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Who in their right mind...?

          Yes, I hadn't meant to throw any shade on their abilities

  23. Jadith

    So the problem is...

    Saying the quiet part out loud?

    I'm not down for this public objectification of women, but, they only thing that makes this different than what is seen, well, all over marketing/advertising is that it draws explicit attention to it. Honestly, if they didn't have the lampshades on their head, noone would have batted an eye.

    IMO, PAN missed an opportunity to own it as a statement, as it makes a good and direct one.

    (To the Professional Performance Artist, that would be a ridiculous way to make the statemtn, as objectification of men takes quite the different form. You would need something like lamp shade woman and a guy with a bag of money for a head or something.)

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge
      Gimp

      Re: So the problem is...

      Honestly, if they didn't have the lampshades on their head, noone would have batted an eye.

      While the use of "booth babes" or indeed any people chosen for looks over knowledge is a bit tacky, the real issue here is the literal objectification where one sex is portrayed as no better than furniture. Now in certain situations, say a consensual S&M party, such things are all very well, this is the public face of a large corporation and to be presenting that as your image beggars belief. Or maybe buggers belief, I think I am confused now...

      1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge

        Re: So the problem is...

        TBH, booth babes/demo dollies always annoyed me a bit. If I'm at one of these events, I'm looking for information, not titillation. Sure, they look great, but they don't help me evaluate the product and a couple more knowledgeable sales engineers to answer questions might be a better use of floor space? OK with me if you make them female.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: So the problem is...

          "TBH, booth babes/demo dollies always annoyed me a bit."

          I have the same sort of outlook. I only have a certain amount of time at these shows and when I want to talk with somebody about a product/service, I want to get somebody that can answer my questions. I have no use for any of the handouts many of the hired women are there to hand out.

          Some of the booth bimbos have been so surgically enhanced they are very NOT attractive. Repulsive, in fact.

          With so many shows in Las Vegas, there are agencies for women looking for that sort of work.

          "I've seen swimsuit magazines and I've smelled Tequila first thing in the morning".

  24. Oninoshiko

    Perplexing

    I mean, I get "normal" booth babes... we can argue about if its a good idea, but I think we all at least *understand* it. What I don't get what the thinking behind the *ahem* "attire* in this case.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Perplexing

      Who knows. It's "art," I guess. I don't get a lot of art. But lampshade women seem novel and interesting to me.

      In the sense of, I'd probably go over to my friends and say, "hey, did you see those women over there with lamp shades on their heads?!?!"

      If you replaced the women with attractive shirtless men, it wouldn't occur to me that my gender was being objectified and that I should be offended.

      1. Persona Silver badge

        Re: Perplexing

        I like sculpture, and to me this was an interesting piece of sculpture. There are plenty of sculptures with people in them, and many many more representing people. What's the problem. They could have done this with mannequins but it would have detracted from the art value.

  25. KarelBP

    What’s the problem here? Mind looking for RHCP’s video of ‘Give it away’ at Woodstock 1994? There were men with lightbulbs on their heads, 30 years ago.

  26. razorfishsl

    She was about as useful as a broken lamp-stand.....

    TBH... it just looks crass, not becasue of the women...., but the aesthetics of the event looks like it was a primary school project.

  27. Bebu Silver badge
    Windows

    Just don't grok it at all

    I guess one has to be a (male) american to see any connection between an firm flogging network security hardware and two slender wenches with branded lampshades covering their undoubtedly attractive features. Totally beyond me.

    At least the lampshades would have spared the two young women the tedium of being chatted up by semi-intoxicated, overweight middle aged attendees.

    If they were handing out corporate literature or branded memory sticks it makes some sort of sense but with the issues of exploitation and sexism etc etc remaining for disputation.

    Having once had a look at one their top of range products the impression of confused obfuscation was pretty overpowering. Two of the appliances were purchased (very expensive) but sat doing nothing for more than a year because no one could figure out how to configure them. Probably still doing SFA.

  28. This post has been deleted by its author

  29. GuldenNL

    The LinkedIn pile on was predictable Normal people shake their heads and move on.

    If these were two social media "influencers" in even more revealing clothing, they would have been cheered by the same women tsk tsking on LinkedIn and those LI Karens would be criticizing any men who dared speech out about their attire.

    It struck me as a dumb retro move straight out of Mad Men. And yes, shades of "A Christmas Story."

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      "If these were two social media "influencers" in even more revealing clothing,"

      Sexy Cyborg? She's also very open about preferring female companionship.

  30. very angry man

    FFS Karren

    It's just a marketing ploy, get over your selves and stop feeding the trolls

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What would people do if there was something truly outrageous?

    It's dumb but outrageous? How many of the outraged were men?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Let's all virtue signal.

