I've been following the discussion and I agree with most of what has been said.
Many of us men are still not aware, or at least have been late in learning, of
the concerns that women have to deal with all of their lives. Though
considering the amount of discussion in our general society (outside OBOL) in
recent years, that type of ignorance is now hard to understand as anything but
willful.
20 or so years back when I started to report birds from places like Luckiamute
Landing (now part of Luckiamute State Natural Area), I would often get private
replies from women who conveyed, one way or another, something along the lines
of, "The habitat sounds great but it seems like a scary place." That caused me
to start to pay a little more attention to what women might be feeling, and to
be more aware how I might be perceived as a threat myself. As I became more
aware of this, I've tried to help avoid situations that might cause unease. But
I never fully understood how frightening a place like that could be until I ran
across some illegal activity there, and nearly got boxed in myself while trying
to leave.
From that perspective, what the OBA board posted seemed completely appropriate
to me. All of us, especially cis white males like me, need to take
responsibility for helping to make outdoor spaces safer and more inviting for
all to enjoy. We could be thinking constructively about ways to minimize our
own impact on the field experiences of others. I have also heard from many
non-white friends that there are many places where they feel unsafe, especially
in rural parts of our state.
So I'm glad that the OBA is now addressing these issues, instead of pretending
that they don't exist.
About the OBOL guidelines more generally, I believe the boundaries on
discussion are too narrow. It also seems like they consistently tend to be
invoked by a particular social group who have a class interest in maintaining
the status quo and pursuing their hobby without any distractions.
Over the years, the guidelines have been used (until very recently) to shut
down any meaningful discussion of climate change and its potential impact on
birds. Heaven forbid that anyone should raise concern that "chasing" rare birds
by driving halfway across the state, or even jumping on a plane from another
state, might contribute to the problem. Even more modest conservation topics
that could potentially improve birding experiences (such as Portland Audubon's
initiative to promote a state bird-seed tax to fund non-game habitat
conservation) were considered to be in violation of the blanket prohibition on
"political" topics.
Yes, some of these topics may lead to uncomfortable discussions and even
arguments. But if we only stick to topics that no one finds uncomfortable, we
are tacitly favoring a subset of birders who are happy with the status quo. In
some cases that means perpetuating the dearth of economic and racial diversity
among birders here in Oregon. In other cases it means expecting women and
people of color to just accept that there are places where they won't be safe
birding on their own, or perhaps not even in the company of certain birders. Or
it might mean ignoring our own impacts on the environment, rather than finding
ways to make birding more bird- and environment-friendly.
To paraphrase an old song by Peter Tosh, sometimes calls for peace get in the
way of calls for justice.
Joel
From: "Teresa Hertzel" <teresa.hertzel@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "boo" <boo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 4:01:28 AM
Subject: [boo] Discussion
BOOers,
Here are some questions for you, although you certainly don't have to stick to
these topics.
Do you think the OBOL guidelines need to be changed?
Do you think the Board violated their own policies by posting a statement about
violence against women on the birding listserv?
How should OBOL handle people who are perceived as bullying others?
How can OBOL be more friendly and welcoming?
OBA has a few hundred members, I think it's right around 300, but I don't have
the exact number. OBOL has almost 2,000, so the vast majority are not OBA
members. Do you think OBOL should be broken off from OBA and no longer be under
their umbrella?
Treesa
