Many thoughtful replies to my query concerning the appropriateness of "chick", which I did think merited examination. A few minor responses from me:
On 12 Oct 2009 at 2:57, Allen Esterson wrote: > 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. As a logical point, if "chick lit" is inoffensive, and if it means, as it does, "literature for chicks", then surely the term "chick" must itself be considered inoffensive. As for context, I agree with this, but the primary context may be who it is who dares to use this contested word. . For example, if it was the esteemed Mike Palij who employed it rather than the irrepressible Michael, would we have had the protests we did? Or if someone encountered Deborah Briihl wearing her eye- catching "Chick with brains" t-shirt, would they berate her for it? Or consider the Dixie Chicks, as I previously noted. People may have been angered by their brave and principled opposition to Dubya, but no one seems to have been upset by their name (except possibly a certain mayor of Toronto). As for getting another hobby, Deb, I already have one. It's called raking leaves. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
