How derogatory is “chicks” when used to refer to women?

A comment in “What is a feminine version of guys?” got me wondering: how derogatory is the use of chicks to refer to women (either in general, or to a specific group). To me (I'm a man), it was quite disrespectful, so that it may be some slang term you use with male buddies (“See the hot chick over there?”), but I would not use the term in presence of women: neither in direct address (“Hi chicks!”, as I would say “Hi gals!” to a group of friends) nor when referring to other women.

How derogatory is chick? In what contexts would you use it, as a man? And when used by a woman?

As a man, I still consider it derogatory and would not use it in any normal conversation. I will agree that it's quite mild as a term, not a major insult, but it's still derogatory.

It's originally a slang term, derived (if I'm not mistaken) from the older British slang of "bird" for a woman. (Thus, young woman = "chick".) It was almost invariably used between men, with the "bird" being a form of quarry to be hunted, and the term still has that connotation. It is definitely dismissive; the person referred to that way is not on an even status with the speaker.

As far as groups that refer to themselves with it, such as the cited "Dixie Chicks" and "Chicks with Picks", I consider them to have understood the connotations and intentionally used it ironically. I'll refer to the organization as they prefer, but personally I still wouldn't walk up to a random member of "Chicks with Picks" and say, "Hey chick, come over here." At least, if I did I wouldn't expect a positive reaction. :)

As normally derogatory as "chicks" is, there are many specific contexts where it isn't derogatory at all. While I would never walk into a room full of girls and say, "Hey chicks," because it would be disrespectful, in the same room I wouldn't hesitate to use a phrase like "chicks dig scars" or mention some climbing group like "Chicks with Picks".

NOAD claims chick is derogatory, but I would dispute that claim.

For one thing, it's not too derogatory if women themselves use it about themselves. Think of the country music group The Dixie Chicks, who, according to Wikipedia, "took their band name from the song "Dixie Chicken" by Lowell George of Little Feat. Presumably they would have refused to convert chicken to chick if they felt it disrespected women. And if you've ever seen the group (which sings songs like "Thank Heavens for Dale Evans"), you realize they're not making the same kind of statement with their name as, say, the rap group N.W.A.

Then think of terms like "chick flicks" and "chick lit" — men may use them to express their disaffection with such subjects, but women equally embrace them. My wife and her friends, for example, use those terms enthusiastically and without reservation.

Indeed, this points up a contradiction in NOAD's characterization, since it defines "chick flick" this way:

chick flick noun informal a movie that appeals mainly to women.

What was claimed to be derogatory is now merely informal. How's that for consistency? If it's derogatory as a noun, certainly it ought to be derogatory as an adjective or attributive noun.

And if it's derogatory at all, it's certainly not on the same level as calling a gay man a "fag" or a Lesbian a "dyke" or a black man a — well, you get the idea. Chick is pretty mild stuff, and pretty well accepted in informal conversation.

Found an interesting, though possibly dated, discussion of the term at Green Left. It's a feminist argument against the growing popularity of the term and the idea that once derogatory terms can be "reclaimed." It's full of zingers like this:

Even if the generally understood meaning of some words used to describe women does change, this doesn't in itself alter capitalist society's reliance on (and constant efforts to reinforce) the oppression of women.