���Re: [tips] Men Explain Things to Chicks On 11 October 2009 Robin Abrahams wrote: >Ah, another day, another series of men explaining women's >experiences to them.
Robin: And I thought we were simply exchanging views in a discussion which started as one about the use of the word "chicks" on TIPS and has been generalised in a lengthy (and thoughtful) contribution from Stephen. As one of those men who made a contribution (see below) to the "Stephen" thread, Robin, please point out to me where I was "explaining women's experiences to them". >I can't help it if Robin is the only woman who bothered to >comment on whether or not 'chick' is offensive!" The reason I effectively set g oing the original thread to which Stephen was responding (see further below) was because, as others have noted, at least three women had objected to it over a period of time. And my contribution then was to support the suggestion made by others that those of us who found Michael Sylvester's use of the term offensive, which I thought likely was most TIPSters, should cease to respond to his posts. I was previously tempted to respond to the last sentence in Robin's previous posting but let it go. Given the nature of her response this time I shall now do so: >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. I thought we were having an exchange of views on a topic that Stephen had broadened out to a more generalised discussion. I didn't realise we were engaged in an argument that could be won or lost. Nancy Melucci wrote: >I try to resist the language police thing. I think these judgments >(about the offensiveness of words) can rarely be made outside >the context in which the word is being used. I strongly agree that in this particular instance the *context* is relevant, which is why I made the central point of my previous contribution the distinction between using "chicks" as a synonym for women in postings to TIPS, and the use of the word in entirely different contexts. I can certainly understand why many women object to the use of "chicks" more generally, but Robin chose to discuss its use in the expression "chick lit", which, as I supported by links to a wide variety of sources, seems to be an unobjectionable term for a particular genre of writings. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org -------------------------------------------- Re: [tips] On "chick" Allen Esterson Sun, 11 Oct 2009 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 is the use of the slang expression "chicks" as a synonym for "woman" 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 f or a particular kind of book that is widely recognised and is not generally regarded as offensive (see below), that 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 the 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 20of 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 0D 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) have 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 ch apter: 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/# Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------- [tips] for Marc Carter Allen Esterson Fri, 02 Oct 2009 On 1 October 2009 in a posting headed "for Marc Carter" Michael Sylvester wrote: >I saw where you posed a question to me in the Tips >archives but I did not receive the post in my regular >mail. I am preparing to take action against Frostburg >State through the ACLU if my First amendment rights >are been violated FSU could lose some federal funds. The only question posed by Marc recently (as far as I can see) is the following: > I lived in the Dominican Republic; baseball is bigger >there than it is here, so naturally there are going to be >a lot of good players coming out of there. In what way >is that a bad thing? Why Michael follows his remark about a question from Marc with his reference to First Amendment rights is unclear. It would make more sense in relation to Jim Matiya's criticisms of Michael's language and tone in a couple of his recent postings (see below) followed by Bill Southerly's response, "This matter is being addressed". My immediate reaction to Bill's comment was a concern that some action was being considered in relation to Michael's comments that some people (most I suggest) find offensive. My own feeling about such comments is that if they are continued after objections have been made (as in the case of his use of "chicks" for women), then subsequent postings from Michael should be ignored. Of course we don't know what Bill meant by the matter being addressed, but I think that (within limits – something of course difficult to define) there should not be heavy-handed action against someone who uses language most of us find offensive, or as in the following instance, unworthy of a response: > Ken,Jim: >Your posts are ridiculous. Are bystanders' apathy only >reserved for white people?... >Obviously you all know nothing about a black community. >Gimme a break. Keep your eurocentric cognitive imperialistic >analysis in the classrom. dude. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.este rson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