  32. disgruntled yank

    Assorted

    First, I think that The Register owes it to itself to require micropayments from those who wish to comment on certain stories, notably those involving women or American politics. At ten cents a comment or a penny a vote, it could go toward funding the Friday afternoon beer.

    Second, "an unfortunate decision was made ... I take full responsibility." How about "I signed off an unfortunate decision ... I take full responsibility"? If a Navy ship collides with another and the captain is off watch and sound asleep, make no mistake, the captain takes full responsibility--he is headed for early retirement. Is Unnakrishnan KP?

    1. Ideasource

      Re: Assorted

      That would be the death of the comments section.

      Then Why would people come to the site?

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    WTF?

    This is supposed to be an IT forum.

    What sort of lights were behind the lampshades?

    1. Persona Silver badge

      Re: WTF?

      I was wondering about that too. I would imagine it would be flexible Led neon rope lights connected to a USB power bank.

  34. Ian Johnston Silver badge

    It's very cisnormative to assume that these people are women.

    1. Ideasource

      I just see an artistic depiction of two lamps.

      Seemed to be a nod back to the stocking leg lamp joke on "a Christmas story"

      While also taking a note from ballet where people often represent non people objects within the scene.

      What an odd world we live in that People must apologize to others for how the imagination of those others ran to panic.

      As if we all had the power to restrain or prevent Someone else's interpretive imagination in the first place. And are so held accountable for their disturbed thoughts.

      It's a mad mad mad world, afterall

  35. Ideasource

    Women picking at other women's decisions

    If a woman wants to dress up as a lamp for pay, It just seems like women on women hate to attack the job position itself.

  36. MuleD

    What a Sorry State we have allowed Black Hat to become !!!!

    First and foremost no one should discriminate, a cyber attacker is neither male nor female they are simply an adversary.

    Secondly, Grow the F*&K up and put your butt hurt feelings away. I don't have time for them. Black Hat started out as a rachis bunch of nerds getting stupidly drunk and geeking out together. In the beginning there was much more outrageous behavior than paying two people to stand in a spot with a lamp shad on their head. Black Hat and DEFCON were never indented to be be for the general public!! They were offensive by design and those who participated in them accepted the fact that there would be outrageous, offensive and over the top behaviors. There is a reason a bunch of techno geeks picked Vegas for this event. Black Hat needs to get back to it's roots and take a step back from corporate sponsorship. My only complaint about what happened at this even is that they were not inclusive enough. There should have been hot guys with lamp shades, hot midgets with lamp shades, hot dogs with lamp shades, hot aliens, maybe a naked Trump with a lamp shade do you see how ridiculous everyone sounds when they try to project their version of morality on someone else. If it offends you don't go. We don't want your PC asses here. Stay away while we will keep overpaying the bartenders in lowcut shirts, the strippers in gstrings and bouncers to let us in clubs we would never be allowed in if we weren't rich techno geeks.

    If you REALLY want to be offended next time you are in the vendor area at a large conference take a look around and see who is manning the booths. You will see something very similar. Young, skinny, pretty and excited to pass you off to someone who actually knows something about the product the company is selling. "Booth Girls" as they were called back in the day really did have something to complain about because they were also encouraged to accompany potential large spending executives. These unfortunate women really are told "put out or get out" we need this guy to buy our shit. But, nobody seems to be raising such a big stink about something that happens every week at various conferences.

    MuleD

  37. CPU

    Sauce for the goose...

    If you plan on doing cheesecake, also include beefcake, that way everyone can feel insulted ;-)

    In reality I have no issues, because at the end of the day I like to think that a model is getting paid good money to ply their trade.

  38. Tron Silver badge

    I think we need a new law.

    When someone says that they 'take responsibility' for something, they have to do it by resigning.

  39. zawarski

    Meh

    Should have been at E3 in Los Angeles circa 1995 - now *those* were both babes.

  40. Mike Friedman

    Someone thought they were in a production of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

    That's the last time I remember seeing women as lamps (it's during Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend). That was in 1953.

  41. codejunky Silver badge

    Why does anyone care?

    If we are just looking to take offence- how dare we assume their gender. They could identify as 2 fat sweaty blokes for all we know.

    We could be honest- If this was 2 fat sweaty blokes nobody would care.

    We could be realist- These women were hired for a job, probably somewhat based on their looks, should they not be offered jobs they can then take (see grid girls, page 3, etc)?

    We could be feminists- Women are smart and capable of making their own decisions so what does it have to do with you?

    We could call it out- Sour people trying to take offence not really caring about the people they take the offence for.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

      Re: Why does anyone care?

      "Women: Know your place!"

      Jesus, we've clearly not come all that far, have we.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Why does anyone care?

        @AC

        "Jesus, we've clearly not come all that far, have we."

        Not far at all. These women aint the ones complaining are they? Its the chronically offended who would probably like to see their jobs banned because these poor stupid women still make their own free will decisions and are doing it wrong.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why does anyone care?

