8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 1/26
Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
Introduction
The language used in technical and business writing documents has long been
identified as being written in the “plain style”, which is considered to be the most
universal and objective. In this paper, I argue that the plain style is actually a male
gendered style that ignores the female perspective, which is necessary to properly
account for the more humanistic concern for workers and work site safety. Since the plain
style was developed by English Royal Society it is unsurprising that the plain style is a
highly patriarchal style that pushes out the humanistic female perspective.
Section 1- The Plain Style: aka Business Prose Style
The plain style found in most technical documents today is attributed to the
English Royal Society’s realization that there was a need for a non-oral instructional
language that could be used for all manners of things utilitarian (Tebeaux, 193). The
language created by the Royal Society contains many of the same linguistic
characteristics seen in technical communication today, such as: “concrete, visual
descriptive nouns and action verbs; subject-verb-object sentence order; and active-voice
clauses” (Tebeaux, 193). The plain style is a by-product of Royal Society’s attitude
towards language. The English Royal Society was able to integrate the use of their new
plain style language for scientific purposes because it followed so closely the actual
English plain style that was already in use since 900 A.D. (Tebeaux, 166). But, it wasn’t
until scientific revolution in the 17th-century that the plain style took full
swing(Mendelson, 8). The English plain style seems to have been fairly pervasive in even
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 2/26
the earliest of documents in a broad spectrum of subjects and content (Tebeaux, 170).
The creation of the plain style was necessary and responded to the need for a unified
scientific language. The original intent was a necessary response to the lack of
regulations surrounding written text in the sciences. But, because the plain style was
created by male members of the English Royal Society, it is unsurprising that the
language used represented only one faction of society at that time.
The most fascinating aspect of the plain style is that it explicitly calls for a
complete lack of identifiable style. Business prose style should be “inconspicuous” and
“non-distracting”, but most of all, the language should be clear (Mendelson, 4). The
interesting part about the plain style is that its complete lack of style actually causes the
construction of a style in itself. Writing that does not adhere to these guidelines is
considered to be deviating from the technical language norm and is called “immature” or
“inappropriate” in the context it is being used in (Mendelson, 4). By calling the deviating
language styles “immature” or “inappropriate”, it suggests that the English Royal Society
plain style is the only right way to write a technical document. This notion seems to have
persisted well into the present age, which is probably why we still consider writing that
deviates from the technical writing norm to be incorrect and inferior. The idea that a non-
style is identified by its lack of attributes is perplexing, “any brief and pointed definition
of Plain Style is impossible. As the phrase suggests, this style more than possessing
certain expressive characteristics is devoid of them”(Coleman, 2). One of the main things
that is emphasized when writing in plain style is the avoidance of playing with the
language, such as using metaphors, phrases, superfluous words, and
embellishments(Coleman, 4). The main idea is to write clearly and concisely in the
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 3/26
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 4/26
tone. This is confusing, since the communicator must place his language in a manner that
ignores any personal writing styles or anything that could interfere with the reader’s
understanding of the message. Anything irrelevant or superfluous should not appear in
the text, since it is not necessary to the reader’s understanding of the message and
perhaps may even confuse the reader. (Coleman, 4). If a male technical writer must
ignore their personal writing style, shouldn’t he abstain from using a strictly “terse” male
gendered style and instead opt for a more androgynous style that is clear to both men and
women? The intent is to reach the reader clearly. The main point of the document being
written, in the plain style, is to ensure that the reader obtains the correct meaning of the
intended message, untainted by a particular author and their way of writing.
The plain style is centered in the idea of non-style, but maintains a constant
awareness of its audience and its needs. Its message focuses on both the text explicitly
written in the message and the implicit message that is implied due to the relationship
that exists between the sender and the receiver of the messages (Mendelson, 8). But,
because the plain style was produced by the English Royal Society, comprised of well-to
do older English gentlemen, the receiver of the message must ask themselves if the
language and intended information is already tainted due to its unintended political and
social implications that occur as a by-product of its time and development. When
observing the plain style in relation to others, it becomes apparent that the message can
be easily tainted, “the plain style feigns a candid observer. Such is its great advantage for
persuading. From behind its mask of calm candor, the writer with political intentions can
appeal, in seeming disinterest, to people whose pride is their no-nonsense
connoisseurship of fact”(Kenner, 3). This is especially important to understand when
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 5/26
approaching the plain style from the female perspective. Taking the historical perspective
of the development of the plain style into account, the reader of the message must ask
themselves if the plain style they are reading is actually tinged with the viewpoints of a
culture of men, and English Royal society men at that.
