Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!dgp.toronto.edu!doc
From: doc@dgp.toronto.edu (Blaine Price)
Newsgroups: ont.singles
Subject: Re: call to vote. (was Re: BIMS, TROLLIPS, BABES : Women of Our Time)
Message-ID: <1990Mar1.103653.1031@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 90 15:36:53 GMT
References: <5093.25e9b314@uwovax.uwo.ca> <1990Feb27.002117.18215@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <KIM.90Feb27010335@watnow.waterloo.edu> <HAROLDT.90Feb28115851@yunexus.yorku.ca> <1990Mar1.035422.16302@robohack.UUCP>
Distribution: ont
Lines: 13


I'll not claim that my own personal vast range of experience (:-) 
is representative of current male thinking with respect to vocabulary
describing women, but the only way in which I have heard "chick" used
is in a denigrating manner (excluding all of those "quality" American
Television shows from the early to mid 70s).

Did someone mention something about gender differences in flirting 
behaviour in an earlier posting?  This sounds like a much more interesting
topic....from a purely anthropological point of view, of course!  :-)

Comments?
						_Blaine