# Chick (woman)



## Batumani

I've just come across the information that the word _chick_ is considered offensive by many women.

So, how offensive can this word be?

Is it offensive when men use it to talk about women?
e.g.: _We gotta invite some more chicks to our party._ (said by some males organizing a party)

Is it offensive when men address women as such?
e.g.: _Chicks, here's your order._ (said by an attendant at Mc Donald's)

Is it offensive when women use it to talk about other women?
e.g.: _Those chicks are so good at Volleyball._ (said by someone watching a Volleyball match)

Is it offensive when women address other women as such?
e.g.: _What would I do without you chicks? _(said by a women after getting the help she'd requested)

What about terms such chick-flick or chick-lit? Can they also be considered offensive?


----------



## SwissPete

It does not matter *how* offensive it is. It is offensive, period.


----------



## PaulQ

Batumani said:


> What about terms such chick-flick or chick-lit? Can they also be considered offensive?


The contest will determine the answer.

These may be used as dismissive terms but are not particularly offensive they are shorthand for "A book/film aimed at or likely to appeal to women (usually those who do not demand much from a film/book other than it has romance, etc, in it.)

The counter argument is that this categorises all women as having similar tastes, however, on the other hand there is no doubt that chick-flicks and chick-lit do attract far more women than men.


----------



## Egmont

Many terms for groups of people are considered offensive when they are used by someone who is not in the group, but can be used inoffensively by someone who is in that group and understands all the nuances of the term. "Chick" is one such word. Women who know each other well can often (not always) use it informally to refer to each other. However, English learners, even non-native speakers who are quite fluent overall, should generally avoid it. It's hard to understand all the subtle ways in which terms like this can offend.


----------



## Batumani

SwissPete said:


> It does not matter *how* offensive it is. It is offensive, period.


Wrong. It matters a great deal how offensive it is. If it didn't, I wouldn't have posed these questions here. In order to convey certain meanings accurately it is of utmost importance that one grasps the intracacies and subtleties of the language. 

Moreover, I'm a teacher. I must know.


----------



## Truffula

It's a mildly offensive word in most cases.  It demonstrates a lack of respect rather than an outright insult.


----------



## Batumani

Egmont said:


> Many terms for groups of people are considered offensive when they are used by someone who is not in the group, but can be used inoffensively by someone who is in that group and understands all the nuances of the term. "Chick" is one such word. Women who know each other well can often (not always) use it informally to refer to each other. However, English learners, even non-native speakers who are quite fluent overall, should generally avoid it. It's hard to understand all the subtle ways in which terms like this can offend.


Thanks for shedding some light on it.


----------



## Parla

Please look at Paul's and Egmont's comments for good guidance (at least among Americans). Such terms as "chick lit", for example, are used by people in the publishing business with no thought of offending anyone, only referring in a kind of "shorthand" to a category of books, much as "YA" is used in reference to books designed for the high-school-level market. A server in a restaurant delivering food to a group of women he addresses as "chicks" is being very rude and highly offensive. 

Unless you are very familiar with the people and situation in which you're using a doubtful expression: _Don't._


----------



## You little ripper!

Batumani said:


> I've just come across the information that the word _chick_ is considered offensive by many women.
> 
> So, how offensive can this word be?
> 
> Is it offensive when men use it to talk about women?
> e.g.: _We gotta invite some more chicks to our party._ (said by some males organizing a party)
> I wouldn't consider that to be offensive. I don't think any woman hearing it would be offended either.
> 
> Is it offensive when men address women as such?
> e.g.: _Chicks, here's your order._ (said by an attendant at Mc Donald's)
> I can't imagine that ever being said by male staff at any restaurant. It's more likely that he would call them 'ladies'.
> 
> Is it offensive when women use it to talk about other women?
> e.g.: _Those chicks are so good at Volleyball._ (said by someone watching a Volleyball match)
> Most women would probably use 'girls' here, but if they did use 'chicks' it wouldn't be considered offensive.
> 
> Is it offensive when women address other women as such?
> e.g.: _What would I do without you chicks? _(said by a women after getting the help she'd requested)
> (the same as number 3)
> 
> 
> What about terms such chick-flick or chick-lit? Can they also be considered offensive?
> I think the only women who might find that offensive are women who prefer action movies/books.


There are always exceptions to the rule, of course.


----------



## Batumani

You little ripper! said:


> There are always exceptions to the rule, of course.


Thanks for the invaluable help.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Count it as offensive, deeply offensive, taboo. You aren't going to be teaching anybody to use it, are you? I hope not. You should, of course, (you must) teach advanced students _about_ the implications of this word and words in similar usage situations like 'nigger' and 'obese'. I agree entirely with Egmont and Swiss Pete.
(Time of writing)
Even 50 years ago in the hey-day of my British English youth when chick was a very popular slang term for any  girl or a girlfriend, it had to be used with a certain amount of circumspection and consideration. To be actually adressed as "Chick", called a chick or referred to as a chick was insulting.

I don't recall women *ever* using it neutrally or kindly of other women! It would always be derogatory, suggesting a stupid/sillly/ tarty ('easy lay')/ or all three/ type of woman.
I could write a doctoral thesis about this and other unacceptable terms. (No doubt that's already been done many times).

This 'chick'-stuff, and other traditional 'terminology' for women, is often used unthinkingly by men who basically like, respect, and would hate to upset women.
I won't go into the background and circumstances of how I happened to be spending a couple of hours sitting beside an attractive total stranger, but we exchanged a few amusing remarks, then he commented on the notebook I write in, which he had happened to catch sight of. After lengthy intelligent and entertaining chat about the internet , social media and how rarely we see handwriting these days, as well asthe art of calligraphy, he asked what I was writing.
Was it 'chick-lit'? I suppose he meant something like 'of particular interest to young women'. Fair enough, but the implication, like it or not, is 'trivial, romantic, inane burbling of the 'Bridget Jones' sort, a load of rubbish with no literary merit' at all.



