What was the very first typeface described as “feminine”?

Ray Larabie

@Hrant H. Papazian
Protecting gender stereotypes is like a nature conservationist focused on protecting the common housefly. We're in no danger of anyone in the world forgetting gender stereotypes exist. If you want to discuss the relationship between gender and type, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. 

Outside of ad copy, gender and type is an interesting thing to talk about. If a reviewer says a font is masculine, there's some context. We know who the reviewer is, we can think about it.

I get what you're saying about the two triangles. I think we're all pretty round these days. But some women have narrow shoulders, wide hips, thick limbs, big muscles and sharp angles. Some men have wide shoulders, narrow hips, thin limbs and soft features.

When gender stereotypes are used in ad copy to sell fonts, it's not a discussion. Think how that kind of ad copy reads to people who don't fit the stereotype. When type designers use these terms in their ad copy, they're usually not talking about the triangularity, the hip/shoulder ratio of the typeface. Enter some gendered terms into your vendor search tool and see what comes up. You'll see a few results that aren't stereotypical and plenty that are.

Maybe there's a way to use gender in ad copy that's progressive. But I think the typical gender stereotypes used in typeface ad copy are a turn off for younger customers. When a young designer types "feminine" or "masculine" into the font vendor search bar, the search results have an effect on what the next generation will see.

Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian

@Ray Larabie Not protecting the misuse of generalization (a natural tool of cognition, that's dangerous because it's powerful) but the fearless consideration of gender. The dangers are real, and manifold. For example you end up with a list of over 250 typefaces designed by women... which inescapably only includes people with a vagina, because you're not allowing yourself to see an expression of gender in the fonts themselves. This is a harmful gender-binary. You cannot eat your cake and have it too.

If a reviewer says a font is masculine, there's some context. We know who the reviewer is, we can think about it.

My point is nobody dares say such things any more, because the herd will stampede. The herd runs when frightened. Bobby Martin was dodging the herd.

I get what you're saying about the two triangles. I think we're all pretty round these days. But some women have narrow shoulders ....

Actually you only got the physical aspect. Which is not insignificant, but my point is that's superficial. My assigning of the point-up triangle to the Female gender (again, not merely women) also relates to the Female gender providing social stability. 

Enter some gendered terms into your vendor search tool and see what comes up. You'll see a few results that aren't stereotypical and plenty that are.

As I implied before, let's fix that. Which is impossible by pretending gender is moot.

I think the typical gender stereotypes used in typeface ad copy are a turn off for younger customers.

Isn't ignoring what older customers want age discrimination? And is experience a bad thing? Most of all, is this all only about money?

You might want to study the results of Mary Catherine Pflug's surveys about font purchasing habits. One finding that was surprising, even to me: women value gender associations in fonts more than men.

Ray Larabie

Most of all, is this all only about money?

The main purpose of ad copy is to make money. Not all only about making money but mostly, yes. Always be closing.

Isn't ignoring what older customers want age discrimination?

I don't think anyone, of any age, would read a typeface's ad copy and notices the lack of mention of gender.

It's not impossible to have good ad copy that mentions an gender aspect to a typeface. But the way I was using it in my ad copy was crass. Like, if I had curly script or an angular stencil and I needed to pad it, I'd add cliches about girly or manly. Yuck.

Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian

Ray Larabie said:
I don't think anyone, of any age, would read a typeface's ad copy and notices the lack of mention of gender.

I don't find what people don't know they're missing to be a good way forward. But as long as you think there's some place for gender associations in type (like the reviewer scenario) then I'm happy.

Robin Mientjes

Hrant H. Papazian said:

For example you end up with a list of over 250 typefaces designed by women... which inescapably only includes people with a vagina, because you're not allowing yourself to see an expression of gender in the fonts themselves. This is a harmful gender-binary.

First of all, Hrant, you’re making an awful lot of assumptions – and they’re wrong.

Second, you’re equating and conflating gender with sex, and sex with a binary. Both reasonings are wrong. If you’re arguing about aesthetic features, fine. But don’t try to excuse your aesthetic ideas and ideals by bringing in hopelessly wrong biology and sociology.

Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian

@Robin Mientjes No matter which way you slice it, since genitalia is almost entirely binary, if you refuse to see gender in visual language you end up making lists like this
http://www.victoriarushton.com/fonts-by-women
which are oppressively gender-binary (if unwittingly so). It's an insult to everybody to pretend one needs to be obviously female to contribute female associations in visible language. The male gender (again, not merely men) learns a great deal about the female gender by coexistig with it (not least within the same individual) and can express things the female gender cannot about itself (and vice versa, of course). Because they are different. Something we should cherish, not fear. Now, such lists are admittedly not fruitless, but remain a mere shadow of what gender means, of how fearless consideration would yield a higher expression of our reality.

And I'm not nearly as interested in my own æsthetic ideals (not least since they suck on the market, yes, a factor) as I am with respecting and leveraging the manifestations of Nature in visual language.

Lastly, assumptions are all we have. We do not Know anything.

Thomas Phinney

Hrant H. Papazian said:

@Robin Mientjes No matter which way you slice it, since genitalia is almost entirely binary,

Your “almost entirely” is my “not at all near.” I have known too many people who didn’t fit that binary, even for physical genitalia.

Hrant H. Papazian said:

if you refuse to see gender in visual language you end up making lists like this
http://www.victoriarushton.com/fonts-by-women
which are oppressively gender-binary (if unwittingly so). It's an insult to everybody to pretend one needs to be obviously female to contribute female associations in visible language.

That is unfair nonsense. The list was nothing to do with “contributing female associations in visible language.” It was exactly what it claimed to be: fonts made by women. Your obsession with labeling the *work* as feminine or masculine seems to have blinded you to this.

Women are under-represented among type designers. Some people would like to encourage type design by women, and being aware of it is a first step, whether it proceeds to promoting their work or buying their typefaces.

And yes, it is more complicated—see my above comments about people not fitting this binary. We can have an even shorter list of non-gender-binary type designers if you like.

Niche.

I don’t want to start an argument or get into gender debates and psychology, but if you look at a, let’s say 12 year old’s handwring. And you take a ‘stereotypical’ identified male and female (stereotypical as in what the media has portrayed to be ‘male’ or ‘female’) and get them to draw the alphabet, is it safe to say that ‘females’ interpretations are more delicate? I can remember back to my childhood, I was watched by my teachers because I showed signs of early OCD. And I remember being very jealous of a few girls that simply could draw letters smoother than I could, it drove me nuts, but I could never fix it, most men are lazier handwriters, even if they are artistic, I think as designers we think too much about designers. But what about non designers? Sorry to go off topic, but unless you’re into calligraphy or a designer, naturally I have seen men’s lettering as lazier then females, is this different for other (non western) cultures?

Dyana Weissman

I have thoughts on this, but if you really want to go off-topic, then I invite you to start a new thread. This one has already gotten away from its original intent.

While I've found it very educational to learn about the differences between gender and sex, unless anyone has any further thoughts solely on the first typeface described as "feminine," comments will be collapsed. 

Wolf Böse

just to sprinkle in a interesting note
i was reading about kana on wikipedia a while back

"This method of writing was used primarily for poetry or by women, and did not gain recognition as an acceptable way to record historical records or scholarly works."

Simon Cozens

If you think hiragana counts (and it was literally called "women's hand" 女手) then we've got it back to the 10th century.

Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian

Dyana Weissman said:
unless anyone has any further thoughts solely on the first typeface described as "feminine," comments will be collapsed. 

Uncanny timing.

Wolf Böse

Simon Cozens said:

If you think hiragana counts (and it was literally called "women's hand" 女手) then we've got it back to the 10th century.

yea thats what i was getting at