It's pretty interesting to read all the speculation on the lack of young,
female birders, or birder "hotshots", especially since most of it is being
written by men. The two responses from women struck me as right on. In our
society today, women still do most of the child-raising, AND work, etc.
Most women who want children really can't accommodate a hobby like this.
Myself and the other "younger" women (i.e. early 30's) I know who are
"serious" about birds (or bats, or whatever) don't have children or are
unattached. This goes along with the various discussions of how hard it is
to get small children interested in birding - If you can't get your children
interested and you can't do it at home, you pretty much end up dropping
those activities for a while (especially to the extent that you would run
off to faraway places on a moment's notice). It's my guess that a lot of
older women have a lot of time on their hands and start out by watching
nature and birds in their own yard, then get interested in the field trips,
but probably never develop the competitive aspects of birding. The question
is not, why don't they, but: why do you? Birdwatching is about
appreciating nature in all its beauty, not about how you measure up to other
people.

There may also be something intimidating about the way the experts approach
birdwatching. Based on the recent discussions, there seems to be a general
categorization of the expert birders as either taking a "listing" or a
rigorous, science-oriented approach to birding. But seldom discussed is
birdwatching for the sheer beauty and variety of it. As you can see from
some past threads on this discussion list, women sometimes are ignored or
ridiculed when expressing an emotional aspect of a birding experience.
Although just as many men came to her rescue in the ensuing discussion,
it's telling that an emotional comment set off such a controversy. Missing
from both the listing and the scientific approach are a number of attributes
typically associated with women, such as aesthetics, emotion, enjoyment, and
a more relaxed approach. This is not to say that I agree with these
stereotypes, since I am myself a fairly driven, science-oriented person.
But it is interesting that from my point of view, both the listing and the
overly scientific approach share the problem of being somewhat obsessive
"male" ways of approaching what to most people is an enjoyable hobby or a
pleasurable activity.

One last point - that gets to both women and minorities, it has long been
social theory that historically, the leisure (and money) to pursue nature
and other environmental activities rests in the upper classes. Other folks
often don't have the energy or means to travel around the world pursuing
birds (or it never enters their minds as they struggle to provide food and
shelter for their families). This is one theory for why there are also few
prominent minority environmental activitists in American society. It's a
fairly significant moral problem for those of us who do support spending tax
dollars on the environment (and spend our own dollars there), because we can
afford it. It's hard to know how we would feel if we were poor and
developing our land was our only hope of survival.

If we want minorities (and girls) to get involved in birding, we have to
take kids out of the inner cities and give them a chance to see what's out
there - and let them experience it in a way more oriented to wonder and
excitement than to competition. Chances are, they won't do it on their own.

Teresa Michelsen
temi461 at ecy.wa.gov