> What about terms such chick-flick or chick-lit? Can they also be considered offensive?
> I think the only women who might find that offensive are women who prefer action movies/books.



Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! What can I say? It  depends on the context of course, but as a man, little ripper, how can you 'think'? This is  exactly the sort of comment that this discussion is all about. The good thing is how this comment illustrates to the OP how 'chick' relates to a wide range of seriously important issues and thus should not to be used.

I have no interest at all in action movies.


----------



## m0nchichi

Truffula said:


> It's a mildly offensive word in most cases.  It demonstrates a lack of respect rather than an outright insult.



Agree with that. But it also can be used sarcastically  like : Johnny is always hanging with his chicks. They are on his dick bro.   To me that doesn't sound obviously condescending and degrading. It has more the undertone of " Man those girls never let go of him ( because he is so attractive) .


----------



## Dale Texas

Parla said:


> Please look at Paul's and Egmont's comments for good guidance (at least among Americans). Such terms as "chick lit", for example, are used by people in the publishing business with no thought of offending anyone, only referring in a kind of "shorthand" to a category of books, much as "YA" is used in reference to books designed for the high-school-level market.  A server in a restaurant delivering food to a group of women he addresses as "chicks" is being very rude and highly offensive.
> 
> Unless you are very familiar with the people and situation in which you're using a doubtful expression: _Don't._



I agree.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> The counter argument is that this categorises all women as having similar tastes, however, on the other hand there is no doubt that chick-flicks and chick-lit do attract far more women than men.



Yes. It's a fact with reasons, and very good ones at that!  They might not attract older women either, I don't know. They tend to be superficial to me and sometimes soppy, but I can enjoy all that! It's not exactly a 'counter-argument' though, surely, more a patronising opinion.


----------



## Truffula

You little ripper! said:


> Ripper wrote in this color
> I'll write in this color
> 
> Is it offensive when men use it to talk about women?
> e.g.: We gotta invite some more chicks to our party. (said by some males organizing a party)
> I wouldn't consider that to be offensive. I don't think any woman hearing it would be offended either.
> Many women would find this offensive.  Especially if said by a man older than early 20s.  It shows, as I said, a lack of respect for women in general.
> 
> 
> Is it offensive when men address women as such?
> e.g.: Chicks, here's your order. (said by an attendant at Mc Donald's)
> I can't imagine that ever being said by male staff at any restaurant. It's more likely that he would call them 'ladies'.
> This sounds a bit insulting, but also like a non native speaker said it, so some people would cut them slack for that.  Native speakers would hardly ever use this term this way.
> 
> Is it offensive when women use it to talk about other women?
> e.g.: Those chicks are so good at Volleyball. (said by someone watching a Volleyball match)
> Most women would probably use 'girls' here, but if they did use 'chicks' it wouldn't be considered offensive.
> Still pretty disrespectful of women, so probably, since said by another woman, meant to show she thinks she's better than the volleyball players in some way.  Therefore, potentially offensive.
> 
> Is it offensive when women address other women as such?
> e.g.: What would I do without you chicks? (said by a women after getting the help she'd requested)
> (the same as number 3)
> Because lack of respect can denote familiarity as well as contempt, it can be used with close friends or those to one feels gratitude in a positive way.
> This statement could be one of those, or it could be a sarcastic remark meant to insult, depending on context.


----------



## You little ripper!

Hermione Golightly said:


> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! What can I say? It depends on the context of course, but as a man, little ripper, how can you 'think'?


I "think", Hermione, based on my experience of the expressions 'chick-flick' or 'chick-lit'. I've heard the expressions used occasionally by men, but more often by women.

_Do you want to go and see Bridget Jones's Diary next week?
I'd love to!  Have you asked Dave if he wants to see it?
Heavens no! It's a chick-flick, he'd be bored senseless!_

As I said earlier, there are always exceptions to the rule. My perception is based purely on my experience of the word with the Australian women I have had contact with. I can't speak for all Australian women and I certainly wouldn't speak for American and British women.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Can someone explain just _why_ it is considered offensive? Or did I miss it?

I get the feeling that this word actually isn't always considered offensive, and that it is either quite personal or contextual. I just googled it and read several discussions about it and the responses are far more nuanced than what I see in this thread.

If the problem is age, meaning that "chick" is derived from "chicken", meaning that it's a very young female, then some women would likewise be offended by being called "girl", as opposed to "woman" or "lady". However, conversely, you'll absolutely find women who are flattered by being considered young.

And for what it's worth, I've never ever heard the word used with the intention of offending anyone or to put women down. _IF_ someone has made an offensive remark the offense lay elsewhere in the remark, not in that word. 

And could this be a partially generational / demographic / class issue?


----------



## Batumani

MattiasNYC said:


> Can someone explain just _why_ it is considered offensive? Or did I miss it?
> 
> I get the feeling that this word actually isn't always considered offensive, and that it is either quite personal or contextual. I just googled it and read several discussions about it and the responses are far more nuanced than what I see in this thread.
> 
> If the problem is age, meaning that "chick" is derived from "chicken", meaning that it's a very young female, then some women would likewise be offended by being called "girl", as opposed to "woman" or "lady". However, conversely, you'll absolutely find women who are flattered by being considered young.
> 
> And for what it's worth, I've never ever heard the word used with the intention of offending anyone or to put women down. _IF_ someone has made an offensive remark the offense lay elsewhere in the remark, not in that word.
> 
> And could this be a partially generational / demographic / class issue?


Thanks for the input MattiasNYC. Here's what dictionary.com says:

*Usage note*
_As a term used to refer to a young woman, chick is slightly dated. Originally it was perceived as insulting because of the perception that it infantilized women. Now the word has been embraced by some women as a positiveterm of self-reference and an expression of camaraderie. When used as amodifier, as in chick flick and chick lit, its meaning is not restricted to young women and its use is not offensive.

the definition of chick_


----------



## london calling

Batumani said:


> _the definition of chick_


Your link also says:

_3.
Slang: *Often Offensive*. a term used to refer to a girl or young woman._

The bold is mine. I agree with PaulQ and Egmont on this one (I'm a woman, by the way).


----------



## MattiasNYC

Ok, but I'm asking why being referred to as "girl" or "young woman" is a bad thing. In the realm of words used for women "chick" to me appears to be very far to the "non-offensive" end of the spectrum as possible while still then arguably being considered offensive. In other words, compared to the word "slut", which too isn't the worst word in use that one can come up with, "chick" seems entirely non-offensive _especially_ if the person using it doesn't intend to offend.


----------



## Florentia52

MattiasNYC said:


> Ok, but I'm asking why being referred to as "girl" or "young woman" is a bad thing. In the realm of words used for women "chick" to me appears to be very far to the "non-offensive" end of the spectrum as possible while still then arguably being considered offensive. In other words, compared to the word "slut", which too isn't the worst word in use that one can come up with, "chick" seems entirely non-offensive _especially_ if the person using it doesn't intend to offend.



1. If you are a girl or a young woman, there is generally nothing wrong with being referred to as a girl or young woman. If you are a 45-year-old woman, you may well take offense at being called a girl.

2. The level of offensiveness of the word "chick" will vary with the particular woman. Some find it highly objectionably; others don't mind it. It's safer not to presume you're addressing the latter. In addition, some women may have made their peace with terms such as "chick flick," while still not wanting to be referred to as "chicks" themselves.

3. The fact that "slut" is more offensive than "chick" does not make "chick" "entirely non-offensive."

4. The intention of the speaker has little to do with the offensiveness of the term. The hearer may or may not be inclined to make allowances for the speaker's lack of awareness or sensitivity.


----------



## london calling

Mattias, admittedly 'chick' is not as offensive as 'slut', but it's still offensive as it belittles women. A woman may find it offensive even if the person who says it doesn't mean to offend. She's on the receiving end of it after all. Her reaction will depend how she perceives the word, not how it was meant. I speak from experience. An Italian friend used a word to describe me which I found offensive, but he said it was meant to be a compliment - we argued about it for hours!


----------



## MattiasNYC

Florentia52 said:


> 1. If you are a girl or a young woman, there is generally nothing wrong with being referred to as a girl or young woman. If you are a 45-year-old woman, you may well take offense at being called a girl.



I'm sure that's true. I'm also fairly certain that a lot of women that are around 45 years old are quite sensitive when it comes to age, because they're no longer "young". That's why we (men) don't ask women their age when they're obviously no longer "young". So, from the perspective of some of us it's a bit odd that a woman who wants to feel young would object to being called young, albeit using a different word.



Florentia52 said:


> 2. The level of offensiveness of the word "chick" will vary with the particular woman. Some find it highly objectionably; others don't mind it. It's safer not to presume you're addressing the latter. In addition, some women may have made their peace with terms such as "chick flick," while still not wanting to be referred to as "chicks" themselves.



And another point of mine earlier was that when searching the web for discussion on the word there was far more nuance exhibited, by women, than is seen in this thread.



Florentia52 said:


> 3. The fact that "slut" is more offensive than "chick" does not make "chick" "entirely non-offensive."



Obviously. However, to some people (like me) it does however sort of look like people who are essentially "over-sensitive" react to words on that side of the "offensive" spectrum. 



Florentia52 said:


> 4. The intention of the speaker has little to do with the offensiveness of the term. The hearer may or may not be inclined to make allowances for the speaker's lack of awareness or sensitivity.



I suppose that's true. Many people get offended for many different reasons. Not all of them reasonable.


----------



## MattiasNYC

london calling said:


> Mattias, admittedly 'chick' is not as offensive as 'slut', but it's still offensive as it belittles women.



How does being referred to as a girl or young woman belittle women? Isn't that conversely implying that girls or younger women must be not only inherently different than _just_ "women" but also arguably of some lesser value? If you use a term to describe group A and it implies a negative connotation, and it simultaneously actually comes from the description (or grouping/name of) group B,  you surely must imply that the latter group is of negative value (or however you want to phrase it). Otherwise, how could the term be belittling?



Florentia52 said:


> A woman may find it offensive even if the person who says it doesn't mean to offend. She's on the receiving end of it after all. Her reaction will depend how she perceives the word, not how it was meant. I speak from experience. An Italian friend used a word to describe me which I found offensive, but he said it was meant to be a compliment - we argued about it for hours!



Ok, well, if you argue for hours after he said it was meant to be a compliment and not to offend then language clearly isn't the problem.


----------



## london calling

MattiasNYC said:


> How does being referred to as a girl or young woman belittle women? Isn't that conversely implying that girls or younger women must be not only inherently different than _just_ "women" and also arguably of some lesser value? If you use a term to describe group A and it implies a negative connotation, and it simultaneously actually comes from the description (or grouping/name of) group B,  you surely must imply that the latter group is of negative value (or however you want to phrase it). Otherwise, how could the term be belittling?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, well, if you argue for hours after he said it was meant to be a compliment and not to offend then language clearly isn't the problem.


1. It belittles women because it carries with it the idea of stupid/silly/tarty : see HG's post no. 12.
2. So what if he meant it as a compliment? He used a word which in Italian means that a woman is bed-worthy. That is not a compliment.


----------



## MattiasNYC

london calling said:


> 1. It belittles women because it carries with it the idea of stupid/silly/tarty : see HG's post no. 12.



I've never ever heard it used that way by anyone in my vicinity, and I've heard the term plenty of times. The definition linked to earlier doesn't state that either. 



london calling said:


> 2. So what if he meant it as a compliment? He used a word which in Italian means that a woman is bed-worthy. That is not a compliment.



I'm not even sure what "bed-worthy" means. If it means that someone wants to make love to you I completely fail to see how that is inherently offensive. Would this be similar to a woman calling me "hot"? Or a "hunk"? Should I find those terms belittling and offensive?


----------



## sdgraham

Despite the formerly popular female band, the Dixie Chicks, it's one of those words best avoided by learners (and just about everybody else).


----------



## Egmont

Being called a "chick" in the wrong context can be belittling in the same way that, when a male manager of the 1950s said to other male managers "I'll have my girl get us some coffee," the word "girl" was belittling. In that context, it made no difference if the woman was 21 or 61. Its use emphasized that she was less important than the manager. If a woman of the 1950s, or of 2016, says to other women "this is just among us girls," it is not belittling. Part of the reason is that she includes herself in the group of "girls."


----------



## london calling

MattiasNYC said:


> I'm not even sure what "bed-worthy" means. If it means that someone wants to make love to you I completely fail to see how that is inherently offensive. Would this be similar to a woman calling me "hot"? Or a "hunk"? Should I find those terms belittling and offensive?


It means 'worthy of screwing'. It's not the same as saying a woman's hot or sexy, or saying you want to make love to her. It's far more offensive because it's a vulgar way of telling a woman you find her attractive. 

Anyway, getting back to chick, we British women may see it differently, because I agree totally with HG's post no. 12.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

The attendant at the fast-food restaurant would be disciplined if his manager overheard him or if the customers complained.
I agree with the general tenor of the majority of the above posts. Always err on the side of caution, especially in this era of hyper-political correctness. Ridiculous this may be in some cases, but better safe than sorry.
(Re 'chick lit' and 'chick flicks': I don't know the equivalent for books and films that are aimed at a male readership/audience. There may not even be one! And 'chick' is outdated, to boot; you'd be considered not just an MCP, but an old one at that.)


----------



## MattiasNYC

in addition to "chicks" I've found that the words "girls", "ladies", "women" and "females" are also questionable and best avoided. "Girls" because it's just like "chicks", "ladies" because it's old-school and belittling, "women" because it's not used the same way as "male" is, and "females" because too 'clinical' (paraphrased).

Not a lot left. Perhaps we'd all better heed the advice and not use any of them for risk of causing offense, intended or not. Not sure what else to use though.


----------



## You little ripper!

I can't recall if I've ever heard a woman over 40 being referred to as a 'chick', and I've certainly never heard any over 50 being called one. I don't know if any of the women who find it offensive and have commented in this thread are under 30, but that's who I'd like to hear from. Maybe it is a generational thing, as Mattias suggested earlier.


----------



## Batumani

You little ripper! said:


> I can't recall if I've ever heard a woman over 40 being referred to as a 'chick', and I've certainly never heard any over 50 being called one. I don't know if any of the women who find it offensive and have commented in this thread are under 30, but that's who I'd like to hear from. Maybe it is a generational thing, as Mattias suggested earlier.



Thanks for the input, _You little ripper!_. The generational AND the regional factors may indeed play a huge role in this issue.

Here's what I got _<-----Unauthorized video links removed by moderator (Florentia52)----->_
Aside from the fact that it's most certainly aimed at a younger audience, I believe all these videos were made by Americans. I see no offensive intent in any of the titles.


----------



## pob14

I am amused by men on this thread telling women that women aren't offended by the word.


----------



## cando

Batumani said:


> Here's what dictionary.com says:
> 
> *Usage note*
> _As a term used to refer to a young woman, chick is slightly dated. Originally it was perceived as insulting because of the perception that it infantilized women. Now the word has been embraced by some women as a positiveterm of self-reference and an expression of camaraderie. When used as amodifier, as in chick flick and chick lit, its meaning is not restricted to young women and its use is not offensive._



I think that says everything that has been said in this discussion and seems to cover current usage and perceptions pretty well.

POST SCRIPT: I would never use it myself. I would sound ridiculous and be (rightly) ridiculed.


----------



## Batumani

pob14 said:


> I am amused by men on this thread telling women that women aren't offended by the word.


Hi, pob 14. It is now clear to me that many women perceive it as offensive. However, the point of the matter is not only that. For instance, when men use it to talk about young women, is their usual intention to degrade them as human beings? When it is used in a Youtube video title, is it meaning harm or simply referring to the gender and age in question?

As I said before, I'm a Brazilian English teacher living in Brazil (who has very limited cultural reference) who has few native English speaking friends with very divergent opinions on this issue. That's why I resorted to you to get to the bottom of this.

At any rate, I know a lot more about the use of _chick _than I did before.

By the way, did you feel offended for seeing the word _chick_ in those Youtube videos titles?


----------



## pob14

Batumani said:


> By the way, did you feel offended for seeing the word _chick_ in those Youtube videos titles?


Well, I'm not a woman, so it's not for me to feel offended or not.  I dislike the word intensely and never use it, though.

I'll give an analogy, though.  I'm not young by anyone's measure.  I have grey hair, I walk with a limp these days, and frankly I've looked older than my age since I was twelve, so no one is going to mistake me for a child.  Sometimes, at a restaurant or doctor's office, one of the staff -- nearly always male -- will call me "young man."  This infuriates me; I'm not a young man, the person obviously knows I'm not a young man, and whether he means to or not, he's treating me like a child, expecting me to be delighted by his little "joke."

I imagine many women feel the same way about "chick," or "baby," or "sweetheart," or any of the myriad other diminutive and dismissive terms we use for women _without even thinking about it_.  That's really my point; we _should_ think about it.


----------



## Batumani

pob14 said:


> Well, I'm not a woman, so it's not for me to feel offended or not.  I dislike the word intensely and never use it, though.
> 
> I'll give an analogy, though.  I'm not young by anyone's measure.  I have grey hair, I walk with a limp these days, and frankly I've looked older than my age since I was twelve, so no one is going to mistake me for a child.  Sometimes, at a restaurant or doctor's office, one of the staff -- nearly always male -- will call me "young man."  This infuriates me; I'm not a young man, the person obviously knows I'm not a young man, and whether he means to or not, he's treating me like a child, expecting me to be delighted by his little "joke."
> 
> I imagine many women feel the same way about "chick," or "baby," or "sweetheart," or any of the myriad other diminutive and dismissive terms we use for women _without even thinking about it_.  That's really my point; we _should_ think about it.


I see your point. Thanks a million for taking your time to shed some light on this.


----------



## pob14

Batumani said:


> I see your point. Thanks a million for taking your time to shed some light on this.


Thank you for engaging in thoughtful discussion of what can be a touchy subject for many people.


----------



## Florentia52

pob14 said:


> I am amused by men on this thread telling women that women aren't offended by the word.


----------



## london calling

pob14 said:


> I am amused by men on this thread telling women that women aren't offended by the word.


----------



## cando

More than anything I would say it is incredibly dated and I never hear it used except on nineteen-sixties film s and TV repeats.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Perhaps any comparison to another species is disliked; think of "fox" (and not "vixen", oddly enough!) for a woman the male speaker finds attractive, "bitch" for an unpleasant woman, "catty" (adj.) for disparaging talk/gossip among women, "cow", and of course "pussy".

Re "chick"'s being a generational thing: I'd like to live long enough (in good health!) to see what the next generation comes up with !


----------



## Packard

Parla said:


> Please look at Paul's and Egmont's comments for good guidance (at least among Americans). Such terms as "chick lit", for example, are used by people in the publishing business with no thought of offending anyone, only referring in a kind of "shorthand" to a category of books, much as "YA" is used in reference to books designed for the high-school-level market. A server in a restaurant delivering food to a group of women he addresses as "chicks" is being very rude and highly offensive.
> 
> Unless you are very familiar with the people and situation in which you're using a doubtful expression: _Don't._



I agree mostly agree, and I fully agree with the sentence I've emboldened below:

*Unless you are very familiar with the people and situation in which you're using a doubtful expression: Don't*

I have use "chick" recently (and did not get my face slapped).

Two of the young women that worked in the coffee shop I frequent left the job and they were replaced by two guys with beards.  I said to the manager, "I got used to hot chicks serving me my coffee and now I have a couple of guys with beards.  You can just imagine my disappointment."

I don't think I was rude in this instance, though the term "chick" can easily be seen as rude.  But also "sweetie", "honey" and "babe".  I would never call an acquaintance "a chick" nor would I refer to them as "sweetie", "honey" or "babe".  Aside from sounding old fashion, these terms seem to have a sense of possessiveness that I find off-putting (but not quite offensive).  I could easily imagine calling a woman "sweetie" and have her reply, "I'm not your sweetie".  

"Babe" and "chick" are the nearest synonyms that I can think of, and I would only use those terms when I felt I was on firm footing.  It is certainly not recommended for a language learner who has not yet mastered all the nuances of English.


----------



## pob14

Packard said:


> *Unless you are very familiar with the people and situation in which you're using a doubtful expression: Don't.*


 Best advice in the entire thread.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

And, as noted above concerning context: A term of disrespect can be turned around and used as an expression of defiance. Think of the groups Pussy Riot and Niggas With Attitude, and the French women sex workers' protest movement whose name means "Neither Whores Nor Submissive". This most definitely doesn't mean that men or non-Blacks (like Jackie Chan as noted above) can use these words!


----------



## Packard

A black woman friend told me I was an "honorary 'nigga'" and despite my knowledge of the English language I never fully understood what that entailed.  It was clearly not an insult, but what was it?  Membership to a club?  

In any case "nigger" or "nigga" is clearly in a offensive class well above "chick", but the same rules apply.  If you are not 100% certain of the usage, don't use it.


----------



## ewie

cando said:


> More than anything I would say it is incredibly dated and I never hear it used except on nineteen-sixties film s and TV repeats.


 I don't recall hearing any Britishperson using the term 'live' in the last 30-odd years ...

... other than in _chick-flick_ and _chick-lit_.  _Chick_ on its own sounds as antiquated to me as (I imagine) _dame_ would to an Americanperson.


ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> I don't know the equivalent for books and films that are aimed at a male readership/audience.


They're called _dick-flicks_ and _dick-lit_, obviously


----------



## PaulQ

MattiasNYC said:


> Ok, but I'm asking why being referred to as "girl" or "young woman" is a bad thing.


The question you ask is much broader: "Why should we be offended by any word?"

In the brain there is a "centre of indignation." This is triggered in a Pavlovian fashion by certain certain words - the words do not offend in themselves, but upon seeing or hearing them, we agree to become offended.

Why do we do this? 
To demonstrate to others that we share their values.

In the OP's question "Is it offensive when men use it to talk about women?
e.g.: _We gotta invite some more chicks to our party._ (said by some males organizing a party)"

It is unlikely that any of the men will be offended but there _may be_ a couple who will be vicariously offended for women and defend the perceived offence caused by the word "chick" as perpetuating a stereotype - in doing this, they define themselves as outside the group.

Each of the non-socially acceptable words has a value that is linked to its wider associations and nuances: I doubt that there is any word that is universally unacceptable in all contexts.


----------



## You little ripper!

pob14 said:


> I am amused by men on this thread telling women that women aren't offended by the word.


Most of the men who have commented on this thread have said that they feel the word is offensive, pob. The few of us who don't consider it offensive in certain contexts have based our opinion on our perception and experience of the word. No one has said outright that women don't consider it offensive.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

(By the way, this isn't the first discussion (ex-"thread") on Chick (woman).) "chick" may be pretty well on the opposite end of the 'offensiveness spectrum' from "broad","cunt", "'ho", and "(piece of) ass" - insults whch are as deadly as "nigger" is to Blacks -, it's still on that spectrum for many women and sensitive men (not an imaginary species !) and should be avoided to err on the side of caution, as advised above by several posters, including me.


----------



## goldenband

Unlike other words I could name, I don't think "chick" is _inherently_ disrespectful per se, in that it's not a negative descriptor. I've known women who use it to describe themselves that way in a variety of contexts, e.g. Internet handles, and not with the air of reclamation that you get with other words like "bitch" that have been consciously reclaimed.

The problem, though, is that "chick" foregrounds the woman's sexuality and attractiveness, and makes her into more of a "thing" and less of a person.

Sometimes groups of one gender get together and talk about the opposite gender in a joking, abstract way, and without caring very much about their personhood or individuality. It's probably a necessary thing, and allows heterosexual people to express frustration:

_I'm so tired of chicks who stop answering my texts when they find out I don't make six figures.

I want a man not a boy who thinks he can _- Spice Girls, "Too Much"

Neither speaker cares about the "chick" or the "boy" as a person; their mind is focused on the source of their irritation, namely that they're not getting what they want. (You might even say the whole point is to talk about them in a dismissive, 2D way.)

But using a term like "chick" to someone's face suggests that you mainly see them in a sexualized way, or even a set of body parts. Unless you have an existing relationship with them that allows for that -- _"How did I land a hot chick like you?"_ might flatter a lot of women, if said by their husband of many years -- it's inappropriately familiar at best, insulting and demeaning at worst.

That said, there are a few stock phrases where "chick" shows up, e.g. "biker chick" which is a very common descriptor and self-descriptor for a woman who's into motorcycle culture. If you're hanging out with avid motorcyclists, trying to find a different phrase to avoid using "chick" might seem very contrived. "Gamer chick" is another one, but more problematic.


----------



## Loob

ewie said:


> ... They're called _dick-flicks_ and _dick-lit_, obviously


----------



## MattiasNYC

pob14 said:


> I am amused by men on this thread telling women that women aren't offended by the word.



I think it'd be more accurate to say that some men are telling people, not women specifically, that women have said they aren't offended by the word. But I have the feeling that that distinction lacks significance to everyone who thought what you wrote above was somehow 'witty' or 'true'. In case someone actually cares about the truth the internet is a big place and it's not that hard finding women confessing to not caring one way or another and not having a problem with it.

The real question is why someone would dismiss the opinions of these women. Isn't that even more belittling?

And thanks for your input; I'm adding "baby" and "sweetheart" to the list of words one cannot use for fear of being offensive.


----------



## MattiasNYC

PaulQ said:


> The question you ask is much broader: "Why should we be offended by any word?"
> 
> In the brain there is a "centre of indignation." This is triggered in a Pavlovian fashion by certain certain words - the words do not offend in themselves, but upon seeing or hearing them, we agree to become offended.
> 
> Why do we do this?
> To demonstrate to others that we share their values.
> 
> In the OP's question "Is it offensive when men use it to talk about women?
> e.g.: _We gotta invite some more chicks to our party._ (said by some males organizing a party)"
> 
> It is unlikely that any of the men will be offended but there _may be_ a couple who will be vicariously offended for women and defend the perceived offence caused by the word "chick" as perpetuating a stereotype - in doing this, they define themselves as outside the group.
> 
> Each of the non-socially acceptable words has a value that is linked to its wider associations and nuances: I doubt that there is any word that is universally unacceptable in all contexts.



Fair enough. My point is simply that at some point we would probably do well to turn the brain on and curb Pavlov's dog for a second. The whole purpose of language is the communication of messages. If the messages sent aren't offensive then what's there to be offended about? The question of mine that you quoted really tried to get to that root. This particular word has a meaning, and the question was if that meaning is offensive or not.

Now, you might think I'm being argumentative here and am trying to find some sort of angle, but I'm actually genuinely curious not only by people getting offended in general, but interested in this case specifically. As I pointed out, I can find a great deal of words that describe.... well, "not men", as a group, that have been defined as being offensive. So while "chick" is offensive because it supposedly belittles women because it supposedly implies they're really young, the world "girl" is apparently ok, unless it isn't. But neither is "lady", or "women","baby", "sweetheart" or "female". It all depends.

So basically, another part could be extracted from my question, and it seems that's what you were referring to; at what point does "If you don't know someone won't be offended by this word don't use it" become impractical, because you can pretty much always find someone who gets offended by something.

I guess the thing to confess is that I'm pretty thick-skinned in general. I hardly ever get offended, because I have nice friends, but if I ever do, it is because of the message, not the wording. This is pretty much always the case.


----------



## PaulQ

MattiasNYC said:


> My point is simply that at some point we would probably do well to turn the brain on and curb Pavlov's dog for a second.


You are preaching to the converted.  I agree with you entirely in all that you say - the whole idea of being personally offended by the sound, or associations, of a word is a social construct. To be offended the listener must know what the word means *and *implies, but he only knows what it implies as others have told him and then told him not to say it - and he has believed them.

This phenomenon of the taboo words is given in the OED as





> The institution [of taboo] is generally supposed to have had a religious or superstitious origin (certain things being considered the property of the gods or superhuman powers, and therefore forbidden to men), and to have been extended to political and social affairs, being usually controlled by the king or great chiefs in conjunction with the priests. Some things, acts, and words were permanently taboo or interdicted to the mass of the people, and others *specially to women*1, while temporary taboo was frequently imposed, *often apparently quite arbitrarily.*


 (My emphasis)
It is a form of social control: If I say "Henceforth no one shall say "Fribble", it is offensive." nobody would take the slightest notice, but were the chief to say the same thing, all would agree and the concept becomes a meme. In today's society, the meme lives on but the place of the chief is taken by "opinion formers" via popular media in the process of denormalisation. This probably explains


MattiasNYC said:


> So basically, another part could be extracted from my question, and it seems that's what you were referring to; at what point does "If you don't know someone won't be offended by this word don't use it" become impractical, because you can pretty much always find someone who gets offended by something.


The point is that you do not know and cease saying the word because of a fear that you might be doing the wrong thing and self-censorship is the strongest form of censorship. Hence a meme is created.

We can also see cases in which a word has passed into being OK to being taboo and back to being OK -> Queer - OED





> 1a. Strange, odd, peculiar, eccentric. In common use in this sense until the establishment of sense 3, since when it has become relatively rare.
> 
> 3. colloq. (orig. U.S.). Of a person: homosexual. Hence: of or relating to homosexuals or homosexuality. Cf. earlier queer n.2 2.Although originally chiefly derogatory (and still widely considered offensive, esp. when used by heterosexual people), from the late 1980s it began to be used as a neutral or positive term (originally of self-reference, by some homosexuals [...] in place of gay or homosexual, without regard to, or in implicit denial of, its negative connotations. In some academic contexts it is the preferred adjective in the study of issues relating to homosexuality …



There is another phenomenon, compartmentalisation, in which a taboo word is entirely neutral in a particular context: Until the early 1970s, it was possible to buy wool and cotton in the colour, "nigger brown" in which "nigger" was simply the name of a shade and divorced from its "offensive" meaning, but self-censorship prohibited that use.

So in answer to "Why is "chick" offensive?" the answer is "because someone decided it was and they didn't ask anyone else's opinion."

That said, I cannot stand to be addressed as "Hi guys!" - there is no rational reason, it just seems to me that I am not in the category of "guys" and that people who say it require to be tied to a lamppost and beaten to death with a copy of Farnsworth's "The role of Speech in forming Social Behaviour". 

1 A woman who uses taboo words is always seen as far more shameful a creature than a man who does. (Compare the man with many conquests under his belt and the woman in a similar position.)


----------



## MattiasNYC

Interesting post Paul..... a good read.


----------



## Truffula

MattiasNYC said:


> I think it'd be more accurate to say that some men are telling people, not women specifically, that women have said they aren't offended by the word....
> 
> The real question is why someone would dismiss the opinions of these women. Isn't that even more belittling?



The reason this is unconvincing is that most of us women are well aware that there are many circumstances where we pretend things aren't offensive in order not to get into discussions like this one has become with men.  It is just not worth it and too annoying (especially if you are friends with the man and want to remain so).  

So we think that many men will have seen women pretending to be un-offended by "chicks" but don't find this any evidence that the women actually weren't offended - we aren't dismissing their opinions, should the women post them here themselves, we are dismissing the hearsay testimony of men about whether the women were actually offended.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Very well put Truffula. Thank you.


----------



## Egmont

Truffula said:


> The reason this is unconvincing is that most of us women are well aware that there are many circumstances where we pretend things aren't offensive in order not to get into discussions like this one has become with men.  It is just not worth it and too annoying (especially if you are friends with the man and want to remain so)...


Yet another reason not to use this, or any other, potentially offensive term. People who are offended - all sorts of people for all sorts of terms, not just women hearing themselves or another woman called "chick" - may hide that if they want to continue a relationship, even a business relationship. The resentment will still be there, though. It may come back to bite you later.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Truffula said:


> The reason this is unconvincing is that most of us women are well aware that there are many circumstances where we pretend things aren't offensive in order not to get into discussions like this one has become with men.  It is just not worth it and too annoying (especially if you are friends with the man and want to remain so).
> 
> So we think that many men will have seen women pretending to be un-offended by "chicks" but don't find this any evidence that the women actually weren't offended - we aren't dismissing their opinions, should the women post them here themselves, we are dismissing the hearsay testimony of men about whether the women were actually offended.



So basically your argument is ignoring that I searched the web and found discussions on this by women, NOT directed at men specifically with whom they wanted to remain friends, and your explanation is instead that men just heard women lie about it (because they wanted to be friends) and it's therefore just not true; is that your argument in a nutshell? That's what it sounds like.