Section 2: Language and Gender
Dale Spender claims, “language is not neutral”(Spender, 94). In this section, I
explore the concept of the gendered speech, writing, and the apparent language
differences between men and women. In the plain style of business writing, the language
attempts to make the writer impersonal and unknown, but if language is inherently
gendered, is the plain style perspective written from an unknown person or from an
unknown man?
To begin exploring differences between feminine and masculine writing, it is
important to observe differences in speech patterns and any other differentiating oral
characteristics. Looking at the conversation style of men and women, Schlee proposes
that women utilize a ‘jam session’ model of collaborative conversation whereas men
speak in a manner closer to turn-taking. Women talk to one another in a more interactive
manner. Their conversations are centered around a type of give and take of ideas and
emotions. Women utilize what is called a “jam session” model of conversation where the
speakers take turns in expressing their thoughts. I would liken this conversation model to
laying bricks. A woman in the conversation will lay down a “conversational brick” and
then another woman will lay another brick alongside the previous one in order to add
more to the conversation. As each speaker has a new piece of information to share, they
will lay down that “brick” alongside the other complimentary pieces. Male conversational
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 6/26
trends tend to differ in the sense that men, rather than utilizing the “jam session” model,
will speak in “carefully demarcated”(Schlee, 8290) turns. Men will take turns stating
their ideas one at a time, “speakers occupy the conversational floor one at a time, often
for long solo turns”(Schlee, 8290). The male conversational style could be likened to
actors doing monologues in turn. Each individual holds the attention of the
“conversational floor” in order to deliver and complete their point. (Schlee, 8290). In
comparing the two differing conversational styles, it’s easy to classify the male
conversational style as inattentive, unconcerned, and selfish. The female voice appears to
be engaged, concerned, and collaborative. If these differences are true, it could be of
concern in regard to technical documents written for dangerous workplace environments.
The male voice would be dangerous to use when talking about human fatalities and
injuries, since it is more detached and concerned with the self. The female voice, which
utilizes attentive and engaging conversational strategies would be more effective in
expressing proper concern for human danger in the workplace. Schlee cites this as an
example of conversational dominance, since an asymmetrical conversation style indicated
a power imbalance(Schlee, 8290). In this conversational pattern, the female jam session
model signifies a more equal conversation style since all the members are participating
fairly equally and are collaborating to help push one another towards a final goal of
conversation. The male turn-taking model indicates that men are more inclined to
participate in an imbalanced conversational manner, where one speaker maintains the
attention of the rest of the individuals for a longer and more sustained period of time. In
addition to this example of male conversational dominance, Schlee also points out that,
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 7/26
“research on language in the classroom reveals that boys get to talk on average twice as
much as girls, and this pattern persists in public arenas with adult speakers”(Schlee,
8290). There is a concern that because men employ conversational dominance, it may
extend to their writing. The dominance employed in male language can express that the
information issued is the only way, simply because it can dominate a manner of thinking,
marginalizing any alternatives. This is problematic because masculine language is the
norm for technical communication and therefore is considered to be correct.
It seems that women carry their knowledge of gender-appropriate speech patterns
from conversation to the workplace. Instead of speaking in the same manner, it appears
that women ‘code-shift’ their speech for work. Wodak argues that because professional
women are constrained by work and job related pressures more so than men, women tend
to “adopt high standard sociolects or even hypercorrect feaures”(Wodak, 5954). But, this
issue of hypercorrect grammar and language may have a stronger connection to
differences in social class rather than gender. As Wodak points out, working-class and
lower-middle class men utilize hypercorrect language depending on their situation. If
male and female conversational styles are different and women code-shift their speech to
a more masculine style in the workplace, that means that everyone in the workplace is
utilizing a masculine turn-taking conversational style. Since male conversational styles
focus on dominance, that means that technical writers are utilizing a language style that
encourages each individual to attempt to dominate the conversation and therefore
diminish the amount of collaboration, give-and-take, and listening to one another in
general. This can really limit the dissemination of new ideas and innovations in the
workplace.
