On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:46:19 -0700, wrote: >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: >[Robin Abrahams wrote:] >>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.
Just a couple of additional points: (1) Labelling "guy interest" films as "dick flicks" may be offensive to a number of people (though not necessarily to the guys who enjoy such films) because it focuses on a specific part of the male anatomy in contrast to the specifics of such films. To be truly even, female oriented-movies would have to be called "vaj films" which I think many people would find far more offensive than "chick flims" though this term is slowly making its way into the public lexicon. (2) There is an entire area of feminist film studies and theory and the question is how is the term "chick flick" used by people in that area. If it is a taboo phrase, then one is not likely to find it in use. However, a search of scholar.google.com finds a number sources using the phrase is a positive way. Indeed, an important book by Ruby Rich is entitled "Chick Flicks" Theories and Memories of the Feminist Film Movement" (1999) which a collection of Rich's writings from the 1970s to the 1990s. The book is availabe in limited preview mode on books.google.com; see: http://books.google.com/books?id=DsRnApVNDFMC&dq=%22chick+flicks%22+feminist&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=ZF14x4iE4E&sig=GChMY83ygrFN3TWQaQnFI48XP4Y&hl=en&ei=t0LSSpWEKYqXlAfr6rSpCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=15&ved=0CD8Q6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=&f=false or http://tinyurl.com/yjhc896 A review of the book as well as the context in which it fits is provided by Patricia Zimmerman in a 1999 article in Afterimage and which can be read on the web at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2479/is_6_26/ai_54869111/pg_4/?tag=content;col1 Among feminists involved in film it seems that the use of the phrase "chick flick" is neither offensive or rejected. (3) Regardless of what has been said so far, some people may find the phrase "chick flick" offensive while others do not. The use of the word "chick" can also be offensive because, if my memory for the feminist explanations are not too distorted, it typically refers to women but in an infantilized or juvenile way. In the same way that White people referred to Black men as "boy", the use of "chick" or "baby" or "babe" or similar terms emphasize the difference in power and status between the person using the term and the person to whom the term is supposed to apply to (watch an episode of "Mad Men" to understand this). Consequently, the person who uses such a term has to ask oneself why am I using it? Is it because one is being thoughtless and doesn't consider the effect of the word on others (I think back to a scene in the movie "Casablanca" where Ingrid Bergman's character refers to Sam, the piano player as "boy" -- it had bothered me when I first saw the film and it makes me cringe in every re-viewing though I understand the context and why it is being used, that is, racism was so pervasive that White people didn't even know that were being racist). What is the intent here if indeed there is an intent and not just thoughtlessness? Does a person know that such a word would be found to be offensive by others and deliberately uses to cause offense to those people? In this case, the intent is pretty clear. Or is it an attempt to take back the word, to subversively change its meaning so it become a term of empowerment instead of opression? This was attempted with the N-word by rappers and and others (NWA anyone?) as well as some gay activitists like Larry Kramer who actually wrote a novel enttitled "Faggots" (also available on books.google.com at: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=faKCFSlFbKkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=faggots&ots=yklfFJ7dh2&sig=IWWTsXjBEDXHsj9B3hZer-WHezU#v=onepage&q=&f=false or http://tinyurl.com/yjxpxm5 ) The intent here is perhaps to say "yeah, in your face mofo!". I don't think that this approach has worked out too well especially when Richard Pryor decided to cut down on the use of N-word in his performances. So, what was the intent of the speaker? In the case of "chick" on Tips, I do not know (then again, given who used it, I am often at a loss to understand what the point is). But one may also ask why does one take offense? If the offended person doesn't make clear why the offense has occurred, what can be learned to prevent offense in the future? Then again, given that this matter had passed, perhaps it would have been better to keep this old horse buried instead of digging it up and beating it again. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
