Our survey of women who graduated in engineering from Kansas State Uni
versity indicates that sexist language persists in the workplace, that women
react to it in various ways, and that such language can engender sexist atti
tudes which often have deleterious effects on the company and its employees.
We believe technical-writing teachers have some of the responsibility to sensi
tize students to exclusionary language. We show how that language violates
professional ethical practices, demonstrate that some technical-writing texts
trivialize the issue of sexist language, and suggest methods and resources for
teachers to use in the classroom.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, Paul V.Technical Writing: A Reader-Centered Approach. New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987 .
2.
Bate, Barbara. "Generic Man, Invisible Woman: Language, Thought and Social Change ." Papers in Women's Studies2.1 (1975): 83-95.
3.
Conway, William D.Essentials of Technical Writing. New York: Macmillan, 1987.
4.
DeStefano, Johanna S.Introduction. Sexism and Language. Ed. Alleen Pace Nilsen, et al. Urbana: NCTE, 1977. viii-ix.
Feinberg, Susan.Components of Technical Writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1989.
7.
Freed, Alice F."Hearing Is Believing: The Effect of Sexist Language on Language Skills." Teaching Writing: Pedagogy, Gender, and Equity. Ed. Cynthia L. Caywood and Gillian R. Overing.Albany: State U of New York Press, 1987. 81-89.
8.
Hall, Roberta M., and Bernice R. Sandler.The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One For Women ? Washington: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Assn. of American Colleges, 1982 .
9.
Houp, Kenneth W., and Thomas E.Pearsall. Reporting Technical Information. New York: Macmillan, 1988.
10.
" IEEE Code of Ethics." IEEE Spectrum12.2 (1975): 65.
11.
Keene, Michael L.Effective Professional Writing. Lexington: D. C. Heath, 1987.
