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 Societys 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 Societys 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 wasnt 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 nonstyle 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

shortest possible construction(Mendelson, 4). The writing should be natural and devoid of any stylistic language tricks used to impress the audience(Mendelson, 6). Unfortunately, it appears that any feminine writing style is often considered to be embellished, which would make it deviating from the norm. And, because the embellished feminine writing style deviates from the accepted technical writing norm it is therefore considered to be incorrect. In reviewing what absent characteristics define the plain style, it is also important to recognize the characteristics that do define the non-styles style. In its firm declaration of an absence of style, the plain style creates a rather rigid set of characteristics for itself that lends itself to being called a style. Students learning how to properly utilize business prose style are taught that they should use clear and concise wording in reasonably sized sentences(17-20 words) and that their paragraphs require unity, coherence, and emphasis and the ability to be direct, write like you talk, favor monosyllables, and stick to short sentences(Mendelson, 6). The notion of write like you talk is somewhat confusing as it will be made apparent in Section 2- Language and Gender that men and women have different conversational styles. From previous examination its clear that the Royal Society made the masculine writing style the norm in scientific writing. So, when technical writers are being told to write like they talk, arent they really being told: write how a man would talk? Samuel Butlers publication of Notebooks explains why the absence of style in writing is so important. Butler explains that technical communicators should work hard in order to ensure that their message is received clearly, tersely, and euphoniously and not repeat anything. The adjective tersely implies the writing has an aggressive masculine

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 readers understanding of the message. Anything irrelevant or superfluous should not appear in the text, since it is not necessary to the readers understanding of the message and perhaps may even confuse the reader. (Coleman, 4). If a male technical writer must ignore their personal writing style, shouldnt 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, its 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 Allens 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 (Dont you agree?), introduce ideas with a question (You know what we found out?), and qualify or undercut the strength of their statements (Thats 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. Allens studies further increase the notion that men

utilize a more aggressive and domineering speech style. Women dont seem to have too particular of a speech style other than conforming their speech to fit that of men. Because mens 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 womens 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:
I came I saw I conquered. Male Shelia felt as if her whole being was conquered by this man whom she hardly knew. Female 2 Im hungry and I want something to eat. Male I wonder if theres something to eat. Female (Mills, 73) 1

Its 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 Hiatts 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 womens sentences are short compared to 48% of mens. Womens 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, dont 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 fictionIts use probably reflects womens feelings that they will not be believed, that they are not being taken seriously or really(Hiatt, 226). To begin, its very interesting that womens sentences are actually on average shorter than mens. 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 hypercorrecting their writing sequencing and organization so that they can fit into the norm without realizing that they are exceeding the norm. Mens 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 Societys harsh criticism on womens excessive use of emotion in writing, its 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 arent 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 womens 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, its 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 Spratts 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 assumd 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)

Tillerys analysis of Glanvills 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 Spratts 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 Societys 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 receivers understanding of the texts 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, dont need to be dominant in their conversation. In the conversation of technical writing, women are not concerned with controlling the responses of their audience. Mens 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 womens 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 womens 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, womens 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(JohnsonEilola, 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 selfreposted 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. Its 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 dont 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 womens authority and strengthen mens. 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 maleWhen 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 ppms(parts per million). She also claims that the distinctly non-female objective voice in mining business writing tends to avoids acknowledging the miners 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 womens 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. Womens 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 shouldnt 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, sodid) (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.