My Glaswegian friend says “bird” quite a lot. When I was around more British folks, I’d hear “bird” from some of them every so often. It’s been about twenty years, though, since I’ve been in a speaking group that regularly involved a lot of Brits.
The last time I can recall “broad” being used in contemporary-setting media (as opposed to period pieces) was by Vic Tayback’s character Mel Sharples, the diner owner/cook in the American sitcom Alice (1976-85). I have a vague memory that there were one or more episodes where the diner’s waitresses castigated Mel for his misogynistic speech habits.
I think you should start another thread with that question, but don’t expect it to be pleasurable.
You seem to have no problem using a term for males.
You are right. I don’t have a problem with collective nouns.
Well at work I say things like “Suzanne is a really smart technical writer”.
And that’s fine, but it isn’t a collective noun for a group of attractive, young females. Which is what my question was about.
How about ‘attractive, young women’. I mean, I appreciate it’s more than one syllable, but it gets the point across.
Yeah, that works, but popular vernacular tends to be more succinct.
I would say ‘bird’ is rather old-fashioned, not the sort of thing young people would say.
Well, what term do you use for a group of attractive, young males? There is probably some female equivalent for it.
If you would just call them “attractive young men”, then I don’t see why you’d object to using the female equivalent “attractive young women”.
If what you’re digging for is a synonym for common women-objectifying terms like “babes” or “chicks” or “birds” or “broads” or “thots” or “dames” or “bimbos” or “hotties” or “bints” or “skirts” that somehow is not perceived as objectifying women, I’m afraid you’re probably out of luck.
The whole point of having a specialized term for a group of attractive young women is to objectify them sexually when referring to them. Otherwise you could just, you know, refer to them as “women”.
But that would include all women, and he wants to exclude the unattractive ones.
Or “people”.
I don’t know what is current with young women, but in my day, attractive young men might be referred to as a “hunk”. Is that offensive?
It’s certainly objectifying and not “politically correct”, obviously. That doesn’t mean that nobody ever uses it or that everybody’s always offended by it; after all, there are plenty of contexts in which sexually objectifying somebody is not inappropriate.
But there is simply no way to refer to anybody by a term that emphasizes their sexual attractiveness without sexually objectifying them. As DrFidelius pointed out back in post #18, the very concept of a “politically correct” way to objectify people is a contradiction in terms.
What tends to be especially offensive about objectifying terms for attractive young women is that they are often the only way that some people refer to attractive young women, no matter what the context.
It’s one thing to say in private conversation with your bros that you like to go to the beach and see all the hot chicks in bikinis, for example. But it’s quite another thing to say when visiting your uncle in the hospital that the “nurse chicks” have recommended cutting back on his caffeine intake to ease discomfort from taking his meds. No matter how young and attractive the nurses in question happen to be, that’s an offensive way to refer to them in that context.
Stud works too. Gorgeous hunk or studly stud.
Chads and Stacys.
I knew someone once who referred to (biological female specimens of the human species) as “female carbon-based units”.
I use “bird” fairly frequently. It’s got nothing to do with attractiveness - it just means woman. It can also mean partner, especially if you’re not married, and I’ve used it in that way as well, but the use of it to just mean woman is the most common one.
Think it’s a mainly working class thing, especially in London. It’s used by women as much as men - I’m a woman. It’s literally the equivalent of bloke (which can also mean romantic partner). A man saying it might come across differently in some situations, but I’ve been told off (by posher people) for using it, and I’m a woman.
It’s slightly annoying that it’s mostly non-working class people, and often men, who rail against the word. I’ll still hold back from using it if people don’t actually like it, out of the general principle of not offending people if it can be avoided, but I’m not 100% happy about it.
One time when I pointed out that it was the equivalent of bloke, I was told to use bloke for women as well instead, but getting rid of a term for women only to replace it with a term for men does not strike me as a great feminist action.
That’s Incel-speak and always makes my eyelid twitch suspiciously. My default assumption is that anyone that uses those terms unironically is seriously toxic.
Australian here, haven’t posted here for a long time but come back to have a look around. The term Sheila is not in common usage anymore. It’s a bit of a relic of “Strine” back in the 70’s and before. If you called a Female a Sheila in front of anyone under 40, they’d look at you as if you’d just grown a second head.
Most women nowdays would consider it at least demeaning if not worse, depending on context.
I thought of this thread when I saw the one on Have you ever been banned anywhere. Back when I hung out at my favorite bar, I saw a few guys banned from Miller’s after calling the bartender c%nt or b%tch. Those women would take a lot of guff, but they would stand for that.