Video: New School Protesters Beaten, Arrested (Again)
B&H Photo Video Sued For Gender Bias
Person Fatally Struck By G Train At 7th Avenue Subway Station
16-Year-Old Confesses To Shooting That Caught Girl In Crossfire
Sexual Harassment On Subways An "Underreported Crime"
In an article that seems to blur the NY Times' own decency standards, the paper of record examines how the word "douche" has evolved from a personal hygiene product into a popular TV pejorative. We're not particularly concerned with the journalistic merits of the piece — we'll leave that to the seasoned Times critics over at nytpick who claim the paper shouldn't have gotten its numbers on TV vulgarity from a Conservative anti-cussing group. But we were shocked to see the paper print the word "douche" five times in a page-one piece, when just last week it censored the words "fat chick" in an article about an online alibi by indirectly quoting a Facebook status update. Not to say that the Times' much-ballyhooed decency standards are a good thing, but consistency certainly is.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
No Fat Douches!
Fat chicks need lovin too!
And they're usually more appreciative of it too, if ya know what I mean... (wink wink)
More cushin' for the pushin', as long as they're not on top!
Unless of course you're a real man, then you can handle and enjoy it - "Bring it on, baby!"
And they require more douches...naturally!
In fact there's a huge difference from the standards standpoint.
One article is about the evolution of a word. It doesn't refer directly to anyone as being a 'douche'. The other involved a specific use of a term, an incident that did refer to a specific person.
We as readers wouldn't know who it was, but that 'fat chick' is out there somewhere.
We all have to deal with fat chicks falling for us sometimes in our lives. The trick is to tell the difference between those who remain fat chicks for life and who are supermodels underneath.
Damn, New York Times, that's fucked up.
No, it's logical.
It was strictly a business decision. Nobody pays extra for fat chicks.
I agree with jayclay. This is a silly story for Gothamist to publish. The entire NY Times article you are referring to is about how the word "douche" can increasingly be heard on TV and it casual conversation. It would be ridiculous to censor the word in question (which is not a four-letter word) from the story itself.
gothamist calling the times out on decency when it can't seem to publish a decent article itself... ironic.
but i keep coming back, so i guess that makes me a douche.
Fat chicks are an identifiable group (unless you're Ralph Lauren and then it's simply a term for ALL chicks.) Douches are one of those groups that exist solely in the 3rd person. You may be a douche, but you'd never say "I'm a douche" and therefor there's no one to offend.
are you kidding me???
this article is extremely insensitive.
as many people have noted, it's very different to describe the etymology of a word than to use derogatory terms to describe a group of people. apparently this is completely lost on gothamist and you'd like to continue the hate.
so saying "paul krugman is a douche" is ok. good, i'm glad i can keep saying that.