Re the "obsessive recreationalist = male" stereotype, please recall that
when I brought up this association I qualified it with the phrase "are
more likely to," recognizing that there are females that get just as
obsessed with their recreational activities as some males do. I think it
is, *on average*, more often encountered in males, and I think the farther
back you go back in the history of Western society the more this becomes
the case. Obviously there are many female birders out there today
approaching it with the same intensity as the most fanatic males. I
suspect there are more individuals of both genders doing this today than
there were back in the salad days of today's "poobahs" (yes, that word was
a response to the definition offered for "hotshot"). I also suspect that
the relative frequency of intensely birding females has increased over the
years: the male-skewed distribution of today's poobahs reflects that
history, not biology. Stay tuned.


Chris's point about poobah status and desire for recognition is important;
I don't think males have a monopoly on desiring recognition, but maybe
males are more likely to seek it. I do think it is possible for a person
to do the things that lead to "hotshot" birder status without desiring
glory or recognition, however, just as it is possible to do superb science
(and be recognized for doing it), not for glory, but for the sheer love of
doing it. Maybe I'm naive, but I think that is why most people, both
sexes, are birding -- not for competition or glory, but simply because
they're into birds.


Another curious sociologic phenomenon is that the longest threads on
tweeters are only tangentially relevant to birding. (I am *not*
suggesting that we analyze this...)

David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu