"Chick flicks"

I think it means the movie will mostly appeal to women's sensibilities more than men's . As for classic examples I'd say any of Kate Hepburn or Audrey Hepburn movies would qualify .

when did some films start to be labelled as "chick flicks"? What is their polarity?
The term is really fairly new. I began hearing it in the late 90s or early 00s. I don't think there is an actual term that describes a man's film in the same fashion, but they're out there. We'll circle back to this.

I might add that I consider it a derogatory
I wouldn't call it derogatory at all. There are plenty of men's films that are made strictly for men. 300 (2006) comes immediately to mind. That's the last thing most (no, not all, but most) women ever want to see.

To be honest, older films didn't really make chick-flicks like they do today. It was always about men. Think about that for a second. How many female leads were in classic films? I don't mean there weren't any, because there were but she was always foreshadowed by the man. Few films were only about women. There are a small handful but the point is most mainstream films weren't.

Also back then, most films were interested in not targeting a particular set of viewers. They wanted to draw in all audiences. Romantic comedies could possibly be called chick-flicks but think of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Men liked the dancing and beautiful Ginger while women appreciated both.

Feminism has laid the foundation for chick flicks, which is why I do not call this derogatory. It's of their own making so it couldn't possibly be derogatory. In fact, if I had to name the most influential woman, I'd say it was Sally Field (such as [title=tt0079638]), or maybe Meryl Streep (in [title=tt0079417]). Their early films made the leap toward films focused on women, hence, chick flicks.

Does this help?

Random Thoughts: http://goo.gl/eXk3O

I agree it's a fairly recent term. There have always been Hollywood films aimed at women; in the studio era they were simply called "women's films" (or "pictures"). I've heard that in that era, it was thought that women tended to choose what movie the couple (or family) would see, so the studios very much wanted to please female viewers. Of course, that's not to say the female characters were strong, independent people, although sometimes they were.

As to whether the term is offensive, opinions will differ. Movie/TV produces a lot of vaguely silly nicknames, such as sci-fi, whodunit, etc. There is certainly an opposite to the "chick flick," however not one nickname that has caught on to the same degree. Movies that appeal more to men have been called guy movies, buddy movies (usually used for movies about two men), testosterone pics, etc. It's hard to beat "chick flick" for catchiness, although it does have a dismissive sound to it.

it does have a dismissive sound to it Quite.
In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer

I don't think there is an actual term that describes a man's film in the same fashion, but they're out there. This goes to the heart of the feeling it is derogatory. In language there are lots of terms for women and their genitalia where there are not corresponding terms for men and theirs. I don't mean literally no words to describe either; I mean terms that are slang, which is what 'chick click is, it's not a term for a genre. Whenever that imbalance occurs in language it is usually to do with prejudice and power.

I suspect 'chick flick' was coined by men. What's worse is that many film that would be labelled 'chick flicks', rom coms mostly, I loathe. As to your example of a man's film, as a female I liked 300 ... a lot.
In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer

I think the best book on the subject of (classic) women in films is "A WOMAN'S VIEW: How Hollywood Spoke to Women, 1930-1960" by Jeanine Basinger. It may sound academic, but it's actually very funny as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KIRKUS REVIEW: Serious, extended study of the woman's film during the three decades of its heyday (1930-60), filled with both obscure and well- remembered titles. Basinger (Film/Wesleyan; The World War II Combat Film, 1986, etc.--not reviewed) enlivens her text with gleeful vocalizing (``Wheeeeee!'') while her bass notes support a thesis-driven breakdown of women's films into types and themes. Fewer actresses and films might have served the author better than this taxonomy, where the author's livelier voice gets muffled. Main theme: that the woman's picture ``held women in social bondage and released them into a dream of potency and freedom.'' Typically, a woman's picture reaffirmed the status quo--for example, by releasing a woman from stony boredom into happy activity that first becomes suspect and then a disaster, confirming the better value of things as they are. But Basinger points out that, unlike Westerns and other genre films, few women's pictures stuck absolutely to formula--they became much too unrealistic and contradictory for stable definition. The woman's picture placed a woman ``at the center of the story universe (`I am a woman and I am important')''; it reaffirmed that ``a woman's true job is that of just being a woman''; and it provided ``an escape into a purely romantic love, into sexual awareness, into luxury, or into the rejection of the female role that might only come in some form of questioning (`What other choices do I have?').'' Basinger's retellings of the films themselves bring much uplift--she goes into each story filled with intelligence and gusto, her sense of fun often overcoming stuffiness. And no doubt the 45 b&w illustrations will boost reader interest.


PUBLISHER'S WEEKLY: Full of sharp and entertaining insights, this exhaustive study analyzes dozens of "women's films"-- The Man I Love , My Reputation , Women's Prison , etc.--which presented the contradiction of covert liberation and overt support for women's traditional roles. Basinger, chair of the Film Studies Program at Wesleyan Univeristy, mostly avoids citing interviews and fan magazines, relying instead on her own perceptions. She offers clever epigrams--the constrained choices of the woman's world are a "Board Game of Life"--as she explores issues including men, marriage, motherhood and fashion. The film Jezebel , the author suggests, deserved a subtitle: "How Society Forces Bette Davis to Conform by Making Her Change Her Dress." Basinger's gimlet eye generates several schema, from the basic rules of film behavior to the four kinds of mothers. And while observations like one that finds similarities between women in prisons and in department stores are amusing, they also hit home. Photos not seen by PW.