[ajpiano]

Even in feminist circles, the the idea that "douchebag" is definitely sexist and denigrating is far from a settled argument: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/16/in-defense-... http://mooretoons.com/2008/08/20/is-douchebag-sexist/

At the core of this argument is the idea that the "popularization" of act of douching itself was itself anti-woman, insofar as it categorised normal women's bodies and actions as unclean and shameful, and in turn advocated an unhealthy "solution" to a problem largely invented by the patriarchy.

Nevertheless, I cringed ever-so-slightly when Jake gave this talk at JSConf and again when I saw it here on HN, because I knew that in recent months, among all the other salient gender issues that have been floating about, a bunch of people also "heard douchebag was sexist," and so would lodge this reservation.

[SpiderX]

Heaven forbid if you didn't mention that you "cringed" instead of speaking up.

[parfe]

He's certainly not making the point that douches were invented to shame women. He's using the negative association of what douches are for. You seem to be making a "taking it back" argument when he clearly did not intend that meaning.

Not using douchebag is easy! Step 1) Just Don't! Now you won't have to deal with causing strife with women in tech.

[cube13]

>He's using the negative association of what douches are for. You seem to be making a "taking it back" argument when he clearly did not intend that meaning.

Modern medicine considers douches to be dangerous to use. Not sure how making a negative of something that is, in fact, negative is a bad thing.