TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
>". . . I think you probably
>mean well, but simply don't
>understand the dynamics of
You are correct, my intentions are positive. It is because I do have a
general (guessable??) understanding of the dynamics of the situation
that I wrote. If Melissa reacts to her co-workers/employer the way it
seemed to me she might, she could very well be out of a future.
Furthermore you write:
>Your words are the sort black people
used to hear all the time, from
>well-intentioned whites and blacks
>who didn't want to challenge the racist
>assumptions that blacks were inferior.
>Note that you don't hear words like that
>very often any more.
>I think you owe Melissa an apology
>for what you said.
Oh Please !!!! Elna (and especially Melissa) I don't think it is in
Melissa's best career interest to make her stand on this situation.
Tell me Elna, do you think this is a great topic for Melissa to stake
her career on?
As for an apology, FOR WHAT? For caring about another Tech Writer's
future? I gave what I think still stands as good advice.
Again, I wish Melissa well.
>From: etymes -at- lts -dot- com[SMTP:etymes -at- lts -dot- com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 1:14 PM
>To: Roger Mallett
>Subject: Re: secretaries
>I'm writing this off the list to you because I think you probably mean
>well, but simply don't understand the dynamics of the situation.
>Since Roger is a male name, I'm going to assume you're male. By
>definition, then, you've never experienced the kind of deprecating
>attitude that most women experience - sometimes more, sometimes less -
>in the work force, an attitude that comes mostly from men. This is
>sexism, and it still exists, though not as blatantly as it did as
>as 10 years ago.
>Sexist attitudes lead to assumptions that females are not as capable as
>men. Some people who display sexist attitudes assume that ALL females
>are less capable than ANY male. More people who display sexist
>attitudes are somewhat more selective - men can do this better because
>[...x, y, z] but women are better at detail work, raising kids,
>expresing feelings, [...x, y, z]. In the engineering industries, one
>the most common sexist attitudes gets expressed as some form of "women
>don't understand technical things as well as men."
>The fact that technical writers write, and therefore get very
>at word processors, makes them LOOK to the undiscerning eye as if they
>do the same sort of work a secretary does. If these undiscerning eyes
>then go on to make further assumptions about the skill levels and
>intelligence about technical writers, based on this wrong assumption,
>follows that one or more people, probably even acting with the best of
>intentions, think that sending a Secretary's Day card to a professional
>technical writer is a nice thing to do, never comprehending why doing
>would be such an insult.
>Here's what's wrong with that logic:
>1. Would this person send a Secretary's Day card to a male technical
>writer? Not all technical writers are female. There are even some
>secretaries. Assuming that a female writer is equivalent to a
>is like assuming that because you know how to link a computer to a
>printer, you're qualified to be a network administrator.
>2. Technical writing generally - though not always - requires a
>degree AND some demonstrated ability to write and to explain technical
>processes. You can get a job as a secretary if you know how to type -
>not necessarily how to create error-free prose from scratch - and to
>answer the phone, take messages, and handle office supplies. You can
>get a job as a secretary before you're out of high school. I've never
>heard of a tech writer landing that kind of job without at least some
>3. In engineering-dominated cultures, knowledge of how things REALLY
>work is one of the keys to respect from peers. Technical writers have
>long been accorded lower status because, being writers and not
>programmers or engineers, they were assumed to only know things at a
>relatively high level, not down in the details. Sometimes that's true,
>sometimes not - we learn what we need to for the project at hand, and
>frequently don't have the time to get to the nitty gritty. Look at any
>national salary scale, and you'll find that technical writers generally
>are paid $10-$40,000 less than programmers and engineers. If pay is
>measure of respect, then you understand the constant battle for
>respectability by technical writers. To demean a technical writer by
>assuming she/he is like a secretary is to reinforce the lack of
>peer-level respect that translates into hard dollars.
>I'm one of the wizened old folks who've been in this business since
>1968, I've written 30-something published books, tons and tons of
>manuals and training materials and other stuff, and I own a company
>that, among other things, creates documentation on contract for an
>assortment of Silicon Valley companies (our current
>leap-tall-buildings-in-a-single-bound project is at Sun, doing the
>public docs on JavaSoft; one of our other projects is doing most of the
>strategy and implementation for Oracle's online docs, help files,
>training, etc.). I've seen firsthand the problems associated with lack
>of respect, with mistaken assumptions about abilities and intelligence,
>and with sexist attitudes. I make more money now than almost any
>technical writer I know, and most programmers - but I've also learned
>how threatened programmers and engineers behave when they find out I
>do. I'm not about to yield an inch of the ground I've gained to accept
>the condescending behavior of someone who thinks I'm "like a
>> You don't want to give others (especially dept. heads, etc.)
>> the impression that you are a complainer, thin skinned, easily provoked,
>> etc. (the "etc"s are for all of you who were long winded on the previous
>> thread). If your career is determined by those who offended you, then
>> prove yourself by ignoring it, for a reaction is certain to seal your
>> fate. If your career is determined by others, then leave it alone, for
>> exacting retribution (through words, etc.) will be certain to find its
>> way back to those who really do count, or who may count in your future
>> (especially if those involved were innocent and didn't mean to hurt you)
>Your words are the sort black people used to hear all the time, from
>well-intentioned whites and blacks who didn't want to challenge the
>racist assumptions that blacks were inferior. Note that you don't hear
>words like that very often any more. I think you owe Melissa an
>for what you said.
>Elna R. Tymes, president
>Los Trancos Systems