���I agree with almost everything that Stephen wrote on the use of the word "chick" – except that I think he omitted the most significant point about it's use as far as TIPS is concerned, namely that the use of the slang expression "chicks" as a synonym for "women" is just plain inappropriate in the contexts in which it has been used. In this sense Stephens proposed survey on the offensiveness of "chicks" requires modification. I find its use on TIPS inappropriate rather than offensive (though I'd vote for the latter if given no other choice), but have no objection whatever to "chick-lit".
Which takes me to Robin's posting: >I have no objection to movies marketed to women being >referred to as "chick flicks," as long as movies marketed >to men are similarly referred to as "dick flicks." Why should it be the case that, because there happens to be a term for a particular kind of book that is widely recognised and is not generally regarded as offensive (see below), there has to be an equivalent term for a supposedly equivalent "male interest" film. Why should an "equivalent" male term be sought here to supposedly even things up? In this instance I see nothing to even up. >Part of the problem with "chick lit" and "chick flicks" is the notion >that what men are interested in is universal, whereas what women >are interested in is a lesser subsection of th e human experience. Sorry, I don't accept that. In my experience men are frequently associated with limited horizons – empty-minded action films, technical books of a variety of kinds with no connection with "real" life experience, and so on. >Everyone is expected to find meaning in "Hamlet," but a man who finds >meaning in "Jane Eyre" is praised for his sensitivity. As a generality, I don't accept that either. I have often seen/read men expressing high praise for Jane Austen's novels (as I do myself) which deal almost solely with the relationships between the characters, but I can't ever recall them being praised for their sensitivity. Now to the question of how widely " chick-lit" is found to be offensive. I have to say this is the first time I have heard/read of anyone taking offence at the term. I've just done a quick Google search and the following webpages have come up: >From The Guardian, 8 May 2009: "A tale of romance by the king of chick lit – Napoleon Bonaparte Maev Kennedy and Catherine Neilan "Napoleon turned to literature, or at least an early precursor of chick-lit, at a wretched time when he seemed to have stalled his glorious career and lost his woman." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/08/napoleon-novella-manuscript-translation If female reviewers on The Guardian (whose journalists are prone to find sexism at the drop of a hat)=2 0have no problem with "chick-lit", I suspect it means that those who do in the UK are in a very, very tiny minority. Oh, yes, and in the Independent: "End of a chapter: chick lit takes on the credit crunch" "In hard times, sex-and-shopping sagas are being reinvented. Welcome to the world of recessionista lit" By Susie Mesure http://tinyurl.com/nzgatb The UK Jewish Chronicle also seems untroubled by the term: "Why chick lit is actually chicken-soup lit" By Brigit Grant, http://www.thejc.com/arts/books/why-chick-lit-actually-chicken-soup-lit Then we have a celebration of chick-lit: "Chicklit is the online women's magazine that celebrates 21st century woman's contemporary fiction and lifestyle. Come on in..." http://www.chicklit.co.uk/articles/index.asp Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ------------------------------------------------------------- Re: [tips] On "chick" Robin Abrahams Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:19:12 -0700 I have no objection to movies marketed to women being referred to as "chick flicks," as long as movies marketed to men are similarly referred to as "dick flicks." Part of the problem with "chick lit" and "chick flicks" is the notion that what men are interested in is universal, whereas what women are interested in is a lesser subsection of the human experience. Everyone is expected to find meaning in "Ham let," but a man who finds meaning in "Jane Eyre" is praised for his sensitivity. There are also terms that can be used by members of the ingroup, but not by others. "Chick" and "girl" (for a grown woman) are, I think, terms like this. I am very busy and do not have the time to get into the debate that this will undoubtedly provoke (unless others are more sensible than Stephen and I and are taking this beautiful weekend off instead of working). If anyone writes in objection to my points, and I do not respond, do not assume that you have either offended me or won the argument. Robin Robin Abrahams www.robinabrahams.com ---------------------- --------------------------------------- --- On Sun, 10/11/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [tips] On "chick" To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:10 AM 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=2 0film 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 0AEngland, 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 c oincidence? 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. Altho ugh 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])
