5 ms·

> As a man, I hadn't thought of the potential problems for women in this sphere (quelle surprise); that is absolutely the strongest argument for change. Becaus

> As a man, I hadn't thought of the potential problems for women in this sphere (quelle surprise); that is absolutely the strongest argument for change. Because women are more prudish than men? Or because the joke is about the male member? So if it was called "Qunt", it would be men that were clamouring for a name change?

Volundr 6y ago
Clamouring? No, can't say I would. But it would be an awkward name and I'd be glad when it was changed. Certainly would be uncomfortable talking about it at work.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  My point was: why is the name Coq worse for women?
  - Volundr 6y ago
    Not the OP, and not a point I'd necessarily push strongly (I think it's an awkward name for everyone), but the fact that women are already often hypersexualized or treated as sexual objects in our society could certainly make it worse for women.
    - Grustaf 6y ago
      So because women are “objectified” they will be more sensitive to awkward names? I don’t see it. Are you sure you’re not making sexist assumptions about women being prudish?
      - Volundr 6y ago
        You don't see how women, knowing full well that some men are already looking at them as sex objects might be uncomfortable saying the names of sexual organs around those same men? More uncomfortable than a man who knows (or at least believes) those men aren't thinking about him that way? The article even says women have been harassed speaking about it. Look I already said I think it's an awkward name for men and women, but this feels like a failure of imagination to me.
      - aklemm 6y ago
        The likelihood is that you’re failing to imagine the female experience in this case. That’s far more to the point.
louthy 6y ago
No, because TFA: > This similarity has already led to some women turning away from Coq and others getting harassed when they said they were working on Coq
- Grustaf 6y ago
  And my question was _why_ this would affect women more than men.

Volundr 6y ago

Clamouring? No, can't say I would. But it would be an awkward name and I'd be glad when it was changed. Certainly would be uncomfortable talking about it at work.

Grustaf 6y ago
My point was: why is the name Coq worse for women?
- Volundr 6y ago
  Not the OP, and not a point I'd necessarily push strongly (I think it's an awkward name for everyone), but the fact that women are already often hypersexualized or treated as sexual objects in our society could certainly make it worse for women.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    So because women are “objectified” they will be more sensitive to awkward names? I don’t see it. Are you sure you’re not making sexist assumptions about women being prudish?
    - Volundr 6y ago
      You don't see how women, knowing full well that some men are already looking at them as sex objects might be uncomfortable saying the names of sexual organs around those same men? More uncomfortable than a man who knows (or at least believes) those men aren't thinking about him that way? The article even says women have been harassed speaking about it. Look I already said I think it's an awkward name for men and women, but this feels like a failure of imagination to me.
    - aklemm 6y ago
      The likelihood is that you’re failing to imagine the female experience in this case. That’s far more to the point.

louthy 6y ago

No, because TFA: > This similarity has already led to some women turning away from Coq and others getting harassed when they said they were working on Coq

Grustaf 6y ago
And my question was _why_ this would affect women more than men.