MovieChat Forums > Birds of a Feather (1989) Discussion > "Birds of a feather" makes no sense

"Birds of a feather" makes no sense

posted 12 days ago by avortac4 (3742)
2 replies | jump to latest

I've been thinking about some of these weird idioms, wondering why they so often make no sense at all.

Birds of a feather - as opposed to birds of something else? Does 'of feather' (a very weird way to put it) mean 'birds that have feathers'?

Are featherless birds SO common that they have to specify it to be 'of feather' so people don't get confused? Was that clarification really necessary? "No no no, don't think of THOSE very common birds, this means only that tiny group of birds over there in the corner, those that have feather'.

What the..??

Why would birds have to be 'of'' anything anyway?

I could somewhat understand, if it was 'birds of feathers' or 'birds that have feathers', but birds of _A_ feather? That must be a pretty magical feather!

Can a feather really generate birds? I don't think so.

How can one single feather somehow produce, generate or give birth to birds?

So this idiom makes absolutely no sense. It conjures weird imagery of a gigantic feather (in some Amazon jungle) that all birds worship, because it constantly poops out birds, which are NOT to be confused to the way more common birds that are NOT 'of feather'.

Now, where did this one, single feather come from, and why does it have a magical ability to CREATE LIFEforms?!

(Just to disclaim; yes, I know what the meaning of the idiom is supposed to be, which isn't a very deep message or an insightful observation - similar people like each other? Why would anyone even construct an idiom out of that simplistic observation of animalistic behaviour mechanics of bipedal morons? (I don't mean birds..) I mean, people shouldn't act like animals, their lowest animal urges should not dictate all their actions and decisions, but when you watch teenagers of this planet, for example, you can see how animalistically idiotic they are in their pathetic behaviour)

No matter how you slice it, it makes absolutely no sense.

Just by the way, I was of course being sarcastic when I mentioned how common the featherless birds are - the opposite is of course true; WHAT OTHER KIND OF BIRDS WOULD PEOPLE EVER THINK ABOUT, so why would the 'of a feather'-clarification be EVER necessary?

[–] avortac4 (3742) 11 days ago

"Flock together" also makes no sense.

Dogs can move in a solid pack regardless of their size, breed, looks or other qualities. A dog is a dog, so you can see poodle, german shepherd, mastiff, a couple of terriers and a dalmatian running in the same pack smoothly and without problems, if they have a good pack leader.

Birds? I have never seen a flock that includes different species(es?). It would be a sight to behold to see a parrot, seagull, pigeon and a few swallows (European) flying in the same flock. They don't do that, but the stupid idiom (not gonna say 'idiotic idiom') basically implies that ALL birds that have feathers, flock together. This is blatantly not true.

So when you break all this down, in the end, the idiom should've said something like 'animals often form flocks, packs, herds and schools', and left it at that. What did we learn from this idiom in any case? Absolutely NOTHING.

You can also think about how it's usually the same breed (or whatever word you use for birds) of birds that 'flock together', but not ALL of them! They still form separate flocks, even within the same species - there are WAY too many birds in the world for them all to 'flock together', so what the heck does this even end up meaning? NOTHING!

To add, it's extremely redundant to say 'flock together', isn't it? I mean, 'flock' ALREADY has the implication, connotation and meaning of 'grouping of entities', so why the heck would the word 'together' even be added there? Is it possible for you to flock all by yourself? No.

It is possible to flock separately? Yes and no - depending on the context and such, but usually the word 'flock' requires more than a couple of entities together, so 'separate flocking' is just an irrelevant concept, rendering the word 'together' even more redundant.

Who the heck was insane and stupid enough to create an idiom that has this many layers of incompetence and lies? It makes absolutely no sense.

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 11 days ago

"Birds of a feather" means birds with the same type of feather ie birds of the same species "flock together " , which they do.

Therefore the whole idiom / metaphor / saying means: these things are the same or act the same

simples