Stephen Black comments:
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.
I'm not entirely convinced by this argument, as rules of logic don't necessarily apply where language is concerned. My sense is that the term "chick lit" was coined (and achieved wide usage) in a specific context and that the word "chick" being used in *that* context may be distinguished from its use as a separate word in a different context. "Chick lit" is a widely accepted term for identifying a particular genre of literature, and would not be out of place in a relevant scholarly book or paper. I'm sure this is not the case with "chick" as a synonym for "woman" regardless of logical arguments such as the above.
Stephen again:
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?
I'm pretty sure you're wrong there (I think your view on this is implied by the very fact you raised it as a question, with the implication it was at least partly the identity of the 'culprit' that led to the kerfuffle). At any rate, I would certainly regard the use of "chicks" as a synonym for "women" as wholly inappropriate in a TIPS posting that was not intended to be 'jokey', whoever used it.
More generally, would any TIPSters regard it as acceptable for "chicks" to be used as a synonym for "women" in a scholarly journal? Assuming not (over to you, Stephen :-) ), then evidently "context" in the sense of where the term is being used does matter. So it's a question of judgement, and my judgement is that it is inappropriate for TIPS.
Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