          The comment dismisses criticism as being from the "chronically offended," implying that concerns about sexism are invalid or overblown. This ignores the legitimate discourse about objectification and how it can reinforce harmful stereotypes, regardless of whether the women involved are complaining.

          It also creates a false dichotomy between respecting women's choices and critiquing the broader societal implications of those choices. It is possible to support individual agency while also questioning the impact of certain industries or practices on gender equality.

          It fails to recognize that using women as decorative objects can perpetuate sexist norms that affect all women, not just those in the specific situation. It reduces a complex issue to individual choice, ignoring the broader cultural context and systemic implications.

          Overall, the comment attempts to shut down meaningful discussion by resorting to mockery and dismissiveness, rather than engaging with the valid concerns being raised.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Why does anyone care?

            @AC

            "The comment dismisses criticism as being from the "chronically offended," implying that concerns about sexism are invalid or overblown. This ignores the legitimate discourse about objectification and how it can reinforce harmful stereotypes, regardless of whether the women involved are complaining."

            All that to still say that you think these women should not be freely choosing to make the choices they freely made. The 'legitimate discourse' being how dare these women be employed doing what they chose to do, so what should these women be doing instead?

            "It also creates a false dichotomy between respecting women's choices and critiquing the broader societal implications of those choices."

            Sure you can absolutely complain that women are making bad choices. But that doesnt seem to be the way the conversation is going does it? Hell even the execs apologized for some employing women who freely chose to do this. Remember page 3? Remember grid girls? This 'how dare they' attitude put those women out of a job they willingly did. The argument being that women are too stupid to be free to choose.

            "It fails to recognize that using women as decorative objects can perpetuate sexist norms that affect all women"

            That entire paragraph is again saying women are too stupid to be allowed to be free people. So much for equality. As for decorative objects, there is no implication the women were forced. I am guessing we go the puritan route and demand women do as they are told and are not free to make their own choices. Otherwise they might do something of their own free will such as take a fanclub website for hobbies and turn it into a porn site (for example). Again I bet thats the bad men again or something.

            "Overall, the comment attempts to shut down meaningful discussion by resorting to mockery and dismissiveness, rather than engaging with the valid concerns being raised."

            I do dismiss veiled 'back in the kitchen' type comments. Do you remember the days of wanting equality for both men and women?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Why does anyone care?

              This argument overlooks the structural inequalities that often limit the range of choices available to women. For many, participating in objectifying roles may not be a true expression of their free will but a constrained choice influenced by economic necessity, social pressures, or lack of better opportunities. Critiquing the conditions that make such roles appealing or necessary is not an attack on women's freedom but an effort to expand their options.

              The goal should be defending women’s autonomy without oversimplifying the issue and ignoring the complexities of societal pressures, structural inequality, and the broader consequences of objectification. The critique of these practices is not about undermining women’s freedom but about challenging the conditions that limit it and seeking a society where women have genuinely empowering choices.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Why does anyone care?

                @AC

                "This argument overlooks the structural inequalities that often limit the range of choices available to women"

                Now I am starting to think you are either trolling or a student doing some sort of gender studies. What limit? If you want to know real limits you can look pretty due to genetics and get various jobs based on said beauty, yet as a man you have to be excessively peak and will be paid less. Women are welcome to take the same jobs as men but yet physical labour is still mostly male dominated.

                "Critiquing the conditions that make such roles appealing or necessary is not an attack on women's freedom but an effort to expand their options."

                Expand their options by arguing against womens options? What kind of madness is this? Surely to expand the womans options you dont argue against women having options?

                "The goal should be defending women’s autonomy without oversimplifying the issue and ignoring the complexities of societal pressures, structural inequality, and the broader consequences of objectification."

                Aka oxymoron. Defend womens automony... except women need to conform to the societal pressures and be forced to behave due to broader consequences of objectification they may choose to do freely. We are not talking about illegal activity but women choosing freely to do what is legal by their own choice and you want to restrict it in the name of defending womens autonomy?

                "seeking a society where women have genuinely empowering choices."

                Then you leave the women to freely make their choices. And feel free to critique the choices if you wish. Feel free to complain about these women choosing to objectify themselves and damage the puritan societal rules. But if you empower people to make their own choices they wont always make the ones YOU want.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Why does anyone care?

                  Making broad generalizations about both men and women that do not account for individual differences does not help. Not all women can or want to leverage beauty for career advancement, and not all men are pressured to reach "excessive peak" conditions. People's experiences vary widely based on factors like education, skills, and opportunities.

                  Check the research. It consistently shows that women, on average, earn less than men for the same work, even after accounting for factors like experience and education. Women are also underrepresented in leadership roles across many industries. These issues highlight systemic barriers that women face in the workforce, contradicting the idea that beauty or choice alone dictate success.

