According to Bridwell-Bowles, the most respected form of writing in the academy is written in a "masculine" style. "masculine" writing models itself after the scientific way of thinking. It is logical, objective and the writer is disconnected from the material. The writer never uses the words " feel" or "I think." Rather, "masculine" writers propose an argument, present the facts surrounding that argument, and interpret what those facts are saying. Bridwell-Bowles does not contest the usefulness of this type of writing. She does say that for many writers in her classes, "masculine" writing is not an effective way to express their ideas. However, she believes that it is important to experiment with writing styles in the academy.
To support her thesis, Bridwell-Bowles uses excerpts from feminist theory on the differences in male and female writing. Some of these feminist writers are Sally Miller Gearhart, Pamela Olano, and Mary Daly. She also uses several examples of how her students experimented with different forms of writing. Bridwell-Bowles gives her students the freedom to explore ways of writing that wouldn't be normally accepted. She evaluates their work on how well they express their ideas, not how well they follow the rules.
In one paper the student intentionally did not make an argument. The main body of the paper was made entirely of fifty eight questions. Even though he did not answer any of the questions or take a definite argument his questions implied a position.
Another student worked with different writing formats. She divided her paper into two columns. In the first column she compiled thoughts and writings by other feminist authors and gave her own criticism to these excerpts in the other column.
One group of students in her class decided to write one paper collaboratively. Their goal was to express their ideas in a more cooperative rather than confrontational way.
Bridwell-Bowles knows that writing in unconventional ways is a risk for anyone. She also realizes that it is easier for her to step out of those bounds because she is tenured and has a secured position. All she is doing is creating a safe testing ground were students can experiment with their writing.
Bridwell-Bowles tries not to write in an aggressive way. Her thesis is suggestive of a course of action, not declarative. She does not say how people should write but rather how they should be allowed to write. By making her writing less aggressive she is hoping her essay will be something that "...does something 'with' and not 'to' the reader...."
The evidence used in the essay is also non-aggressive. The author uses anecdotes and excerpts from other feminist's writings to demonstrate the value of experimental writing. The examples of student writing do not support any one method of writing. The pieces simply show the student effectively expressed ideas without using conventional form.
Bridwell-Bowles wrote this essay to encourage writers to experiment with non-traditional forms of writing. She suggests that the current model of discourse is a "masculine" style. Therefore, that style is biased towards white, heterosexual males. She has found that this style does not work with many of her students. The author assumes the "masculine" form works better for white males than for minority groups and women. Because of this, she proposes that we develop styles that work for other groups as well.
The "masculine" style of writing is not easier for males. It is in fact an unnatural style for almost all people. That kind of writing is an acquired skill that takes years to develop. The reason that it is considered a "masculine" style is because it was developed by white males in power. The style defined as "masculine" was not adopted because it was easy for European men to write with, but because it was an effective way of arriving at the truth. Ideally, "masculine" writing is designed not to be biased towards race, gender, or sexual orientation. It is supposed to be objective and indiscriminate.
While I like Bridwell-Bowles' proposal to change the conventions of writing, she does not effectively explain why this should be done. I am not convinced that "masculine" writing is advantageous to any one group of people. Even though I see problems with that side of her argument, she successfully uses a feminist style of writing in a clear and convincing way. Her style is easy to follow and does not exclude readers.
I agree that it is important to explore new aspects of writing. It could create alternate paths for serious writers to take. Also by questioning the current methodology of writing, students can better understand its limitations and its strengths.
©Nathaniel Wilson, Winona (MN) State University, 30 January 1997. This document may be freely distributed for educational use as long as this notice of its authorship accompanies its distribution.
Return to annotated bibliography on language, gender, and writing.