“But, is that too feminine?”

WORDS KYLA PRESKITT MARIA MEZA QUINN WILSON DESIGN + ILLUSTRATION MARIA MEZA

The words came from our male teacher, gently, tip-toeing on thin ice and from a place that meant no malice. But, no matter how lightly the waters are tread on, the fire still ignites in every female classmate. The conversation started because a peer had presented logo concepts for her self brand; all of them carrying a curvy quality with a combination of pink, teal and orange. It embodied who she was as a person and a designer, everything a good self brand logo should do. While critiquing some of the design aspects, our teacher brought up a question that surfaces year after year: Will this design be too feminine to garner her equal job opportunities as her male competitors?

Hearing that question out loud was a slap from reality followed by stages of grief. Mostly though, there was anger at the reminder of the harsh truth: that female designers are not, and have never been, equal to their male counterparts. Why is the idea that femininity is lesser than intrinsically ingrained in society? Men are taught to take up space, to be loud, bold, even daring, while women are perennially told they are either too soft-spoken or must dim their voice because they sound like a “b**ch.” But when the cultural weight of patriarchy unnecessarily attaches itself to aspects of visual design, it is not only women, but also designers and culture itself that suffers.

The stereotypes associated with gender in design are not hard to guess at. Generally, blocky slab serifs are considered bold, courageous, and therefore “masculine”. Feminine fonts tend to be thin, slanted, smooth and curvy, such as script or cursive fonts. Colors associated with femininity include pastel, bright and vivid warm colors. On the other hand, masculine design favors darker, cool colors. Given that masculine design is more mechanical and geometrical it is often viewed as more functional and useful. The difference in how design conforming to these social constructs is perceived is just one of many double standards women and feminine designers have to field every day.

Another student in the same class, had a logo constructed out of a sharply sliced off slab serif font. The angular and powerful red emblem was placed dramatically in a black circle, juxtaposed in the brand documents with rectilinear, efficient, and utilitarian fonts and layouts. While the conversation carefully explored this logo’s intensity and possible connotations, the phrase “too masculine” never crossed anybody’s lips. And why would it have? For the same reason that a toddler wearing pink is automatically gendered as a girl, yet the same toddler in green would elicit a question, before an assumption, something about inherently “feminine” designs automatically triggers a question about how female-dominated the target demographic really is. The assumption is that no self-respecting man could possibly be caught enjoying ‘feminine’ design. Even though women drive 7080% of consumer spending, feminine design is not often thought of as “good design.” When implemented, it is often only done so condescendingly, and for targeted female-only markets, while masculinity slides seamlessly in under the auspices of neutrality, modernity, or strength.

Demographic targeting is of course a real and important aspect of design, and in broad statistical terms, biases in what sorts of visual elements appeal to various genders are evidence-based, and worthy of attention. But the gender binary itself is a relatively historically-recent, eurocentric construction. More than two genders, and gender fluidity in general, have been recognized by indigenous cultures for millenia. The idea that flowing, expressive typography or bright, saturated colors must be used for an opposite demographic than blocky rectilinear typography, or darker colors is entirely spurious. It not only perpetuates a false binary, but hamstrings the designer’s creativity. It creates arbitrary rules about arbitrary categories of humans who in reality are not that biologically simple.

Stereotypically conforming masculine and feminine design hallmarks do have strong cultural momentum; women know they’re being targeted by ads with a lot of pink, men know to pay attention when an ad uses strong blocky contrasting shapes. But while this is a real force to be reckoned with, the true appeal of these aspects of design to different sexes is not as inherent or immutable as people think. Historically, what is considered masculine and feminine has been subject to the whims of fashion as much as anything else.

There have been attempts, especially in the 20th century, to create conceptually universal, so-called ‘neutral’ schools of design. Modernist styles such as the International Typographic Style strive for a conceptual “neutrality,” and in some ways, their removal of ornamentation did broaden their potential appeals. But due to the historical nature of power in this field, these attempts have been made from a white, male, and eurocentric perspective. In Baseline Shift: Untold Stories of Women in Graphic Design History, Briar Levit discusses an analysis of the “authoritative” source on graphic design history by Phillip B. Meggs, which found only “62 women (and 80 BIPOC people) out of a total 594 designers.” Associate professor Brandon Waybright, who conducted the analysis cautioned that even this number came “with a strong caveat—that by and large the women and people of color are included in lists with only their name mentioned and no real historic detail.”

The effect of the historical dominance of white men in this field is twofold. Not only does it contribute to the perception of masculine designs as more universal, and create a masculine slant to supposedly “neutral” design, but it also creates a dearth of role models for female designers, and concomitant examples of influential feminine design. In spite first address our professional and cultural expectations. Just as the disparity of power in the design industry cannot be separated from the sidelining of feminine design, it also cannot be separated from the added caregiving responsibilities, such as childcare, household management, and elder care, that are disproportionately borne by women. These responsibilities lead to women being passed over for, and opting to pass over, leadership roles because of the belief on both sides that these jobs require longer working hours, thus taking time away from their responsibilities at home. This, in turn, affects remuneration; female graphic designers receive 25-27% less than their male counterparts. der. There is nothing intrinsically less appealing about a curving, humanistic, and expressive design. There is nothing intrinsically less utilitarian about bright or pastel colors. It is only when we associate these things with cultural constructs that still lamentably connote a ‘less powerful’ and ‘less serious’ demographic, and allow those perceptions of power and gravity to persist, that we find ourselves asking that regrettable question: “But is it too feminine?” of over half of graphic designers being female, only about one in ten creative directors are, meaning that many female designers go through their entire design careers never working with a female creative director.

Patriarchal dominance of design is inexorably linked to, and in perpetual conversation with patriarchal dominance of culture.

Design simultaneously reflects and drives the cultural sense of gender affectations and roles. To achieve gender parity in the design industry, both internally, and with regard to the cultural perceptions of design quality, we must

It is only by seizing what power we each have, and chipping away at these edifices that we can expect to turn the momentum in a new, inclusive, direction. The more women who are socially freed up and empowered to find their place as design teachers, art directors, and cultural influencers, the more present these perspectives become, and the more welcome feminine creative direction will become in mainstream design.

This balance will bring with it the added benefit of furthering the deconstruction of the hegemonic binary idea of gen-

Ultimately, we pushed our classmate to go for it, to be feminine and to do it proudly. If a job is going to pigeon-hole a woman for simply being a woman, they do not deserve her anyways. Whether inherent or socially-imposed on a woman, femininity is associated with empathy and intuition, traits that allow feminine designers to be fluid in their understanding of the world around them. We are constantly having to dodge the oppression of masculinity, to adapt to a world that tries to dim our light. But facing these challenges makes us good designers. While the choice to be expressively feminine in one’s brand is a genuine risk, the more risks women are willing to take, in order to be the change they want to see in the world, the faster the change will occur. To be coded as feminine in any walk of life, leads to being resilient. And who wouldn’t want to hire a resilient woman who can powerfully push against the boundaries of what it means to be a designer? Good design is good design. Period. We just happen to look cute while we’re doing it.