                  Saying that physical labour is male-dominated overlooks the historical and cultural factors that push men and women into different types of work. Men are often funneled into physical labour due to gender norms, while women are steered toward caregiving roles, which are typically lower-paid and undervalued. This is not a matter of choice but of societal expectations.

                  The idea that women benefit from beauty overlooks the significant pressures and costs associated with societal beauty standards. Women often face discrimination and objectification based on their appearance, which can limit their opportunities in ways that are not immediately obvious. Additionally, not all women benefit equally from these standards, and those who don’t fit conventional beauty ideals may face discrimination.

                  While it’s true that physical labour is male-dominated, this doesn’t necessarily reflect men’s natural capabilities or choices. It often reflects economic necessity and societal conditioning. Moreover, many women are capable of performing physical labour, but may face barriers to entry due to gender bias or lack of opportunity.

                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                    Re: Why does anyone care?

                    @AC

                    "Not all women can or want to leverage beauty for career advancement, and not all men are pressured to reach "excessive peak" conditions. People's experiences vary widely based on factors like education, skills, and opportunities."

                    You are starting to come around to what I am explaining.

                    "It consistently shows that women, on average, earn less than men for the same work"

                    Nope. It shows they earn about the same or sometimes more for the same work as it is illegal to pay discriminate based on gender. What has been proven is the women work part time jobs, less hours, take child bearing leave and career breaks.

                    "Saying that physical labour is male-dominated overlooks the historical and cultural factors that push men and women into different types of work"

                    Males have been pushed out of teaching which is now predominantly female for school ages. Women on average are not built to the same strengths as a man as found when military and police/fire services are pushed to hire women but the women cannot meet the physical standards required to do the job.

                    "While it’s true that physical labour is male-dominated, this doesn’t necessarily reflect men’s natural capabilities or choices."

                    That is a statement which just does not reflect reality.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Why does anyone care?

                      Starting to sound like something a snowflake incel misogynist influencer would say. Is that the case here?

                      1. codejunky Silver badge

                        Re: Why does anyone care?

                        @AC

                        "Starting to sound like something a snowflake incel misogynist influencer would say. Is that the case here?"

                        I think you just hit left activist student bingo. You are the one arguing to expand womens choices by restricting their choices.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: Why does anyone care?

                          So, "Yes" ?

                          1. codejunky Silver badge

                            Re: Why does anyone care?

                            @AC

                            I am not sure the words you used even go together- "snowflake incel misogynist influencer". Just because you cannot figure out your strangely oxymoron position does not put me in any of your groups.

                            Poor trolling

  42. glennsills@gmail.com

    Way too dumb

    Ignoring the issue of whether they were intentionally being sexists, do you want to invest in a company run by people so stupid that they did not know they were going to be called out for literally objectifying women? In a way though, it isn't surprising. Sexism seems to be inversely proportional to intelligence.

  43. TeeCee Gold badge
    Facepalm

    Should have gone with Plan B.

    Bribe some upmarket fashion house to claim it was their idea and watch as every woman starts going around dressed as a lamp.

  44. Herby

    It seems to work?

    Look at the number of comments here *including this one that is (hopefully) neutral on the subject.

    On the other hand I've increased my vernacular vocabulary as well.

    Oh, and I thing the models/performers are having the last laugh, they GOT PAID! (probably a good but of change as well).

  45. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

    Nice title, but they forget how the media only gives voices to executives and none to the masses.

    1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

      Thanx for the downvote dumbass, how well the media have brainwashed you into accepting that you are "lesser" than those with fake titles like leader and therefore can pay everyone else next to nothing for doing the work.

  46. nonpc

    When someone mentioned reflecting company standards they thought they meant standard lamps?

  47. Glen Murie

    Stupidity and Groupthink

    This feels like a team of marketing tools making a godawful stupid mistake in the throes of groupthink, and deep inside what sounds like a corporate culture of 'keep your head down and never question management.'

    Which as a potential customer says to me: "Never give these bozos your business. They are clueless nimrods who think they're clever when they're actually stupid." Sure they're getting publicity, but it's the kind of publicity that will drive away a lot of customers.

    They had to get the lampshade hats made by a crafts-person or costumer, and rent/buy the dresses, and hire the models and then blithely blunder through (I assume) the shocked and confused response to the idea by the promotional models they hired. Or maybe they wanted branded cocktail dresses, didn't give themselves enough time, and thought the lampshades were a smart workaround for their bad planning.

    I'm sure the women in the lampshades were quite amused when they got the job. Go to a motor vehicle show of any flavor and you'll see much worse, so if these women have done more than a dozen conferences they've already seen much worse. From a brief troll through the news sites it seems booth babes (promotional models) are much less common than just five years ago. Good riddance.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like