While I was away, the TIPS universe unfolded oblivious to my
absence, and I was happy to miss one of our periodic dust-ups
concerning our most controversial poster. I don´t care to re-
open that discussion. But I would like to comment on a related
matter which was raised but not debated: that the use of the
term "chick" to refer to a woman is derogatory and insulting and
should be banned from TIPS.
As a resident of Quebec, I´m familiar with the concept of
language police, which we affectionately refer to here as
"tongue troopers". Their job is to respond to anonymous
complaints about English on commercial signs, which is allowed
only if it is subservient to French. Do we need language police
on TIPS? I hope not.
The issue does come up in the classroom. For example, I once
was scolded by a by well-meaning student for using the term
"mental retardation" in a lecture. I responded by pointing out that
it was [at the time] still widely used in government and
academia. This seems no longer to be true, and journals,
textbooks, and government agencies now avoid the term.
Usage does change, and a reasonable policy is to neither be the
first nor the last to shift from a word deemed offensive by some.
But when is it reasonable to switch? And have we reached that
point with "chick? It´s an interesting question, and it´s unclear
how to answer it.
We might try the OED. It defines "chick" as "A girl; a young
woman, slang." The definition does not indicate that the term is
derogatory. The first use entry is "brainless little fluffy chick"
[1927]. The last is "Jackie, always a "with-it chick" " [1971]. The
modifiers to the first entry make its use derogatory; the last,
complimentary.
The OED also cites "chick flick" and "chick lit". Chick flick is
"(sometimes depreciative) a film perceived...as appealing
particularly to women, typically featuring strong female
characters and themes of romance, personal relationships, and
female solidarity". Chick lit is "(occas. depreciative) literature by,
for, or about women".
Not too harsh a condemnation, but what do other dictionaries
say? Dictionary.com calls it "often offensive". Cambridge warns
"considered offensive by many women". Merriam-Webster
merely notes it as slang, as does Collins. Longman hedges,
saying "some people think [the word] is offensive". Overall, it
appears there is some concern but no consensus.
What about the Internet? The Urban Dictionary gives a
collection of user contributions. For the first ten contributions
concerning "chick" as a term for a woman, seven are either
neutral or positive and three are negative. Searching on "chick"
and such terms as "derogatory" and "offensive" brings up
considerable discussion, which is not easy to summarize or
quantify, but which does indicate a range of opinion.
So I went looking for recent examples in our finest publications.
The New York Times has a number of recent uses of "chick-lit";
The Los Angeles Times refers to a "rocker chick" ("Latino TV
personalities juggle a bilingual stage", October 4, 2009); the
Toronto Globe & Mail uses both "chick lit" ("Chick lit, real
quick", September 8, 2009) and "rock chick" ("Actress-producer-
director-stuntwoman-dynamo", October 3, 2009). Even over in
England, the oh-so-correct Times has used "chick" recently in
"Paris fashion week: Lily Allen is on the prairie at Chanel"
(October 8, 2009).
So while a range of opinion exists, the term "chick" is inoffensive
to many, and is well-represented in publications which enforce
rigorous style standards. And let´s not forget the Dixie Chicks.
Should we protest the name of this best-selling dynamic group?
(The Canadian band Barenaked Ladies were banned by
Toronto mayor June Rowlands in 1991 for their "offensive"
name). I also noticed that one correspondent on the web
speculated that "chick" derives from the Spanish "chica"-which
simply means girl. Not necessarily the correct etymology, but
could it be only a coincidence? It reminds me of the case of
"niggardly", an innocent word, but one which no one dare use
for fear of its (incorrect) association.
But if many find "chick" inoffensive, why do others nevertheless
think it degrades? Perhaps it´s because the term, often used for
a young woman, carries the implicit association of someone
valued more for her beauty than her brains. This is "objectifying"
women, according to gender feminists (to use Christina Hoff
Sommers´ term), and therefore a hanging offense. But I don´t
see the fuss myself. One can always be a "smart chick". If the
corresponding term for males is "studmuffin", I would not mind
being called that, objectification notwithstanding. Although my
wife has never done this, I´m sure she thinks it.
As for chick flicks, I like them. Check out the recent (500) Days
of Summer and the even more recent Whip It with the talented
Canadian chick Ellen Page (you knew I was going to do that).
And my nomination for the funniest movie line ever is the
famous "I´ll have what she´s having" from the chick flick When
Harry Met Sally.
But I don´t use "chick" myself. Not because it´s offensive, but
because it´s stale and dated. The general rule is that by the time
university teachers latch onto a slang expression, it´s long been
dropped by the younger generation. Are you listening, Michael?
A final thought: it might be of interest to survey TIPSters on the
offensiveness of "chick", but self-selection in responding would
make the results uninterpretable. A better idea might be to use a
forced-choice questionnaire to survey students in class. A no-
brainer is that the results will divide by gender, with more
women than men finding the term offensive. But how
widespread is their dissatisfaction?
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Bishop's University
e-mail: [email protected]
2600 College St.
Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7
Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
