
Honestly if girls are terrified at the possibility of people crreepily staring at them, you've probably got bigger issues than some libraries with immature names.
I think it's a matter of being sensitive to the effects that your actions will have on the people around you. I don't know, maybe this isn't actually an issue at all. But why allow this as a possibility when it can easily be avoided?Plu wrote:The girls in the gamejam site I visited didn't really seem to be subjected to creepy stares. Although I never asked them about it, because that would then probably become the creepiest part of the experience![]()
Honestly if girls are terrified at the possibility of people crreepily staring at them, you've probably got bigger issues than some libraries with immature names.
Women do enjoy sex too, be it a Quickie or all night long (LUBE might come in handy), so I don't see why gender neutral innuendos should offend women more than it should offend men. To be clear though, library names like "Pantyshot", "Upskirt" (ex[?] Python modules, see also), "lolita" and "tramp" (Ruby modules) on do cross a boundary that we have not yet reached. I'd like to keep it that way.kclanc wrote:But consider the following scenario: a girl becomes interested in programming and goes to a game jam. She finds a bunch of nerdy guys there. Okay, that is to be expected. But then when she asks what libraries to use, they start telling her things like LUBE, SECS, and Quickie. Don't you think that would make her uncomfortable?
If you don't know that, I don't know what planet you've been living on your whole life. It's depressing how often sexuality is used to deny women agency and reduce them to their body parts and their relationships with men, in multiple ways (some examples from geek subcultures: booth babes, "you must be here with your boyfriend", "fake geek girls").szensk wrote:why would this discourage any female more so than a male?
You haven't answered the question.Robin wrote:If you don't know that, I don't know what planet you've been living on your whole life. It's depressing how often sexuality is used to deny women agency and reduce them to their body parts and their relationships with men, in multiple ways (some examples from geek subcultures: booth babes, "you must be here with your boyfriend", "fake geek girls").szensk wrote:why would this discourage any female more so than a male?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests