While I try not to react too strongly to this behavior (and instead see the intention behind it, which I'd say is commendable), I've become rather allergic to this kind of policing. If you're not personally affected, there's no reason for 1 and not always good reason for 2. If you are personally affected, then it would still be preferable to avoid 1, but I can at least understand.
I suspect a good proportion of downvoters/flaggers feel this way, and would otherwise happily avoid the term 'chick' if it causes offense.
I can't, just can't, not in 2018, leave "this chick" without a remark: it sounds rather derogatory. Please be more respectful.
Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'.
Now does anyone know where I can find that write up, because I'm still really interested?
I am not "this chick," I have never been "this chick," the correct label is "yonder youthful poultry"
Not really. It's always been somewhat condescending.
"Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'."
Dude, and in fact many euphemisms for men, don't carry the same connotations as the ones for women.
If you saw me at a bar, forgot my name, and said "hey you're that dude from the other day" I wouldn't mind.
All about context. She's a professional and this is a professional context. "Chick" isn't a huge deal, and I'm sure you didn't mean to be offensive. But it reflects a level of informality that isn't appropriate for the situation.
Dude is gender neutral.
Chick comes from "chica", which by itself comes from the Latin "ciccum" as in pea.
By calling a woman a chick, you are called her a "chick-pea".
There's even some association with "chick bird", as in a bird you hunt.
Modern usage associates the use of "chick" with the beauty of the individual. Calling a woman a "chick" is using her physical appearance to describe her, disregarding her actual skills and achievements.
By calling a woman a chick, you are either:
A) Calling her a young girl (women are not children)
B) Calling her a young bird (women are not prey)
C) Calling her a young plant (women are more than brainless beautiful things)
All of those can offend.
The equivalent would be calling a men "boy toy" or some such slang. Not something you can do without earning a punch in the face.
Derogate: –verb (used with object) 3. to disparage or belittle.
> Modern usage associates the use of "chick" with the beauty of the individual. Calling a woman a "chick" is using her physical appearance to describe her, disregarding her actual skills and achievements.
I can definitely accept that in many circles 'chick' has this connotation, and, again, I'm happy to be cautious in my use of the word if I don't know for certain whether this is the case or not.
That said, most circles I've been part of would most definitely not agree with your rather narrow and negative interpretation of the word, and its use is perfectly okay and similar to 'dude'.
Again, I don't see what you're trying to achieve with this kind of pedantry. If you actually care about these I do hope you find a better way to communicate about it.
We are arguing under a [flagged] [dead] comment, so there's not much to achieve here.
My last opinion on the subject has been said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16587100
FWIW my apologies for being a bit too antagonistic. Personal frustrations getting the best of me. I do generally avoid using 'chick' unless I know it's okay, and I do think that's a sensible approach. And in hindsight I wish I hadn't gotten into a discussion about it.
Women in positions of authority or power are generally not referred to as chicks, it's hard to come up with a universal rule, but if one considers female authority figures throughout one's life it becomes easier to see where "chick" is usually not acceptable term for a woman you respect whereas "dude" has a more neutral connotation for male authority figures, e.g. in reference to a strict male authority figure "that dude is a hardass" or "that dude will knock you out".
Since that person is not present, it is best to be as formal as possible.
Call men "a man", call women "a woman", boys "a boy" and girls "a girl". Using words like "babe", "chick", "kiddo" for people you don't know is a blatant lack of respect.
Using "a chick" in the current context is plain wrong to me. It's fine if you know her, but talking about a third-party this way is disrespectful from my point of view.
My issue with this comment has nothing to do with gender or feminism. It is all about the correct use of words when addressing strangers.
When everyone you've ever known, and all media you've ever seen, for 30 years, has exclusively used "dude" for males only, is it really "gender neutral"?
Googling "Is dude gender neutral?" results in a lot of sites telling you that it is.
"In the early 1960s, dude became prominent in surfer culture as a synonym of guy or fella. The female equivalent was "dudette" or "dudess," but these have both fallen into disuse, and "dude" is now also used as a unisex term." Dude - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude
Googling "Is dude gender neutral?".... why would I even have that question if my entire community has never called that in to question in the first place?
To understand and see how communities that aren't yours act, and interact with vernacular versus shuttering one's self behind the assumption that because your group sees x in a certain way, other groups must by default see it similarly.
I asked a question. I'm not sure what there is to disagree about.
edit: seems that's how the author intended it
Obviously not everybody responds this way but we should be aware of the context.
That said, I'm curious what is at all "professional" about the greater context that spawned this particular discussion in the first place.
[1] https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/973951162536706049
Very roughly in English workplaces you should avoid calling any of the women "chick" because you'll cause grave offence.
There are very narrow exceptions to this. In places like Stoke on Trent you might find people calling each other "my duck" (but this isn't just women; men call each other "me duck" too.) But even there you need to know the person and know it's ok.
In this particular example: I'm uncomfortable with the use of "chick" and it makes me think less of the writer, even after the explanation that it was an alternate to "dude". People can use whatever language they like, but they should be aware of the effect of the language they chose on other people so they make an informed choice.
Translation: Go for the least common denominator. Try to be as bland as possible in your writing.
> avoid calling any of the women "chick" because you'll cause grave offence
If that's what you consider "grave," there's a whole internet full of words that will make you pass out.
Translation: Be a professional.
I spent 5 seconds googling.
Where I come from (central US), "chick" is similar to "dork" in that it can, but doesn't necessarily, have derogatory connotations. It depends a lot on context. It's perfectly acceptable (though slightly cheeky) to call oneself a dork in public, but you typically wouldn't call someone else a dork unless you were already on very familiar terms with that person. And you would only do it in familiar circumstances. Doing it with someone you don't know very well, or doing it in public, would be considered offensive. Doubly so if you don't know them and it's in public.
Chick operates the same way, only it's got even more cultural baggage because it features in a lot of memes that are associated with sexism (e.g., the phrase "cruising for chicks").
So I wouldn't even dream of presuming that it's OK for me to call someone else a chick in public, even if I knew them to be a founding member of Chicks who Code.
I realize that the original poster was probably just trying to be cute. But, as John Scalzi famously observed, "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'."
I think context and age matters a lot here (as well as personal preference) - young women and (especially) girls may use the term amongst themselves but middle age women almost certainly wouldn't, if you called your boss "chick," it would be seen as inappropriate, belittling and disrespectful. It's in the same category (but not "severity") as other diminutives like sweetie, honey, babe, girl, girly, and doll.
It may vary by region too, I know at least certain diminutives don't have the same connotations in the American South as they do elsewhere.
In general, you should probably avoid calling an adult woman you are personally unfamiliar with "chick" in many contexts, not necessarily because "PC police," but because it's just bad for communication - its not necessary and it can be a distraction from the actual message you're conveying.
Personally, as a woman approaching 40, I can't think of any context I'd care to be called "chick" in. Not necessarily offended but it would be just icky.
EDIT:
Some discussion:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19098/how-deroga...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/30/bird-i...
I suppose the interesting question to ask is does HN think of itself as more of a professional/formal discussion community than one that leans towards casual/familiar?
(I'd assume that the answer is that it probably varies with comment writer and both sides of the argument are represented here and have fair points.)
I don't speak for everyone, I'm merely speaking in observation: the former is the status quo, the latter I have seen completely derail threads (we're in one one of those box cars right now) and in my own opinion, which is mine and no one else's, not out of maliciousness (or at least, rarely so), but because of the clash when subscribers of the first group run into subscribers of the second group...
and neither one wants to give the other an inch.
Seems like a luxury.
edit: jeez, tough crowd here...