Again, it sounds completely dismissive of women who have different opinions than yours.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

So sadly true Egmont. Thank you.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Nonsense.

*How about this: Post examples of alternatives to "chicks" that are not potentially offensive.*


----------



## PaulQ

Egmont said:


> People who are offended - all sorts of people for all sorts of terms, not just women hearing themselves or another woman called "chick" - may hide that if they want to continue a relationship, even a business relationship. The resentment will still be there, though. It may come back to bite you later.


Whereas I see what you wish to say, the claim is anecdotal. The above states only that we do not know how many (or what percentage of) people are offended.

Things get worse as we try to find the percentage, as the commonest source will always be those who complain, because those who do not object, do not object as they see it as normal and therefore do not write "Quite normally, today I was referred to as "a chick"."


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> Again, it sounds completely dismissive of women who have different opinions than yours.



I have absolutely no idea what your point is. You seem to be saying that all the women who contributed to this thread are wrong because other women somewhere or another are happy to be called 'chicks'?
Where, on this thread (which, in case you need reminding is concerned with advising on the use of language), are the women who are completely happy to be addressed as 'chick'? Maybe I somehow didn't notice them? Please, please tell me that's so. [sic].

What do I care what's 'on the internet'? There are all sorts of  total idiocies and idiots, both male and female, on the web. Who exactly are these women who never object to being called 'chick'? There are all sorts of idiot females, in real life and on the web but there are none here, or are there? Is that what you're saying?

Is there something 'wrong' with those who express disagreement with a perceived or promoted majority? You scare me.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Hermione Golightly said:


> I have absolutely no idea what your point is. You seem to be saying that all the women who contributed to this thread are wrong because other women somewhere or another are happy to be called 'chicks'?



1. I didn't say "other women" at any location "are happy to be called 'chicks'".

2. I also didn't say that all the women here who contributed are wrong.

What I _did_ propose was that this is far from a sentiment _all _women hold. Just because several women here have an opinion doesn't mean all women do. Not even a majority (although that's certainly possible) And so I proposed that the fact that _some_ people (men or women) get offended doesn't mean that any term should be avoided as long _anyone_ might be offended. I believe I was quite clear about that. Was I not?



Hermione Golightly said:


> Where, on this thread (which, in case you need reminding is concerned with advising on the use of language), are the women who are completely happy to be addressed as 'chick'? Maybe I somehow didn't notice them? Please, please tell me that's so. [sic].



I believe PaulQ addressed that quite well.



Hermione Golightly said:


> What do I care what's 'on the internet'? There are all sorts of  total idiocies and idiots, both male and female, on the web. Who exactly are these women who never object to being called 'chick'? There are all sorts of idiot females, in real life and on the web but there are none here, or are there? Is that what you're saying?



First of all I refer you back to the beginning of this post where I reiterated what my point was. Secondly, the point of this forum is probably not how to talk to people on this forum, is it? I'd say the point is to learn how people use language in different ways in life in general. So your point seems moot.

Lastly, I find it amusing that you _seem to_ refer to those women who disagree with you as "idiot females", yet don't understand what I mean when I use the word "dismissive". Or did I misunderstand you here?



Hermione Golightly said:


> Is there something 'wrong' with those who express disagreement with a perceived or promoted majority? You scare me.



I'm confused. I was saying that not everyone seems to have the same sentiment on this word, and that it's impractical to just tell people not to use any word that _might_ be perceived as offensive by _someone_, seemingly randomly, for obvious reasons. The fact that I said that should clearly indicate that I'm NOT saying there's something wrong with those who disagree. You may notice for example that I have NOT called those who disagree with me "idiot females" or "idiots" or their opinions "idiocies". 

Now, a word on the use of the term "females":

Is Calling a Woman a Female Offensive?
6 Reasons You Should Stop Referring To Women As "Females" Right Now
http://jezebel.com/the-problem-with-calling-women-females-1683808274

Perhaps you were being facetious?
(or maybe those women are idiocy-spouting idiots???)


----------



## goldenband

I think trying to figure out whether the word "chick" is inherently offensive is far too metaphysical. The main question is, will _some_ women be offended by it, in _some_ situations, _rightly or wrongly_? Absolutely, so that makes it a word to use cautiously -- at best.

That said, when I did online dating, "chick" had to have been one of the top 5 words I saw in women's online nicknames (along with e.g. various spellings of "girl"). It was self-chosen and omnipresent, though I'm afraid I can't provide statistics. Other examples abound: the two phrases I mentioned earlier, the feminist website Skepchick, etc.

So it seems a _bit _rich to claim that "chick" is, in and of itself, a terribly offensive word. I think the reality is that the offense doesn't come from the word's innate properties or even its history, but _from_ _the sexualizing viewpoint it encodes_, which -- like all sexualizing behavior -- is clearly inappropriate in most situations, but not all.

"Chick", "babe", "honey", "hot stuff", all are offensive to someone who, _for whatever reason_, rejects the speaker's attempt to explicitly refer to them as a sexual being. But if a woman refers to herself that way, or if those terms are used in a mutually consenting romantic/sexual context, the calculus totally changes.


----------



## MattiasNYC

goldenband said:


> offensive to someone who, _for whatever reason_, rejects* the speaker's attempt to explicitly refer to them as a sexual being.*



And if there was no such attempt, but the word was nevertheless used?


----------



## Cagey

There is not going to be consensus on a response to the question of "How offensive is 'chick'?"
Nor is there going to be a consensus regarding the more general question of how much we should moderate our language to avoid giving offense.

Anyone who is interested in the question can read the opinions expressed above and come to their own conclusions. 

This thread is closed. 

Cagey, moderator.


----------

