I've got a question for your parents: would you rather your kid learned a euphemism for the f-word or read about rape and murder? Go ahead, I'll give you a few seconds. It shouldn't take long. In the meantime, you might want to steer clear of the New York Times.
In a disagreement with website STFU Parents this week, the Grey Lady, she who has long proclaimed herself the place to find "all the news that's fit to print" has revealed its decision that it's not "fitting" to print even the vaguest references to curse words lest they "offend" the venerable newspaper's "younger readers."
Essentially the New York Times has just informed the parents of America that it is far scarier that our kids learn a euphemism for f--k than that they read that three American soldiers were murdered for no reason (on the front page of the website yesterday) or about the man who chopped an 8-year-old boy up into little pieces and stuck him in the freezer (child killer Levi Aron made the NY section yesterday).
Excuse me, parents, if you think the latter is better, please do not send your child to play with mine. I'm not ready to tell my 7-year-old why evil men kill 8-year-old children.
I am OK with a conversation about why certain words are not appropriate in polite company. In fact, we had it just this week. She said "hell" and when I told her it was not a nice word, she mentioned the TV show Hell's Kitchen which her father and I both watch. It developed into an interesting discussion, and we both came out enlightened.
These conversations are what euphemisms were made for ... because we do have to sanitize certain adult things for children, but we can't make them all go away. I find it rather insulting to my intelligence that the Times -- of all places -- is telling parents they can't handle a conversation about the term STFU.
The paper's "policy" came to light this week only because of a story that made reference to STFU Parents' tagline without credit to its source. Blogger B was understandbly upset and wrote to the paper asking for credit for her words. As a writer, I was annoyed on her behalf. As a parent, I'm incensed by the response that they blatantly refuse to use a euphemism for the f-bomb in an effort to protect kids ... even while they told B "Granted, we aren't the parents of young readers."
That's right, newspaper editors are not the parents of our children. Their jobs are to convey the news in a relatively classy way -- hence the use of a euphemism rather than the actual expletive. Our job is to police what our kids read, hear, and see.
So, I don't let my 7-year-old read The New York Times. She isn't ready to learn what happened to poor little Leiby Kletzy at the hands of Levi Aron. But if she hears the name LMFAO on the radio, I'm not going to scream and cry and call the FCC. I'm going to tell her we don't say f--k ... at least not in front of Grandma.
What do you think of the Times' extreme take on protecting our kids from curse words?
Image via GranniesKitchen/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Comments 43
Cursing is not the worst thing a child can do, hear or read. I would rather have a son who puts a sailor to shame than one who is a deranged, dysfunctional societal outcast, a drug addict or a slacker.
Kids are gonna learn the curse words anyway so it might as well be from the parents in a controlled environment! I always find it odd that the anti-profanity group always seems to be okay with kids hearing about the horrible, horrible things that happen in the world. I will always be grateful that my parents never let me think violence was okay, I still get uncomfortable if a TV show is too realistic. Cusses aren't gonna hurt someone as much as thinking it's okay to physically harm people.
And, seriously, protect the kids from reading the NYT? Any child old enough to read and comprehend the publication has heard STFU and knows what it means. If e publication is protecting young readers, then it should not print R rated news - like stories about a child murderer.
Their distinction made no sense and was plagiarism. This is a no-brainer.
No one said ou shouldn't elain curse words to your child. Or that someone should do it for you, but chances are, if your child can read the NYT, they have already heard most curse words, and you have already explained the to the child.
Also, those of you commenting and reading this DO realize that the author is referring to the NYT refusing to credit the owner of a website while using their tagline, right? It seems that most of you don't. Nobody really gives a fuck what you do in your house.
@PonyChaser- I'm not sure I understand... The Times should have said that they don't use swear words, and to tell the owner of STFU Parents to "find an alternative"? An alternative to what? The issue is that the Times is refusing to credit her site while still using her tagline.
If you read the bolded question at the bottom, it is about extremes taken to censor language, it doesn't ask how anyone feels about plagairsm. Stop being buttholes.
I swear in front of my kids. And they know that there are words that adults can use that they aren't allowed to. You can't protect your children from the real world, so teach them what is expected from them!