Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

Yes, this practice of models at parties brings back memories. In 2000, a very well-known enterprise software company (Northeast not Silicon Valley) hosted a conference for customers and had a night party for the attendees. The most memorable thing I remember was the group of extremely pretty women on roller skates mingling with the crowd. E.g. they'd skate up and ask random attendees, "Hey where are you from? Are you enjoying the party?"

It's very strange how a logical brain processes what's happening. One the one hand, your rational brain says they're just paid to be there to loosen up the crowd and their smiles and questions to the attendees are fake. On the other hand, your emotional brain doesn't care and you smile and laugh back anyway. It's like the Disney World effect. You know it's a facade but enjoy yourself anyway!

View on HN

That's great for the (straight) men. But it's extremely uncomfortable for the female employees at the events, who are now not only spending the evening outnumbered by male colleagues at an alcohol-lubricated event, they're now spending the evening outnumbered by male colleagues who are ogling other women who are there explicitly as objects of sexual attraction (even if it's deflected into "engaging them in conversation", that's clearly the angle they're intended to appeal to, or there wouldn't be a requirement that they be young and attractive).

It's one step short of holding your holiday party at a strip club. Not quite as crass, but uncomfortable and marginalizing for the women for similar reasons.

>, they're now spending the evening outnumbered by male colleagues who are ogling other women who are there explicitly as objects of sexual attraction

Unfortunately, it was my limited recollection of the event that's prompted some replies about it marginalizing female employees. To clarify, it was a vendor conference and not a company party. Employees from different companies would attend. (Think of it like Google I/O or Apple WWDC Developers Conference).

There were very likely male models there as well for the female attendees to interact with. I just happened to be standing with a group of all males so understandably, the only models that skated up to us were female. My single-gender sample set distorts what I remember and how I tell the story which then gives you, the reader, the wrong impression that it was quasi strip club event.

I'd have to seek out some female colleagues who went to the same 2000 conference and ask them what they thought of it. I'm curious if they'd reply that they were disgusted and outraged by the male models there. I really don't know. (Or similarly, we can ask today's female employees at SV companies what they thought of male models at recent corporate parties.)

I'm not suggesting that it's a quasi strip club environment or nearly as egregious a violation as taking employees to a strip club. Just that it's along the same spectrum of making beautiful women available for men's enjoyment and that that's what causes it to be a source of discomfort.

And if my company hired a bunch of gorgeous models - most female but a few male - for our holiday party, I would be outraged. The male models would probably make me uncomfortable first off for the same reasons some male commenters here say they're demeaned by the assumption that their company needs to hire people to speak to them.

But I'd also interpret the presence of the male models not as a way to make the female attendees happy directly (unless it was a horribly tone-deaf attempt by a man) - I'd probably interpret the choice to have them present as a way to excuse the presence of the female models in an attempt to titillate the men. "Oh, no, we're not objectifying women for the sake of our male employees! See? We have male models here too!"

These 2 comments looked like they contradict each other:

1) ">It's one step short of holding your holiday party at a strip club."

2) ">I'm not suggesting it's [...] nearly as egregious a violation as taking employees to a strip club."

The "one step" looks like "nearly" to me which is why I tried to clarify the nature of the interactions.

If any _hint_ of "strip club" is even mentioned in the replies to my anecdote about the software conference party, that's my fault for describing it poorly.

See my other comment about this.[1] Are female guests at Disney describing Gaston as "one step" removed from a "male strip club"? I don't think so and that's the type of platonic vibe I was trying to portray in my conference anecdote. Nevertheless, people still get the wrong impression that the party models were there to act as a sexual tease. (The "fake friends" models mentioned in the Bloomberg article may be instructed to act in a more sexually provocative manner but my anecdote wasn't about them.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15877739

I'm not responding just to your comment. I'm also responding to the concept in general of hiring models for a party.

If the intent were solely to entertain rather than to titillate, they would be hiring comedians rather than models.

Is it explicitly sexualized and objectifying like a strip club? No. Is it implicitly sexualized and objectifying? Hell yes.

>If the intent were solely to entertain rather than to titillate, they would be hiring comedians rather than models.

I don't think it clarifies the discussion by labeling them "comedians" XOR "models". It's impossible to disentangle the gender/beauty or its effects from the role being played. It's an unavoidable blend of multiple roles.

In other words, it would be naive to think there is zero sexual objectification of Disney Gaston models at the park. Disney is not hiring androgynous robots so we have to be realistic here. The men have to be "eye candy" to some degree to get the job.

Likewise, even if a company tried to hire "entertainers" for a work party and those entertainers happened to also look beautiful, you will still have objectification. Is the model hired for a corporaty party to hang coats a "coat valet" or a "model"? It's not what you label them; it's the effects.

If attraction weren't part of what's trying to be accomplished, attractiveness wouldn't be a qualification. The whole point of hiring a model is that they're attractive.

> that's clearly the angle they're intended to appeal to, or there wouldn't be a requirement that they be young and attractive).

Why? That's super judgemental of you. There is no "clear" angle that a young and attractive person is necessarily an object of sexual attraction, except in your own imagination.

It's not judgemental, just obvious if you have any insight into cis-males. I single them out only because I am one, and your comment comes off as hopelessly naive.

All attractive people are objects of sexual attraction. It's what you do with that that separates the creeps from everybody else.

>It's not judgemental, just obvious if you have any insight into cis-males.

So its _my_ fault for _not_ stereotyping? Amazing.

Did I say that any given person is attracted to them? I'm saying that they're hired because they're sexually attractive. Because someone thinks that speaking to a sexually attractive woman will be gratifying to young males, especially those stereotyped as socially awkward.

>I'm saying that they're hired because they're sexually attractive.

The article just mentions being attractive. It also mentions other clients who hire models to dress up in costumes, and among other things to create a "fun" (whatever that means) atmosphere. The article also mentions an agency which insists on having the models be assigned specific tasks (coat checkers, servers), etc. People strongly associate attractive people with parties/partying/celebrity culture/fun/etc for various reasons. Its sort of like using a person with spectacles/drab clothes/British accent to signal intelligence. In any event, introducing models into an audience filled with programmers, would greatly increase the diversity of the party. Maybe the models who themselves had negative stereotypes about "nerds" would see that they were fun people too. It cuts both ways.

>Because someone thinks that speaking to a sexually attractive woman will be gratifying to young males, especially those stereotyped as socially awkward.

Neither the article, nor the comment you replied to has put forth this idea.

IDK.

My logical brain says "it's not 1950 anymore; the PR blow-black has the potential to be truly brutal."

My emotional brain says "This is horridly objectifying and super awkward."

>"it's not 1950 anymore; the PR blow-black has the potential to be truly brutal."

For that particular party, there definitely wasn't blowback because the next morning, everybody talked about how amazing it was. I think it caught everyone off guard because it was unexpected and it gave attendees happy memories. (Yes, maybe the attendees should have been morally outraged but I can only report how they actually responded and at that time, they thought it was a huge hit.)

It's been 17 years so maybe that company doesn't hire party models anymore.

>"This is horridly objectifying and super awkward."

That's a valid opinion but just to paint the picture better, the women were not dressed up as "Playboy bunnies". They were wearing regular shorts and a themed tshirt showing no cleavage. The interactions with the models would be similar to a kid interacting with Mickey Mouse at Disney. Also, there probably were male models on roller skates as well but I don't remember them for obvious reasons.

Probably, but SV engineers are not kids, and these women are not entertaining children in mickey costumes.

Seeing so many people defending this practice is really worrisome with regards to the lack of morals in SV.

>>"it's not 1950 anymore; the PR blow-black has the potential to be truly brutal."

> For that particular party, there definitely wasn't blowback

PR is bigger than just internal opinion. Witness: this article.

> The interactions with the models would be similar to a kid interacting with Mickey Mouse at Disney

> the women were not dressed up as "Playboy bunnies". They were wearing regular shorts and a themed tshirt showing no cleavage... Also, there probably were male models on roller skates as well but I don't remember them for obvious reasons.

