technical writing is male gendered: the missing feminine perspective

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



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



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



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



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,



“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.



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).



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



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



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



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



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,



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



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



“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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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)



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.



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.



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.

technical writing is male gendered: the missing feminine perspective

Documents