identification vs watching (1 Viewer)

Here is a very interesting article I read today. I was searching for answers to my questions on gender and how it relates to our shared hobbie of bird watching:
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/page.aspx?pid=2090&ac=ac

I'm relatively new to BF and I enjoy it very much. However, I have taken note that there's a lot of men on the site and not as many women. I'm not saying this is a bad thing ! So, guys please don't feel like I am being critical here. I am realizing that there are differences between how men approach birding vs women and I'm discovering this from reading many of the forum posts. Then I found the above article from Cornell and it all made sense.

The men seem to really enjoy the identification aspect of birding and gathering more species to add to their lists. Many men (certainly not all) seem to enjoy the 'sport' of birding and the competition the most. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions though. I won't speak for all women, but I enjoy watching more than identifying. However, I do enjoy the identification aspect as well and especially learning about different species. I took a home study bird biology course last year and enjoyed it immensely (from Cornell Lab of Ornithology if anyone else is interested in looking that up).

Another side of our hobby is simply watching birds and taking in or examining bird behavior. This aspect is most enjoyable to me as I've already stated. I can watch a Robin on a suburban lawn for 20 min and enjoy this nearly as much as viewing a newly observed species in the woods. I love the beauty of birds (as I know all of us do), their wonderful colors and their interesting behaviors. I realize that men enjoy these things too, but there does seem to be an emphasis on the hobby as 'sport' moreso than casual interaction with nature. I hope that makes sense.

You may be thinking at this point...duh Beth...no kidding. Well, I didn't realize all of this until recently. I mainly go bird watching by myself and rarely with someone else. I do enjoy the serenity of going by myself, but this is not by choice. I just don't have many birding friends around here. I do occasionally go to the Audobon center and talk to other birders, but most are doing their own thing or have their own groups of friends.

The few friends that have gone with me are women and are nature lovers like myself, but not necessarily bird watchers. I have never went bird watching with a guy. I don't know any around here that are interested in this. But on this site there are tons of you guys. I wonder if this is a true representation of the gender ratio in the birding community as a whole? Are there more males than females in bird watching or just more males involved in the public events and the online forums?

When I see these advertisements for huge birding events I think...well, I certainly don't want to go to that. This is due to the competition aspect of certain events. I guess I feel somewhat intimidated by that and it also seems like the fun (what I call fun) is rushed; people just making a mad dash to mark down as many birds and bird species as they can. I am not knocking this...it's just not my thing. I can see how these events and this sporting approach can be good for raising conciousness for conservation and the admiration of wildlife and the environment. Maybe someday when I get better at identification I will go to one of these events just for the heck of it.

But, I did participate in the GBBC last month. Again, it was just me and I simply counted birds in my little town. It was a very satisfying feeling to do what's called 'citizen science'. I feel like this is more my style since I feel very useful to biologists and would like to contribute my skills towards a common good.

I would to invite the men and women of BF to share your thoughts on what aspect of our hobby is most fulfilling to you. And...if there are any hetero couples or married people who go birding together I'd like to hear your experiences...it would be interesting if the approach to birding is subtly or markedly different (?)

- Beth

ps...one thing I believe I have in common with the guys is that I too appreciate the gear (binos). I appreciate a piece of well made and high quality equipment...even if I don't take note of some of the more in depth technical aspects like many of the guys here do. It just makes birding more enjoyable with a sharp and bright view.

Something to also consider here is that most of the birders here on birdforum are from the UK, which I think in general has a much more competitive and intense birding scene than here in US, where birders are just more dispersed. That probably also plays into the differences you have noted here (Although I would agree that there are probably more male hardcore listers...).

...for me it has to do with how gender has entered into the evolution of the human brain. Different skill sets, and therefore different brain areas have been more or less developed, according to gender. As they say, "men grunt, women talk...and talk...and talk!"o

I too would put it down to evolution, though I think its more that men hunt (collect) and women use curiosity to make sure they don't miss anything when managing family and resources.

Hence men pursue individual species to collect a list and women watch what is going on.

John

Farnboro John said:

I too would put it down to evolution, though I think it's more that men hunt (collect) and women use curiosity to make sure they don't miss anything when managing family and resources. Hence men pursue individual species to collect a list and women watch what is going on. John

Click to expand...

John,
That certainly has been the basis of most current theories.

Recently, there has been much research into obsessive behaviour; intensities, gender-specific, gender-neutral, countermeasures, incidence of improvement/worsening and the like. Listing is one obsession, but likely varies on an individual basis and on an individual's psychological makeup. If you read some of the threads on Bird Forum, it seems to me that the proportion of touchy individuals is quite high - that's an Internet phenomenon as well, of course, where without webcams it isn't possible to read body language, facial expression, or to hear tone of voice. The corollary should be that posters knowing this should read the words that inflame or inform them carefully, and should doublecheck their responses similarly...:t:

Obsessives tend to elevate aspects of minor importance and value to a high priority - if they get a response that doesn't automatically match their views, the likelihood of them going ballistic is high. They like reasoned discourse as long as it coincides with their views (see the case of Rush Limbaugh in the US).

Those unfortunate enough to have psychological disorders severe enough to make their functioning in society (eg this forum) can cause upset and distress to others where that is not merited. Often a lack of empathy is apparent, but to return to the subject of the post, I think that I'm right in saying that women have a greater degree of empathy than men, according to a whole battery of psychological test scores. This conclusion is well illustrated in 'The Big Bang Theory' scripts - Sheldon Lee Cooper is both monstrous and vulnerable! Now is that scenario applicable to fanatical birders? Discuss.:eek!:
MJB

As a warden on a nature reserve I see thousands of bird watchers every year. At least 90 % are male and many of the females are not that interested , just present because of their partners interest. Twichers form the majority of male bird watchers than visit the watch points and once a rare bird is seen ( or ticked ) their interest declines and they are soon off to look for something different elsewhere , sometimes within a minuet or two.

As for me watching bird behaviour is far more rewarding than twitching some lost rarity which should not be there in the first place. I will cross the road to look at something rare , but I will not drive off down the road to see it. A rare bird has to come to me not the other way around.

As for the Sheldon Cooper theory , I see it quite often and it often shows in twitchers having seen a rare bird and ticked it seem to be unable to accept in the case of wildfowl , that it could probably be an escaped bird . I know of a few wildfowl that have made on to county and national species lists that have a 90-99% probility of escaped from captivity. But its on their list so it cant possibly be escaped !!!!

It rather reminds me of a couple of twitchers on the Norfolk Coast refusing to accept I had just seen a yellow browed warbler while ringing coastal migrants.
" Look " one guy said pushing his pager into my face " its not on here "

thanks for all of your responses. This is all very interesting. I was under the impression for quite some time that it was mainly women who had this hobby. Then I came on this site and it seemed male dominated which prompted me to do this bit of research. I do see other ladies' names on here, but I wonder what the ratio is on this particular forum.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter though...we all love birdwatching and all have this similar interest and can certainly learn from one another.

I hope this issue was not too 'divisive'... I just became interested in the gender aspect after I became aware of the different styles of birding as well as the uneven ratio.

My experience is the sex ratio differs from one country to another (and sorry, to me the word "gender" is about language and grammar, not individuals). The times I have birded in Sweden and the US, sex ratios have been about equal, in Denmark 80% male, and I have too little experience in the UK to know. But even in the US, it does seem that people seeking out the known rarities are skewed a little towards men, but if you are involved in project feeder-watch or Christmas bird count, not so much.

Another observation: in Denmarks at least, many of the "worst" twitchers (I don't really mean worst, but whatever) are seen at known rarities, but are just as likely to sit a whole day counting common buzzard at a migration spot or counting shorebirds at a stop-over site. So the behavior shown in one arena might not be indicative of what these people do everywhere.

