E-mail: the (new) gender battleground

The internet was set alight last week on the issue of differences in the approach to emails adopted by men and women.

Interestingly, the originating post came from Emily Clarkson, the daughter of perhaps the most politically incorrect, un-woke individual ever to be gifted unfettered access to a television audience (Clarkson, 2022). In her?Instagram post, Ms Clerkson provided a summary of her thoughts concerning the differences between men and women in the language they use in emails, an observation that has received some attention previously within the scientific literature.

It is well-recognised how language, culture and society interact to serve different levels of power and recognition in society depending on gender. It emerges that from our earliest years, the way we are socialized impacts on the way we communicate as adults.

Communication isn't simply saying what we mean or how we talk and listen, it is deeply influenced by cultural expectations (Tannen 1995:138). While growing up we tend to play with other children of our own gender, learning different ways of establishing rapport and negotiating status within peer groups. As Ms Clarkson highlights, the main distinction between the way boys and girls communicate is that girls generally use the language to negotiate closeness - that is, to establish intimacy as a basis of friendship (collaboration-oriented). In comparison, boys generally use language to negotiate their status in the group (competition-oriented).

Men have traditionally used power to negotiate status whereas women use cooperation to establish feelings of fellowship. The theme is played out consistently in our adult lives, drummed home in the social and linguistic communicative styles between men and women. Effectively, we reinforce our different habitual ways of ‘speaking’ while each thinking we are communicating clearly. It might be interpreted from Ms Clarksons analysis, that the ‘male’ approach in a somewhat negative but who is to say what or who is right?

Irrespective of the pollical correctness of communications, e-mailing is certainly an appropriate forum in which to consider these assumptions. Interactions can be initiated blindly, in the absence of oral, aural or physical cues. Under such circumstance you would expect focus to be on the topic at hand - where the communicators gender is irrelevant and might only be realisable by the participants signature (Shea: 1994, 26). Ms Clarkson correctly notes otherwise.

Unlike the more traditional ‘letter’, care over the content of emails seems to be something of a rarity. E-mails are frequently written as if they were spoken aloud, with little attempt made to edit our texts – indeed, writing e-mail messages back and forth is often referred to as "holding a conversation" (Shea: 1994, 35). Perhaps it is not surprising that such lack of care or attention sees our messages littered with typos, grammatical errors and spelling mistakes... and bias. It seems unwittingly we reveal our inner selves.?

In fact, gender differences in our emails have long been recognised. As early as 1994, when many of us dreamed of using a computer with a Pentium chip and running Windows rather than DOS, it was noted men and women have recognizably different styles of communication (Shea: 1994). In particular a difference in communicative ethics. The authors expressed disappointment that their observations contrasted with what one might hope - a gender-less, age-less, race-less and any-other-bias-less opportunity for interaction.?

In a conclusion echoed by Ms Clarkson, these early researchers noted that the male style is characterized by adversiality - put-downs, strong, often contentious assertions, lengthy and/or frequent postings, self-promotion, and sarcasm. In contrast, they concluded that the female style is characterized by "supportiveness and attenuation" with expressions of appreciation, thanking, and community-building; as well as apologizing, expressing doubt, asking questions, and contributing ideas in the form of suggestions (Herring 1994:3-4).

It would therefore appear that even though electronic forms of communication offer the opportunity of equality, in reality women face a challenge to getting their voices heard due to the different communication styles - in other words, if women use language that is considered weaker, more frivolous or somewhat less powerful than men, they will continue to be relegated to secondary status; and that if men use a more aggressive, competitive, dominating style, they will continue to remain in power.

In the current climate, social media platforms certainly delight in dichotomising populations and encouraging argument. But is it not better that we endeavour to adapt to the virtual societies of computer communication and do away with the female/male divide? Should not individuals of either sex be able to choose between either style at their leisure depending on their purpose? Particularly in our modern, gender fluid society, with many choosing to express their preferred rather than conferred persona.

Clearly, men should adopt a more cooperative style of writing, particularly if their goal is to secure group support and understanding. Women should consider a firmer, traditionally male style to gain prominence and win arguments.?

Although Ms Clarkson’s observation is based on sound observation, I prefer to believe that progress is being made and hope for the future rather than conflict. Certainly, if you review the responses recorded in a 1998 survey (Rossetti, 1998), the aggressive tones associated with male responses would be considered shocking if included in a present-day business email. Men used twice as many aggressive or sarcastic expressions than women. Men also used far more personal attacks, put-downs and references to 'taboo' body parts. If I saw that behaviour in any of my own team it would be followed by a stern discussion.

In conclusion, there are clear gender differences in the way we construct e-mail messages: men remain more prone to adopt an aggressive, competitive style, whereas women tend to be far more supportive. The male/female language dichotomy has automatically transferred into our electronic communications and must be addressed, being congruent with the socialization and integration of men and women into society. The only certain path to achieving this is by establishing a modern etiquette similar to that of writing formal (traditional) business communications (letters).

Perhaps we should stop seeing emails (and other electronic forms of communications) as throwaway conversations, exposing the world to our immediate, unconsidered/ill-considered emotional zeitgeist and baggage. Perhaps we could all try a little harder to eliminate our grammatical errors, typos, spelling mistakes AND BIAS. When considering further improvements in communication etiquette we could do worse that paying attention to the words of Max Erhlman in his poem ‘Desiderata’ “Go placidly amid the noise and haste… “. If that is too much to consider then you might adopt the guidance of Ralph Waldo Emerson (opposite). And if even that is too complex, just try being nice. Oh, and one other tiny bugbear of mine, please, please include proper signature details (they can be set to be included automatically after all).

References

Clarkson https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cjirjk4qKEe/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY%3D

Tannen, D. (1995), The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why, article from Harvard Business Review, September, v. 73, n5, pg 138-148.

Shea, V. (1994), Net Etiquette, San Francisco, USA: Albion Books.

Herring, S. (1994), Gender Differences in Computer-Mediated Communication: Bringing Familiar Baggage to the New Frontier, Miami, USA: American Library Association annual convention - keynote talk, June 27, 1994.

Rossetti, 1998 The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 7, July 1998

Tim Hardman?is Managing Director of?Niche Science & Technology Ltd., a bespoke services CRO based in the UK. He is also Chairman of the?Association of Human Pharmacology in the Pharmaceutical Industry, President of the?European Federation for Exploratory Medicines Development?and an occasional commentator on science, business and the process of drug development.