In Language

In recent years, some veteran engineers have spoken out against gender-neutral language because it smacks of "political correctness." Nevertheless there are some male-gender terms in the workforce that aren't accurate. At least, not in the same way they may have been 20 or 30 years ago.

Example: "manpower." Used as a kind of unit of measure of project staffing, it has nothing to do with "power" (in an engineering context, "power" has specific meaning) and it has less to do with "man" each day.

On the other hand, "manpower" has the benefit of simplicity and is easy to remember, having been used in the workplace for years. like any other term you want to replace (whether it's for sensitivity, accuracy, or both -- as in this case), you have to try to maintain simplicity and memorability. Otherwise, your co-workers will just do things the way they always have.

Here are a few ideas for replacing "manpower":

• head count
• staff/staffing/staff resources/staff hours (or some other time base)
• full-time equivalent (FTE)

The FTE is growing in popularity in some workplaces, but as always you have to be careful not to confuse your audience with a large number of acronyms. The other options may seem somewhat impersonal, but in this case the information conveyed isn't intended to be personal.

One other example of simple and precise change of gender focus is the use of "workers ahead" or "work area ahead" instead of "men working." More accurate, just as simple, no loss of meaning.

Avoiding gender-based pronouns in your writing can be easy: use plural pronouns instead of singular whenever possible. Instead of

The operator can correct this problem, but he must have the data.

use

Operators can correct this problem, but they must have the data.

NOTE: the lack of gender-neutral language in engineering may not be due solely to men. Adult women seem to have just as strong a tendency to address groups of people as "you guys" as do men. Men and women alike have to change their habits to make progress.

Why "Man" is not a Gender-Neutral Term

• It's not associated with specific women, or with groups of women, as sentence subjects. (It can be associated with specific men.)
• It's not used that way with idioms (e.g. "man on the street," "man about town," etc.)
• It's used that way as a verb (e.g. "man the pumps"), but would you use it that way if the operators were women? It could be replaced with "work" or "operate" with no loss of meaning and little loss of simplicity.
• It's used that way as a suffix (e.g. "chairman"), but would you use it that way if the chairmen were women? "Chairman" could be replaced with "chair," and "draftsman" with "drafter" or "designer" with no loss of meaning and little loss of simplicity.

In Workplaces

Both men and women will react to gender in the workplace rather than rank, because of long-held social identities. You have to make a conscious effort to overcome this. It's a particular source of confusion for friendly people: are they communicating based on social acquaintance or cheerful professionalism?

Don't use terms of endearment to address co-workers, because it's a sure way to cause misunderstandings. Unfortunately, you're probably not in position to correct a boss who does this unless you know there's a possible civil rights violation. You have to handle it in a more general manner. As for yourself, don't specifically point out gender at all unless it's relevant.

For rhetorical purposes, it doesn't do any good to place blame for the "glass ceiling." The fact that in American workplaces women have never risen to positions of authority at the same rate as men (much less to the same numbers) is a complex systems problem.

An organization has to first recognize that this is a problem before any steps can be taken to change the system. And in order for a problem to be recognized, individuals may have to see evidence that women in authority would provide benefits!

Here are ways that women are limited in advancement opportunity in most organizations:

1. Consensus-building skills, generally considered stronger in women than in men, are often misinterpreted as indecision or weak leadership.
2. Lack of self-promotion, since men are considered more likely to aggressively call attention to themselves than are women, is sometimes interpreted as lack of accomplishment. This is especially true when promotion decisions are heavily based on public presentations.
3. Lack of unified resolve among women, either because a desire for consensus and consideration of others' feelings outweighs a desire to "make waves," or because some women don't consider the promotion of other women desirable.
4. The idea of "dress for success" has different definitions for women and men. Women, having more choices in colors and styles in the workplace, are more intended to be noticed for appearance than are men. The default successful appearance for women requires (in general) a larger selection of clothes; it also requires makeup, for which men have nothing analogous.
5. Child care responsibility is seldom split equally between men and women; women have sole responsibility for child-bearing. If a woman takes time off to have and nurse a child, or to face a problem pregnancy, her career may be set back, as no man faces the same issues.
6. Idioms seem to favor the experience of typical men (e.g. sports and military metaphors) over that of women. Idioms are sometimes used between co-workers to establish connection, so their successful use depends on shared understanding.
7. Comfort zones tend to govern decisions made on hiring, promotion and job assignments. Those in authority already will (even if subconsciously) prefer someone like themselves over a person with "better skills" but a much different style. If such decisions are made mostly by men...
8. Interruptions tend to favor men over women, as most clerical employees (the most interruptible in the workplace) are women. Women in management are as a result more likely to be interrupted (by walk-ins, etc.) then men in like positions. Furthermore, numerous studies have shown that in conversation and in meetings, men are far more likely to interrupt others than are women. The interruption gives the speaker the opportunity to make the last, or loudest, or most easily remembered point.

I've read about a tongue-in-cheek approach to neutrality: the following ersatz gender-neutral pronoun, pronounced with a Texas drawl:

References

Miller and Swift, The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing. NYC: Lippincott & Crowell, 1980. ISBN 0-69001-882-7
Tannen, D. You Just Don't Understand. Ballantine Books, 1991. ISBN 0-34537-205-0
Tannen, D. Talking From 9 to 5. Avon Books, 1995. ISBN 0-38071-783-2
IEEE's Women in Engineering Committee

1. Replace gender-specific nouns such as "man" or "father" with gender-neutral (e.g. "founder" instead of "father" for someone who's first or pre-eminent) whenever you can do it without starting a war.
2. Replace gender-specific singular pronouns with plural pronouns. There's a disagreement among practitioners about whether to use the pronoun "they" to represent singular subjects, because there's no third-person singular pronoun in English except "it." I try to make the subjects and actions match.
3. End the practice of basing promotability on self-promotion, authoritarianism and empire-building.
4. Recognize the tendency we all have to label others on the basis of stereotypes.