Via Alternet comes Gloria Steinem’s defense of “chick flicks” and, to a lesser extent, “chick lit,” which is arguably much more vapid than the standard “chick flick” such as Steel Magnolias.

Steinem argues that a “chick flick” can be defined as having “more dialogue than special effects, more relationships than violence, and relies for its suspense on how people live instead of how they die.” The rub is  that the cultural attitude toward “chick flicks” — a general, if sometimes unspoken, acknowledgment that they are lame and inferior because of their emphasis on relationships and emotion — reflects a prevailing condescending cultural attitude toward women and “women’s issues” (as if females are the only sex to have emotions and relationships) in general.

So, Steinem suggests a new literary and film genre to level the playing field.

If we can slap the stereotypical “chick” label onto movies and literature that tends to focus on life and relationships, why not slap the stereotypical “prick” label onto movies and literature that prize the violent and destructive over the creative and emotional?

I think Steinem is being mostly tongue-in-cheek here, attempting to illustrate the silly, arbitrary nature of assigning gender to certain universal literary concepts based on stereotypical assumptions. But it’s tempting to see how far into the cultural dialogue “prick flick” could get.

Not only will it serve film critics well, but its variants will add to the literary lexicon. For example, “prick lit” could characterize a lot of fiction, from Philip Roth to Bret Easton Ellis and beyond. “True prick” could guide readers to their preferred non-fiction, from the classics of Freud to the populist works of socio-biologists and even Rush Limbaugh.

As for film, Steinem would include:

All the movies that glorify World War II. From classics with John Wayne and Ronald Reagan, those master actors who conveyed heroism without ever leaving the back lot, to Spielberg’s “Band of Brothers,” in which the hero would rather die than be rescued, Hollywood has probably spent more on making movies about the war than this country spent on fighting it. …

All the movies that glorify Vietnam, bloody regional wars, and the war on terrorism. …

All the movies that portray violence against women, preferably beautiful, sexy, half-naked women. These feature chainsaws and house parties for teenage guys, serial killers and sadistic rapists for ordinary male adults, plus cleverly plotted humiliations and deaths of powerful women for the well-educated misogynist.

So, what do you think? Would “prick flick” be a useful genre distinction in the way “chick flick” has been? Beifuss, I’m looking at you!