On “masculine printing” versus “feminine printing”:
At a printers’ convention in August 1892, De Vinne proposed the ideal of ‘masculine printing’, in opposition to the ‘feminine’ variety that he saw as a weakening of standards. This latter was an approach interested in ornamental effects and especially in a cultivation of hair-line delicacy … By contrast: ‘The object of the masculine style [was] the instruction of the reader.’ Kinross, Modern Typography (53)
Disregard the unnecessarily gendered language and you’ll find a strong argument for legibility. And by legibility, I mean not merely what’s required to discern the words on a page, but a design that encourages thoughtful reading. De Vinne’s use of the phrase “instruction of the reader” suggests a concept of design that is oriented towards learning.
