> Many of the signifiers used to appeal to women (pastel colors, curvy graphics, etc) are
> pretty hokey and formalized, but they apparently work -- or designers wouldn't keep
> using them.
I believe they work mostly from the conditioning of repetition. I remember many years ago
when the prevailing wisdom said you didn't package milk in yellow containers, ostensibly
because it might suggest the milk was turning sour (and buttermilk was the exception).
Nowadays, I see a lot of big name dairies using yellow plastic containers for milk.
And when did the green become the de rigeur color for low-fat food? Just a marketing niche
> It may be useful for designers of women's products to know that one typeface seems more
> "feminine" than another, but it is quite another thing to declare that any type style
> is *essentially* feminine or masculine.
The packaging of "feminine products" may well be attributed to the overly polite habit of
putting a dainty disguise on a product whose main use deals with good ol' chthonic smelly,
runny, gooey body parts and functions.
BTW, what about the Women's Power symbol (raised fist in the female circle-and-cross
device)? Aggressive gesture. Bold stark graphic. Hmmm. There goes gender-norming for graphic
[log in to unmask] http://www.unc.edu/~jbrady/index.html