Feminism

Thriving in a Flock: Talking about “Birds”

Women or Birds?

A new word has recently been adopted from British and Australian diction by TikTok and has gained a large amount of popularity. This word, once used to refer to women or girls, has been demoralized. It is now used to describe women who are perceived as dumb and ditzy, and who center their lives around men; women who constantly talk about their crushes, make large sacrifices for men, and generally focus all their attention on attracting or impressing men. Women like this gain the fancy new label of “bird.”

At first, I thought this was a good idea to encourage women to focus on themselves instead of on men. It would make women realize how centered their lives are on the opposite gender. Society is already built upon androcentrism, meaning that males are typically most frequently and accurately represented. So, I figured it would be progressive to call women out on their male-centered behavior.

My Realization

However, as time progressed, my friends started using the word, I started seeing it in comment sections, and noticed it in every other video. It made me feel somewhat odd. At some point, I realized that calling women “birds” isn’t progressive at all, and in actuality, is quite derogatory.

Society in itself is male-centered. We live in a flock. To only call out women on their behavior is to ignore the issue of androcentrism throughout the entirety of the nation and the world. Calling a woman a bird is the same as calling her a slut— both words reduce a woman’s worth to her relationship with men. Neither one is progressive, and both are demeaning. So, society needs to stop coming up with names for women in regard to their affiliations with men. “Bird” is just another word to put women down.

Women are not small, dimwitted animals. Women are not birds.


Discover more from Her Opinion, Overlooked

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

One comment on “Thriving in a Flock: Talking about “Birds”

  1. Beautifully said. For a lot of people, money brings stability, security, and comfort. But it doesn’t bring happiness and many people have to earn a living do something they are not passionate about.

    In Daniel Pink’s Book Drive, he studies motivation. He references a study conducted by Edward Deci in 1969 where he had participants in one group get paid for completing puzzles and the other group complete puzzles with no reward. He found, “When money is used as an external reward for some activity, the subject lose intrinsic interest for the activity.” The group who were more curious about the puzzles without compensation worked on the puzzles for longer periods of time and completed more of them.

    In my experience, this who focus on their passion and fuel their curiosity have greater sense of fulfillment.

Comments are closed.