Niels

What had been a rather generalized topic seems to be morphing into introspective theorization of the bases for, and the incidence of compulsive-obsessive behavior. Everybody can cite instances of people in the public arena (notably purveyors of certain restricted political viewpoints from both the radicalized fringes of rightist, and leftist dogma) that brook no dissent as to their viewpoints. It is difficult to discern on a case-by-case basis whether or not those people are pathologically narcissistic megalomaniacs. Happily, this should not be the norm, and I had taken the question that this topic addresses as being rather generalist. Can we not respond since it is a rather interesting question leaving out the extreme cases on the fringes?

cuckooroller said:

Can we not respond since it is a rather interesting question leaving out the extreme cases on the fringes?

Click to expand...

Quite right, Steve. I'll summarise my previous post thus:

'Be aware that there are a few five-star ocean-going nutters out there, but most birdy people are harmless, and many are interesting and amusing company, even the chaps!':t:
MJB

"and sorry, to me the word "gender" is about language and grammar, not individuals"
no need to apologize...you're correct.

This is from Wikipedia on Birdwatching:

"Ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen considers birdwatching to be an expression of the male hunting instinct while Simon Baron-Cohen links it with the male tendency for "systemizing".[53] There have been suggestion that identification of birds may be a form of gaining status which has been compared with Kula valuables noted in Papua New Guinean cultures.[54] "

I think "Systemizing" puts it into perspective for me. While I like to systemize and enjoy the interesting aspects of classification, etc. it seems that it is not a primary focal point. Putting aside the 'twitchers' or 'fringers', both men and women have overlapping birdwatching syles, techniques and approaches, but it seems from these studies that there's just a little more emphasis on particlular aspects of the hobby between men and women.

It's interesting that the Cornell article mentions that the younger birders are not so separated by this sort of stereotypical separation in terms of the way they birdwatch. My guess is that sex roles or 'gender' behaviors are more delineated in the older crowd. The younger crowd's diversity makes sense since our notions of gender are changing...perhaps.

Perhaps the understanding of the word "gender" is a generational thing and is now changing. When I grew up it was commonly used for individuals and was considered a sort of polite manner of asking what sex you are, especially for filling out forms back then. In any case, when I used this form referring to the evolution of the brain I was implicitly referring to the fact that human fetuses are all potentially female until there is an alteration of the hormonal environment during the continuing development of the brain of the fetus determining the future "gender address", be that male, female or nuances of in-between that make up the human experience.

njlarsen said:

. . .and sorry, to me the word "gender" is about language and grammar, not individuals. . .

Click to expand...

To me too, but it's a lost cause I'm afraid. Like much linguistic change, "gender" in the sense of "sex" arose in pretentious ignorance, became widespread via adoption by non-discriminating speakers (mostly young), & is now standard (though like you I'll be damned if I ever refer to a bird's "gender")..

Hmm, seem to be drifting a little off topic here. . . .

I've assumed for a long time (don't know where I got this) that because we're essentially neolithic hunter-gatherers in 21st-Century clothing, a lot of our gender-specific behaviour may be down to survival techniques from our neolithic days. If men did a lot, or most of the hunting, it would be reasonable to assume that being able to identify species, habitats, migration patterns etc., could be crucial to the survival of the group, especially at times of food shortage. It would also explain men's interest (or obsession) with technology and kit (i.e. hunting implements, etc.). If females did most of the child-rearing and domestic chores, as well as a lot of "gathering", they would probably need to know more about plants, choosing ripe specimens, communicating with others, empathising, knowing about family relations (i.e. which children "belonged" to which mother, etc.). Are more women interested in gardening than in birding?
I think marketeers are well aware of these behavioural differences, and apply them to things like supermarket design (designed for gatherers, not hunters, which is why hetero-couples find it so hard to go shopping together - she wants to try everything, have a look at all available products, he wants to get in, get the goods, and get out, i.e. she wants to select/gather, he wants to move quickly, hunt, and leave fast before other predators arrive).
I think I read before on BF that in the U.S., most self-identified "birdwatchers" are female, whereas in the UK, they're male. Certainly in Ireland, confessing to being a birder is akin to admitting you're a bit of an oddball (whereas demonstrating a profound knowledge of the history of football league-tables is considered "normal" - go figure!)

