Motivational employees would help to significantly ease some of the social anxiety of programmers such as my self. Male or female the interaction of genuine interest is at the core of what seems to be lacking here. Typically any "collaborative" or "interest" showed by coworkers or superiors falls into two buckets.
- coworker: "oh that's cool reminds me of the time that I did x" with subtle connotations of why x is better than what you are doing.
- superior: "hmm really interesting, make sure you get this other stuff done before next week" with less subtle connotations of I have no idea what or why you are doing nor do I care as long as you get all your work done.
Of course not. There's nothing like playing ping pong in high heels.
The idea of having "cheerleaders" of mixed sex who are just motivational people that cheer everyone up isn't terrible, and perks like massages or yoga or whatever are a fantastic idea.
I'm not saying it's not demeaning and gross; it certainly could be. But all we have is a handful of photos and we really don't know much. I like focusing on the positive and giving people the benefit of the doubt. Too often we judge each other on incomplete information.
But there's absolutely reason for caution here; it could get really creepy.
It's completely legal to hire people based on looks for positions that require it, e.g. salespeople, models, "experience managers".
It doesn't mean we should do it. Especially not as we're evolving towards a developed, enhanced society.
Many SV startups display a website with 50% women programmers... all of them cute and young. We know very well they're not here to attract more women to programming. They're here to bias men into believing it's a balanced workplace where it's fun to work and where he might find a soulmate. It has an impact on the applicant's expectation.
Of course once males are recruited, it's a huge legal risk to date on the workplace, and a human interaction with a hired hostress isn't genuine.
We're aspiring to such a society, not evolving. Evolution is an outcome, not a direction. It's not possible to say what we're evolving toward, except inasmuch as we are now closer to that ideal than we were 20 years ago.
Not only that, but I'm not sure that's true. Today's norms are those that survived yesterday. The ones we think we want tomorrow are not always the ones we'll have. When sex sells, sex sells, regardless of whether you want it to sell or not. What has happened over the last 20 and more years is more a fine tuning of how to use sex to sell, rather than removal of sex from the sales process.
Really? Are you so shortsighted as to think that an attractive young woman can't actually be a programmer, and that her only actual job function is to appeal to her male coworkers? Despite the fact that the industry skews towards the young and attractive in the first place?
This attitude right here is why so many women have problems in STEM. If we're even remotely attractive we're considered to only be there to appeal to our male coworkers. If we're not attractive we're ignored and belittled. In either case, there's no acceptance of our technical skills. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe women programmers don't exist for the sole purpose of entertaining men, and that the cute and young women you see might actually be - wait for it - programmers?
And 50% male programmers, also cute and young.
> We know very well they're not here to attract more women to programming.
You could interpret the cute/young males as aspirational images for males, and the cute/young women as bait for (presumably, heterosexual) males...
Or you could interpret both groups as bait for males of differing sexualities.
Or you could interpret the cute young males as bait for heterosexual females and the cute young females as aspirational images for females.
Or you could interpret all the images as aspirational.
Or...
"We know very well they're not here to attract more women..." of any of the images, including the cute/young females, requires some support.
Sorry, but... how do you know?
So is the problem that they specifically hire young women for this? Is sex appeal a factor here? Detail is scarce, making it easy to jump to incorrect conclusions. I find myself hesitant to call this sexism before I know a bit more.