The term also imposes gender where gender shouldn’t (and mustn’t) apply. It’s rare we use the term “guy flicks” or “dick flicks.” Rather, we speak of “Actions,” “Westerns”, “Adventures”, “Comedies”, “Thrillers”, “Sci-Fis”, “Horrors”, “Mysteries” and “Noirs” with the understanding that these films are not restricted to male appreciation, nor are they expected to appeal to every single male. Yet, if we add a female protagonist, a romantic focus, or display overt emotion, chances are the general movie-going populace will revert to calling it a “Chick Flick.” Thus, male-dominated films become “normal” and anything else becomes “other.” This thinking leads to the production of fewer female-driven stories as the majority of studio-financed films are targeted at young males (for more on why see my previous article “Beyond the Bechdel Test”). https://iconema.com.mx/beyond-the-bechdel-test/?lang=en
So, how do we fix this snafu in our system?
I suggest we follow Crayola’s lead. Let us choose genre labels that have clearly defined, collectively understood and accepted meanings. The label “Chick Flicks,” as already demonstrated, does not. In an ideal world, we would employ gender-neutral categories like the ones mentioned above. Alas, since the damage has already been done, there will be times, especially in this blog, where discussion of these topics renders gender neutrality impossible. That being the case, when necessary, we will employ the term “female-targeted films” so as to put the onus on PR folks and not on societal realities. Just because a film is marketed to females does not mean it speaks to all (or, in some cases, any) of our diverse, individual aesthetics.