fugl said:

To me too, but it's a lost cause I'm afraid. Like much linguistic change, "gender" in the sense of "sex" arose in pretentious ignorance, became widespread via adoption by non-discriminating speakers (mostly young), & is now standard (though like you I'll be damned if I ever refer to a bird's "gender")..

Hmm, seem to be drifting a little off topic here. . . .

Click to expand...

If anything, it is the other way around. It was commonly used synonymously for "sex" when I was growing up, and seems to be changing to a more restricted meaning in the last about a decade or two. I suppose that I will continue doddering along in my pretentious ignorance and willful non-discriminance to contemplate more than one sense of meaning to the word "gender". However, I do not like being negatively characterized just because the meaning of a word has changed through the years, but then I have always been refractory to those wishing to endow everything with some sort of willful negativity for the purpose of imposing their idea of political correctness.

cuckooroller said:

If anything, it is the other way around. It was commonly used synonymously for "sex" when I was growing up, and seems to be changing to a more restricted meaning in the last about a decade or two. I suppose that I will continue doddering along in my pretentious ignorance and willful non-discriminance to contemplate more than one sense of meaning to the word "gender". However, I do not like being negatively characterized just because the meaning of a word has changed through the years, but then I have always been refractory to those wishing to endow everything with some sort of willful negativity for the purpose of imposing their idea of political correctness.

Click to expand...

Wow, are you confused! Trust me, gender in the non-linguistic sense is modern usage, first appearing in the ?70s maybe (certainly not earlier).

And lighten up, I wasn't insulting anybody but simply giving my curmudgeonly take on a piece of recent linguistic change.

No, I am not confused. I was born in 1950 in the States. Every time we filled out some form or other back then the forms listed gender, and two boxes to check off, male, female. If I seem strident, well, I rankle at the idea that by now everybody seems to be looking out for this or that reason, even things as ridiculous as this question, to propose some sort of regime of "right thinking". I don't even like the pussyfooting around racial questions, and I am minority. I like open speech without fear as long as those speaking have common sense and the sensibility of understanding that speech can be a weapon when one is too stupid to realize otherwise, and too dull to measure the weight of one's words.

Tideliner said:

It rather reminds me of a couple of twitchers on the Norfolk Coast refusing to accept I had just seen a yellow browed warbler while ringing coastal migrants.
" Look " one guy said pushing his pager into my face " its not on here "

Click to expand...

Still no shortage of idiots then!

How do they think pager news is initiated?

John

From Wikipedia:
"Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1][2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature,[3] and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO),[4] but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.[1][2] Although this gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, a small acceleration of the process in the scientific literature was observed when the Food and Drug Administration started to use "gender" instead of "sex" in 1993.[5] "Gender" is now commonly used even to refer to the physiology of non-human animals, without any implication of social gender roles.[2]"


I was always under the impression that 'gender' refers to societal roles or behaviors that are deemed 'feminine' or 'masculine' and that 'sex' of course refers to biological. But, the words are still sometimes used interchangeably as the Wiki states.

" I rankle at the idea that by now everybody seems to be looking out for this or that reason, even things as ridiculous as this question, to propose some sort of regime of "right thinking"."

I think we are all just talking here and making our own individual observations.

hope I didn't beat a dead horse with this one !

Hats off to those who are publicly stating on this forum that they are 'gender confused'.

BF gets more liberal by the minute ...