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 8/26
The idea that women change their speech patterns to a more prestigious one in the
workplace is concerning; it indicates that in some way women feel like they do not
possess enough authority at work and contort their language to feel more equal to that of
their male counterparts. Schlee offers a few explanations to help us understand the
appearance of the hypercorrect language adoption of women. The first most persisting
factor is the pressure felt by women to adhere to “linguistic norms”(Schlee, 8289), which
can often be caused by work place stresses. In order to feel as though they fit into the
work environment, women are beginning to feel that they must align themselves with
male speech forms. Schlee recognizes the pressures at work from the work place that may
contribute to a female speaker converting to hypercorrect speech. But, what is concerning
is that Schlee defines the pressure as one to align with the norm. The reader should ask
themselves, is hypercorrect language the ‘standard speech’ of the workplace or do
women actually feel a lack of authority and therefore switch to an overly-correct form of
speech in an attempt to gain authority in the workplace?
Several researchers have pinpointed some other parts of conversation and speech
that contribute to differing speech patterns in men and women. Jo Allen’s article, Gender
Issues in Technical Communication Studies: An Overview of the Implications for the
Profession, Research, and Pedagogy she presents many interesting findings from
previous work in the field of women and language.
1. A 1975 Mary Key study pointed out that men who explain their statements to
women are not doing it because they hope their female counterpart will expand
her knowledge, but because men can use the explanation in order to showcase
their “superiority” (Allen, 382).
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 9/26
2. “Women are more likely to ask questions, make statements in a questioning
tone(‘Your report is due Friday?’), end statements with questions calling for
confirmation (‘Don’t you agree?’), introduce ideas with a question (‘You know
what we found out?’), and qualify or undercut the strength of their statements
(‘That’s just my opinion’)”(Allen, 380).
3. While speaking, it has been found, that men are five times more likely to interrupt
women than the other way around. When women are interrupted (or experience
an “abrupt change” in the conversation), they are more likely to be silent and not
acknowledge the conversational faux pas. Men, on the other hand, when
interrupted by women, tend to be far more vocal about the interruption (Allen,
380).
4. Joyce Frost had explained that “women use more accommodative conflict
strategies, while men use competitive or exploitive ones”(Allen, 381). In order to
encourage fellow workers women tend to use more “stroking language” in order
to raise morale and improve workplace productivity. Men, on the other hand, tend
to utilize language that is also encouraging but more competitive in order to help
his co-workers “be ready for the next battle”(Allen, 381).
5. Allen concludes that women are unlikely to use “confrontational” language
because of the idea that they like to promote workplace harmony. She describes
female language in the workplace as being: “more apologetic and as free from
threats, ultimatums, or even biased implications or statements”(Allen, 381).
The different identified speaking patterns are helpful in identifying the different writing
styles of male and female writers. Allen’s studies further increase the notion that men
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 10/26
utilize a more aggressive and domineering speech style. Women don’t seem to have too
particular of a speech style other than conforming their speech to fit that of men. Because
men’s conversational style is so domineering, women do not have a chance to participate
in their give-and-take conversational style with men. Rather, it seems that men simply
lecture women, while they remain silent and listen. This is a highly ineffective manner to
conduct conversation in the workplace, since the workforce will be less likely to hear any
input from the women. The differing styles have brought up many explanations and
rationalizations.
Now, it will be interesting to see whether these conversational differences carry
over into men and women’s writing styles. It is believed that men and women possess a
different writing style, the trouble is deciphering what exact elements make up the
difference. Sara Mills, writer of The Gendered Sentence, engaged her students in a
classroom activity to see what they thought male and female sentences sounded like.
Using fairly stereotypical gender assessments, the students came up with these sentences:
1 I came I saw I conquered. MaleShelia felt as if her whole being was conquered by this man whom
she hardly knew. Female2 I’m hungry and I want something to eat. Male
I wonder if there’s something to eat. Female (Mills, 73)
It’s obvious that there is a difference between the two genders’ writing styles. From these
sentences it is apparent that the male gendered sentences are far more aggressive and
active. Unlike the female gendered sentences, the male ones have the main subject
creating the action. The female sentences have the subject being acted upon or the verb is
slightly more indirect and less active. The male sentences’ excessive use of “I” makes the
sentences sound very aggressive and domineering, not unlike the male conversational
style. The female gendered sentences appear as though they are waiting for someone to
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 11/26
approve so that they can engage in an action. The male gendered sentences create the
action and produce consequences rather than waiting for consequences to affect their
actions, like that of the female ones. The difficult thing now is deciphering just what
makes the two styles different.