At least we all eventually agree that the obvious is obvious.

>PR is bigger than just internal opinion. Witness: this article.

This particular article has an extra angle about models pretending to be friends of employees at a company party. I wasn't endorsing that.

I was relating a somewhat related story about models at a software conference. However, they were not pretending to be in relationships with anybody. They were there to be hosts with bubbly personalities and to schmooze the crowd.

>Oy

I was not exaggerating. The conference models were not there to show skin; they were there to socialize. The conversations (regardless of it being artificial and scripted from the models) are not of a sexual nature. It's lightweight platonic chatting designed to loosen up the crowd.

Here are some videos showing the Disney character Garcon at the park. Not every Disney actor's face is hidden behind a mask:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=disney+gaston

Clicking on some of those videos should give an idea of how the models interact with guests. The men that Disney hires for that work are all beautiful male specimens. (Women would typically categorize them as "hunks" or "beefcakes".) However, the purpose is not for girls/daughters/mothers/women to grab their crotch or act out Magic Mike[1] fantasies. The Garcon actor is there to be funny and provide smiles.

The Garcon models are not allowed to exchange phone numbers with the park guests. There is no "let's meet up at Cinderella's castle" secret rendezvous after they show off their one arm pushups. So, if the women at the park don't get to engage with sexual foreplay at the park with Garcon, why does Disney only hire attractive men? Oy indeed.

The models at the software conference did similar work to the Garcon actors at Disney theme parks.

The reason you don't see public-relations blowback about the beautiful models at Disney is the same reason you don't see it about models at industry conferences.

On the other hand, the Bloomberg article about "models pretending to be friends of employees" is a whole different level of weirdness.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Mike

Everyone?

I take it there were no women on your team?

Sounds amazing. Wish my company treated us to this kind of delight!

My logical brain goes:

I bet these women are getting paid a pretty penny to go to some stupid party and mingle with the patrons. Probably get drinks and food on the house too. Lucky bastards!

There seems to be a fine line between slut shaming women for not conforming to some moral majority code of behavior and actual concern about objectification. Some seem to straddle the line trying to do both while claiming to only be standing on the good side.

Say what now? Why would you think they're being paid a pretty penny? Odds are they're doing it to scrape by, and would much prefer having the evening to spend with their friends and family rather than having to put on a charade.

No one is forcing them to do it. Anyone would much prefer to have an evening with their friends or family. But if they need the money, then it's a job. And it's probably a better job than most jobs.

Ahhh, the American Dream! "No one is forcing them to do it."

There's a plethora of well paid jobs out there that they could be doing instead but, for reasons unknown, they prefer to be under-dressed roller skating companions.

Well, on a low end they are making about $25/hour after agency fees.

On a high end they are walking away with a few thousand dollars.

On a really high end they just made your yearly salary in a day - there was if I recall correctly a bank in Russia that flew a dozen of currently reasonably well known models for its New Year's party.

Why should these women be denied the opportunity to do this job, supposing they want to do it?

That's not the problem anyone is having with this.

It seems like you're suggesting women should be free to do this, but men should be shamed for asking women to do it - which seems like a weird position to hold.

I can imagine some harm comes from this - e.g. an employee is mistaken for a model, or perhaps an employee is never mistaken for a model, but the magnitude of the harm doesn't seem so severe, and seems comparable to the benefit - the party is more fun.

I know why people have an intuitive dislike for this, it calls to mind paying for sex, sounds pathetic, and feels possibly misogynistic, but logically, I can't defend any of those positions myself.

I am suggesting that that is not the problem anyone is having with this. Nothing more, nothing less. The rest of your inferences are entirely wrong, if indeed you even replied to the correct comment. Nobody is complaining about the fact that if the job is offered, there are women who will take it, or implying that those women (or men) are in the wrong. That is simply not the problem people have with this.

Instead of speaking vaguely, and pretending you speak on behalf of everyone, why don't you clearly state what problem you are having with this?

I am not stating I have a problem with this. I am stating that is not the problem everyone else is having with this.

This doesn't seem that complicated to me. I am not sure how I could possibly make what I am saying any clearer.

As a possible diagnosis of the problem you are having, if you believe my first sentence says or is equivalent to "I don't have a problem with this", you have a fairly common reading comprehension problem where you read what you expect to have read, rather than what was actually said, and the problem you are having with what I wrote is your difficulty in fitting such a short point into your framework of what you expect to have read. I suggest spending some more time learning how to read what is there, rather than what you think is there, as you are missing out on one of the primary benefits of reading. That's not the only possible problem you've having with understanding such short, simple sentences, but it is likely enough to be worth calling out.

Nope. S/He’s saying women are free to work as models at a party, but employers shouldn’t hire women to be models at company events.

So it's only fine if a private individual hires models for their party?

That’s not what I said.

Then what is?

This may help you understand what people are saying about this and why they're upset: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15872605

Both ways too. When I see this sort of thing at a conference party or vendor thing, I think 'what do the organisers think we are, just rabid animals?' Its demeaning for all concerned

Oh you mean booth bunnies? It works all every time it is tried if a booth bunny knows what she is doing. That's why it keeps happening.

When my wife shows up as a part of the sales team the company always sells out of the product that they bring.

It’s kind of sexist too. I would like pretty male models to look at please.

From the article:

> At this year’s holiday parties, however, there’ll be a surprising influx of attractive women, and a few pretty men, mingling with the engineers. They’re being paid to.

There are good biological reasons why there isn't a popular Playgirl magazine. That is similar.

I don't enjoy it; it already feels like nobody ever smiles at or talks to me when they aren't getting paid to, why would I ever want that feeling to extend to social events?

Talk about a nightmare.

This is one of those aspects of American culture that make me shake my head. If you're not enjoying the party with your co-workers, then it's either because the party is not good or you don't have a sense of community with your co-workers (or a combination of both). If the majority of people who attend the party feel that way, then your company has a problem: either they don't know how to throw a party or there's no community at the office (or, again, a combination of both). You can't really solve that with "Disney World effect".

At my last company, I tended to avoid all company-designated events but would still every couple months arrange a Friday after work drinking get-together at some local bar. Work parties felt like (unpaid) work or requisite to fit in with the 'company culture' vs after work drinks where you could blow off some steam without consequences and actually bond.

This is fine. (I mean gender issues aside).

Because they are on 'roller skates' they are differentiated, and basically identifiable as 'hosts/hostesses'.

There's nothing wrong with hiring hosts for a party.

It's when they are mixed-in as guests it's cheezball.

Ugh... I find it disgusting...

The article is rubbish:

This happens in every industry where people make serious money. During the finance boom it happened in finance. Right the biotech boom it happened in biotech. Right now it is a tech boom, so it is happening in tech.

In this specific case the "models" are not the likes of Karolina Kurkova or the woman in the photo. At best they would be commercial models i.e. the ones that pose in clothes inside J.C. Penny during the holiday season.

It is also extremely unfortunate that the author of the piece allowed the agency owner to get away with a total puff piece - owners do not reject bookings from existing reasonably vetted clients because the clients request short skirts or plunging necklines ( of course it would be rejected if the client is hookers-and-blow.com ). If a legitimate company wanted two dwarfs to wrestle in jello for a holiday party, they would be found -- it just a matter of price. The price now is just higher. Most of the 'low-rent' market is in China (all over) where they are booked daily for nightclub appearances, 'high rent' in mostly in Moscow, RU.

P.S. Do notice that the agency CEO has a Russian name.

[Edit after the downvotes]: Here, let me google this for you:

http://www.dazeddigital.com/fashion/article/34811/1/my-life-...

http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/fashion-luxury/article/2120857...

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/7741206-questions-anger-a...

http://modelingwisdom.com/what-is-commercial-modeling

http://moscowdoesntbelieveintears.blogspot.com/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com