Mary P. Hiatt researched 100 books, fifty of which written by women, and fifty
by men. The books, which included the two categories of fiction and non-fiction, were
not chosen by standards of literary merit. Four 500-word passages were chosen at random
in each of the 100 books, so that there was a 2000 word sample from each book. The
2000 word samples were keypunched into IBM cards. The cards were scanned for style
characteristics such as: sentence length and complexity, logical sequence of ideas,
similes, -ly adverbs, parenthetical expressions, structural parallelism, and rhetorical
devices. (Hiatt, 223)
These are Hiatt’s observations: women, on average had shorter sentence lengths than
that of their male counterparts. Non-fiction authors: men average 23 words per sentence,
women average 21. It appears that women use short sentences more frequently than men;
58% of women’s sentences are short compared to 48% of men’s. Women’s “thoughts are
phrased in shorter units”( Hiatt, 223-224). Men use around 160 of the “logical sequence
indicators”(illustratives, illatives, adversatives, causatives, and additives), whereas
women are in the range of 190 (Hiatt, 225). (see “Notes” at end for further information on
logical sequence indicators) Both women and men utilize a similar amount of
Adversatives in their writing, but when looking at which specific Adversatives are used,
men and women differ greatly. Men use twice as many Illustratives and Illatives, whereas
women use twice as many Causatives and Additives (Hiatt, 225). In fiction writing, men
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 12/26
use twice as many adverbs of pace than women do. Adverbs of pace: “gradually”,
“hastily”, and “slowly” (Hiatt, 225-226). Unlike popular belief, women actually do not
use an excessive amount of emotion adverbs. Actually, women use about the same
amount of emotion adverbs as they do pace adverbs in their fiction writing. Male fiction
writers, perhaps, don’t use emotion adverbs often enough; they pace adverbs four times
more than emotion adverbs (Hiatt, 226). Lastly, Hiatt finds that female writers used the
word really “two and a half times more often than the men writers in non-fiction, and one
and a half times as often in fiction…It’s use probably reflects women’s feelings that they
will not be believed, that they are not being taken seriously or ‘really’”(Hiatt, 226).
To begin, it’s very interesting that women’s sentences are actually on average
shorter than men’s. It seems women have no problem phrasing their ideas into short,
succinct units. Why then, is their writing not preferred for the technical communication
norm? Surprisingly women use more logical sequence indicators than men. This may be a
product of women over-compensating in order to achieve the masculine style in order to
be successful in the workplace. Like with speech, women may use hypercorrect grammar
or excessive logical sequence indicators in order to mimic a more authoritative language.
In the case of the logical sequence indicators, we can look back to English Royal Society
where hierarchy in life and scientific writing was important (see section 3). By providing
hierarchy within their writing with the logical sequence indicators, the women are hyper-
correcting their writing sequencing and organization so that they can fit into the norm
without realizing that they are “exceeding” the norm. Men’s increased use of pace
adverbs could be interpreted as a sign of dominating the “conversation”; men use these
words to more actively dominate their audience into moving along their writing at the
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 13/26
pace that they have set. Due to the Royal Society’s harsh criticism on women’s excessive
use of emotion in writing, it’s not too surprising that we see that women use more
emotion adverbs than men do. What was really interesting was the fact that women use
the word “really” more often. Hiatt postulates this is because women aren’t taken
seriously, so they utilize words that will help the audience be convinced by their point.
This is a case of women internalizing the expectations of men. Since men have
established that women do not have authority, women work extra hard in their writing to
prove to others that they do have it. But in doing so, their excessive use of “really”
exposes that they too do not believe that they possess any authority either.
Sentence style differences may seem small at first glance, but can actually carry quite
a hefty load of connotation. Many feminists are of the firm belief that, what is already
patriarchal in nature poses a great roadblock for women’s progression. This can make it
difficult to study language from a vantage free of any bias. Wodak examines the feminist
perspective on language. Because feminists believe that the language we speak today is a
“symbolical reflection of androcentric structures”(Wodak, 5956-5957), women have been
purposely pushed off to the side in order to limit their authority. Feminists believe that
our language has been shaped by the patriarchy, who want to marginalize women, in
order to keep women from exerting any influence on future language sets. Feminists base
their findings on the idea that the English language is sexist because men exert control
over it, “due to their long history as public decision-makers, men not only determine the
economic, political and social orientation of social life, but also influence the functioning
and the semantic contents of each individual language”(Wodak, 5956-5957). (Wodak,
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 14/26
5956-5957). This makes sense, since it was men in the English Royal Society who
dictated what the norm would be for the scientific language that still is in place today.
Section 3: Gendered Technical Communication in the Workplace
To begin the examination of technical communication in the workplace at the
present time, we must first return to seventeenth century England and the emergence of
the plain style. Denise Tillery provides excellent insights into the motives for the creation
of the defining characteristics of the plain style. Thomas Spratt, author of History of the
Royal Society(printed 1667), advocated a more explicitly masculine tone in the plain style
that is free of “affection and ornament”(Tillery, 276-277), which provides a “kind of
manly pleasure to the reader”(Tillery, 276-277). The writing style is careful to not evoke
any strong emotions, since the Royal Society members believed that emotions were a
threat to the “proper hierarchy of reason”. (Tillery, 276-277). The idea of a proper
hierarchy of reason is inherently bias against females because in the time of the Royal
Society women could not climb the ranks of any hierarchy to prove reason. Therefore,
emotional appeals were especially problematic because they could reach above the
hierarchy of reason to achieve authority. Since the Royal Society did not want to give
women authority, it’s possible that discrediting emotional appeals and favoring hierarchal
structure was one way to ensure that women would never have influence over scientific
language.
The Royal Society and Spratt’s preference for the masculine prose style over
other styles could be a large contributing factor for the presence of masculine plain prose
style as the standard. The gendering of a style inevitably leads to further gender related
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 15/26
quandaries, in an address to The Royal Society in 1665 concerning the reform of the
prose style, Joseph Glanvill states:
And tis none of the least considerable expectations that may be reasonably had of
your Society, that ‘twill discredit that toyishness of wanton fancy; and pluck the
misapplyed name of the WITS, from those conceited Humorists that have
assum’d it; to bestow it upon the more manly spirit and genius, that playes not
tricks with words, nor frolicks with the Caprices of froathy imagination : But
employs a severe reason in enquiries into the momentous concernments of the
Universe(Tillery, 278)
Tillery’s analysis of Glanvill’s address provides an indispensable insight into the
formation of modern plain style from a feminist perspective. Glanvill intentionally places
“manly spirit” and “genius” next to one another so that the audience will infer that
masculine language is correct and the most favored. Without personally addressing
feminine language, it is apparent that feminine language is wrong because it is outside the
norm of the manly spirit. He desires to bestow severe reason to scientific discourse. This
goal is seemingly desirable, since scientific language should employ reason and not
“fancy”, as Glanvill says. But, the underlying meaning of “severe reason” pushes females
out of the discourse since as we have previously established women cannot enter the
hierarchical field of scientific reason because the Royal Society established a practice that
excluded women.
Tillery claims that Spratt’s comment is fairly typical of its time and ideology. The
ideology holds reason above any emotional or creative content. The idea of the “manly
spirit” requires the writer to avoid any imaginative language style, which includes any
writing that “plays tricks with words”(Tillery, 278). The Royal Society viewed any
ornamentation in writing as feminine. They believed that the only writing that could
qualify as scientific/technical writing is a masculine style that is rooted firmly in “severe
reason”. (Tillery, 278). Glanvill, it seems had a fear of using language that would
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 16/26
“emasculate the understanding”(Tillery, 281) of writing. It is troubling that Glanvill in
addition to The Royal Society thought that using writing that is not overtly masculine
contributes to the breakdown of the message from sender to receiver. The Royal Society
contributed largely to the idea that a female writing style could taint a message. Rather
than simply preferring a masculine style over a feminine one, The Royal Society actually
eschews the feminine. Tillery examines the motives behind the Royal Society’s distaste
for the female writing style. It seems that they were afraid that emotional appeals and
“eloquent language would feminize an audience and make true knowledge
unpalatable”(Tillery, 281). The underlying trepidation of eloquent language was the idea
that an ornamental style could cloud the receiver’s understanding of the text’s meaning,
therefore rendering the text meaningless and useless (Tillery, 281).
Tillery claims that female writers such as Margaret Cavendish and Jane Sharp
were barred from the Royal Society and universities and even utilized a plain style that
was much more utilitarian than that of the Royal Society because they were “much less
concerned with what kinds of language might generate inappropriate responses in
readers”(Tillery, 282-283). Following the findings of the male conversational style, the
idea that women were less concerned with receiving inappropriate responses to their
writing shows that women, unlike men, don’t need to be dominant in their conversation.
In the “conversation” of technical writing, women are not concerned with controlling the
responses of their audience. Men’s severe reason and hierarchal language ensures that the
audience will be guided completely by the author and therefore restrain them from
inferring any other information. The realm of scientific writing does not allow for much
input from a female perspective and “employs what Lorraine Code calls the double
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 17/26
standard of knowledge in which experience is considered second class to
‘knowledge’”(Sauer, 64). Experience is something that was and is more pervasive in
women due to household duties and the ability to measure job related dangers because of
this. This type of knowledge is conscientiously described as second class in order to
establish that experience from household duties is inferior to scientific knowledge. It is
understandable that The Royal Society, who were advocates of masculine plain style,
would remove Cavendish and Sharp from their circle, especially since Cavendish and
Sharp were proponents of a different and not overtly masculine style.
Even more recently in history, the “feminization” of business prose is still a
worry. Linguist Otto Jespersen claims that female style is outside the norm: ,-“In 1922,
Otto Jespersen reported that men had every right to ‘object that there is a danger of
language becoming languid and insipid if we are to content ourselves with women’s
expressions’”(Allen, 379). Consistently, ‘feminine language’ has been identified as
erroneous and therefore dangerous. Many feminist writers, especially Beverly Sauer,
would contest that a minute change that would include some feminine stylings could even
save lives in hazardous workplaces. Beverly Sauer examined cases of human fatalities
and injuries in the mining workplace. She convincingly argues that the calculated,
neutral wording of technical documents reporting the mining accidents mitigated the
horror that actually occurred in mining explosions and incidents that ended in fatalities
and injuries (Sauer, 72). She claims that the “technical language of the document silences
the horror of human suffering and the loss of human life in a mine explosion”(Sauer, 72).
In her article she advocates utilizing a feminine writing perspective in order to draw
attention to the loss of human life. A chance to appeal to human emotion, as wives and
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 18/26
female family members of the deceased miners did to put human suffering at the
forefront, would lessen future inhuman results.
The negative portrayal of female language in technical communication may stem
from an inherent bias against women in technology all together, “despite the fact that
women have been receiving U.S. patents since 1809, as late as the 1970s librarians ‘did
not even use Women inventors as a category for filing information’”(Durack, 38). The
exclusion from technologic and scientific fields is “a consequence of the gender division
of labor”(Durack, 39). The gender division of labor has resulted in such, women have
been identified as possessing non-technical skills and masculine work has been identified
as possessing a valuable skill set. This results in the notion that women, because their
skill set is non-technical, are not as valuable in the job market. (Durack, 39). One of the
largest oversights is that perhaps women’s differing skill set due to a gender division of
labor could actually be immensely useful when creating technical documents.
Unfortunately, even though gender division of labor is no longer as pervasive as in the
past, women’s authority is still being marginalized.
Technical writing itself seems to have a gender-specific history. Since women are
not included in technological discourse, it makes sense that language referring to it would
also not include the female perspective. Durack explains that the geographical setting of
technical writing has contributed to the idea that women do not contribute any valuable
insights or skills in the workplace. The large problem is that technical writing has long
been defined as a set of writing skills that exist only in the workplace (Durack, 40). This
excludes any household or alternative locations as a “setting of consequence”(Durack,
40). The lack of female representation in the technological sector due to male exclusion
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 19/26
extends to technical and business communication, the “cultural link between science,
technology, and masculinity combined with a bias that fails to find significance in
productive activities that occur within the household and lack associated cash value,
has...resulted in an interpretation of ‘technical writing’ that works to exclude the
significant contributions of women”(Durack, 42). This harkens to the idea that if women
did not earn money, they therefore are not worth as much. Because men existed in the
workplace, especially a technical one, they were associated as having worth because of
the income they produced. This cultural criticism provides further cultural insights. As
we have seen, women were not encouraged to enter the workforce until recently. This
idea of worth is simply being carried over from the past in order to keep men in positions
of authority in the technical communication field. Actually, experience with the
household provides more technological insights than income producing office jobs. The
bias against women may be difficult to see at the present time because of the constant
exclusion of women over the centuries from science and technology, “a model of
communication that presents technology as neutral and discrete makes invisible the social
reproduction of gender bias inherent in technological development and use”(Johnson-
Eilola, 187). Labeling technical language as neutral inherently discredits females because
as we can see technical communication is not at all neutral.
Section 4- Implications for Women in Technical Communication
What does the gender bias mean for women in the workplace? From a self-
reposted survey of women in ‘technical or scientific fields’, Boiarsky and her team
discovered that “the longer a woman is in the workplace, the more likely she is to adopt
traditionally masculine behaviors”(Thompson, 224). Women feel the pressure to align
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 20/26
themselves with men so that they can feel more comfortable in the workplace. It’s
concerning that women are actively changing their behaviors in order to fit into a work
environment, specifically a technological/scientific one. As seen with language, women
tend to use hypercorrect grammar and “really” as a plea for acceptance in the workplace.
Rather than settling on a more androgynous language, women are seen changing their
behaviors in order to fit into the “norm”. What many don’t realize is that the “norm” is
actually that which is identified as masculine.
One of the most persuasive arguments for including women and feminine
language in technical writing is to ensure that technical writing stays based in human
emotions and not become a tool for inhuman and unethical goals. Rather than have
women conform to a more masculine standard in the workplace, perhaps men should
reassess their standard, “capital exploits men by means of their masculine sense of self.
Men dislodge each other in the capitalist and patriarchal rankings of labor. The feminine
is diminished. And technology is applied to inhuman ends”(Cockburn, 271). Patriarchal
rankings of labor, which mirror the hierarchal language used in technical writing are what
is causing technical writing to be used towards inhuman ends. Perhaps an appeal to
emotion, which circumnavigates hierarchal language, would provide some positive
humanistic results in the field. Cockburn attributes the masculine sense of self as being
source of problems. A feminine insight could provide a more humanistic view of the
technical writing field.
The universal conventions utilized at the present may not be as universal as
believed. According to Sauer, the norms and conventions of scientific discourse only
diminish women’s authority and strengthen men’s. The constructed conventions of the
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 21/26
technical writing field work to rationalize this (Sauer, 64). Beverly Sauer, concerned that
the over-representation of male dominance in technical writing can be dangerous, quotes
Hanen, “when it is most ruthlessly neutral, it will be most male…When it most closely
conforms to precedent, to ‘facts’, to legislative intent, it will most closely enforce socially
male norms and most thoroughly preclude questioning their content as having a point of
view at all”(Sauer, 64). Often “ruthlessly neutral” facts can be used as crutches in order
to achieve inhuman ends. The feminine can curtail this ruthless neutrality and attempt to
project more light unto ethical and humanistic quandaries. Feminine perspectives can be
consciously ignored in favor of the “neutral” and the masculine in order to achieve
immoral ends. What Sauer means by being ruthlessly neutral is that the technical
communicator does not relate to the writing in a very human way especially when the
subject relates to human dangers. Sauer claims that the occurrences of dangerous events
in the workplace cannot be understood simply in the “regulatory language” of scientific
writing. She explains that women utilize their firsthand experience of dangerous
occurrences in the household in order to measure danger. The problem is that the
“domestic terms”, used by women to measure danger, are not accepted in the technical
writing field as an accurate scientific measurement (Sauer, 67). Sauer mentioned the
difference between the amount of dust in a washing machine as the domestic terms, and
scientific terms as being a label such as ppm’s(parts per million). She also claims that the
distinctly non-female objective voice in mining business writing tends to avoids
acknowledging the miner’s suffering incurred while on the job (Sauer, 68). The
unfortunate idea that what the objective language advocates is that accidents “occur
regardless of human agency or intent”(Sauer, 69). This is a dangerous way of thinking
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 22/26
because there are accidents that occur solely because of human agency that can be
avoided. Saying that accidents occur regardless of human agency is a fatalistic way of
looking at perfectly avoidable occurrences. The objective language tends to draw
attention away from human loss of life and suffering (Sauer, 72). In a 1982 mining case
the wives of miners gave testimonials about the danger level of their husbands’ jobs
because of the rock sediment that collected in the washing machines (Sauer, 73-74). If
women’s opinions in the technical world are not as valued because of their domestic
measurements, then the level of human fatalities and suffering are likely to increase.
Women’s contributions to the language of technical communication are too important to
be ignored.
Conclusion
The plain style, the supposedly most objective and universal writing style is
actually rather narrow in scope and does not take other perspectives into account. The
style, invented by men of the Royal Society remains masculine and tends to avoid
including the feminine perspective. That feminine perspective includes the important
humanistic perspective which uses language that more explicitly draws attention to
human suffering. It is always dangerous to ignore a certain point of view that may
provide useful information about the subject especially pertaining to avoidable workplace
dangers. The use of the strictly patriarchal voice has become the norm and is being
perpetuated simply by the continuation of its use. The question of whether the female
voice should be included into the norm of the plain style is an interesting one. From one
perspective it could be argued that that the plain style shouldn’t be changed because it
would be too difficult to begin including too many different styles which would result in
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 23/26
a far less unified writing style. On the other hand, if a work environment is dangerous, it
would be useful to have a perspective of writing that includes the more human additions
of workplace danger and other concerns for worker safety. Perhaps if there was a
compromise of strict plain style utilized in technical documents in safe work environment
and then a switch over to a more feminine style that can properly express concern for
safety of workers in dangerous work environments.
Notes
Five logical-sequence indicators: 1.) Illustratives(“for example”, “that is”, “for
instance”); 2.) Illatives (“therefore”, “and so”, “thus”, “hence”); 3.) Adversatives
(“however”, “but”, “yet”, “nevertheless”. “on the other hand”); 4.) Causitives (“because”,
“for”, “since”); and 5.) Additives (“and”, “so…did”) (Hiatt, 225)
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 24/26
Works Cited
Allen, Jo. "Gender Issues in Technical Communication Studies: An Overview of the
Implications for the Profession, Research, and Pedagogy." Journal of Business
and Technical Communication 5 (1991): 371-92. Sage Publications, Inc. Web. 10
May 2011.
Allen, Jo. "Women and Authority in Business/Technical Communication Scholarship: An
Analysis of Writing Features, Methods, and Strategies." Technical
Communication Quarterly 3.3 (1994): 271-92. Print.
Coates, J. "Language and Gender." International Encyclopedia of the Social &
Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier Science Ltd., 2001. Web. 22 Apr. 2011.
Cockburn, Cynthia. "On the Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men, and Technical
Know-How." Women's Studies Quarterly 37.1 & 2 (2009): 269-73. Project
MUSE . Web. 22 Apr. 2011.
Coleman, James. "The Plain Style." College Composition and Communication 13.4
(1962): 1-6. Print.
Durack, Katherine T. "Gender, Technology, and the History of Technical
Communication." Central Works in Technical Communication. Ed. Johndan
Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. Oxford UP, 2004. 35-43. Print.
Hiatt, Mary P. "The Feminine Style: Theory and Fact." College Composition and
Communication 29.3 (1978): 222-26. JSTOR. Web. 11 May 2011.
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 25/26
Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. “Relocating the Value of Work: Technical Communication in a
Post-Industrial Age.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Ed. Johndan
Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. Oxford UP, 2004. 175-192. Print.
Kenner, Hugh. "The Politics of the Plain." The New York Times 15 Sept. 1985: 1-4.
LexisNexis Academic. Web. 11 May 2011.
Lay, Mary M. "Feminist Theory and the Redefinition of Technical Communication."
Central Works in Technical Communication. Ed. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and
Stuart A. Selber. Oxford UP, 2004. 146-59. Print.
Mendelson, Michael. "Business Prose and The Nature of Plain Style." The Journal of
Business and Communication 24.2 (1987): 3-15. Print.
Mills, Sara. "The Gendered Sentence." The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader .
Ed. Deborah Cameron. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1998. 65-77. Print.
Sauer, Beverly A. "Sense and Sensibility in Technical Documentation: How Feminist
Interpretation Strategies Can Save Lives in the Nation's Mines." Journal of
Business and Technical Communication 7.1 (1993): 63-83. Sage Publications,
Inc. Web. 10 May 2011.
Spender, Dale. "Extracts from 'Man Made Language'" The Feminist Critique of
Language: A Reader . Ed. Deborah Cameron. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1998.
93-99. Print.
Tebeaux, Elizabeth. "Pillaging the Tombs of Noncanonical Texts: Technical Writing and
the Evolution of English Style." The Journal of Business and Communication
18.2 (2004): 165-97. Print.
8/2/2019 Technical Writing is Male Gendered: The Missing Feminine Perspective
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-writing-is-male-gendered-the-missing-feminine-perspective 26/26
Thompson, Isabelle. "Sex Differences in Technical Communication: A Perspective from
Social Role Theory." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 34.3
(2004): 217-28. Print.
Tillery, Denise. "The Plain Style in the Seventeenth Century: Gender and the History of
Scientific Discourse." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 35.3
(2005): 273-89. Print.
Wodak, R. "Gender and Language: Cultural Concerns." International Encyclopedia of
the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier Science Ltd., 2001. Web. 22 Apr.
2011.