zaphod@deepthot.UUCP (Lance Bailey) (09/26/85)
I've only been reading net.women for a few months so this might be a rehash....
Why does it SEEM to be a standard rule that the handwriting of women
is far superiour to that of men? While a women'n writing is usually quite
elegant with lovely rounded characters, the scrawl from men's pens is usually
illegible. Stranger still, while I know of men with "better than average"
script, I really can't think of any women who get complaints about their
handwriting.
--
4 222
4 4 2 2
4 4 2 would you say that this is a result of
44444 22 the "do-it if it feels good" generation?
4 2 -- i've got five bucks riding on it
4 2
4 22222
decvax!{utzoo|watmath}!deepthot!zaphod
(Lance Bailey @ UWO Comp Sci, London, Canada)chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Laurie Sefton, C/O chuqui) (09/29/85)
My handwriting is *dreadful*!! My printing in grade school was dreadful,
my cursive starting in 3rd grade was dreadful, and I haven't improved (as
far as being legible) since. Interesting thing, though, when people see my
handwriting without seeing the name attached to it (or when I use initials
instead of my full name), they have overwhemingly (in school and business)
assumed that I was a man.
Maybe a bit of the ol' social conditioning is involved--little girls are
expected to be neater, and the neat handwriting goes with that assumption.
No one *expects* for little boys to have "pretty" handwriting, in fact, the
assumption may be made that boys *won't* have neat handwriting; so the
effort won't be made to improve upon their handwriting.
Laurie Sefton
NSC has *nothing* at all to say about my handwriting....
--
:From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach
nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui
If you can't talk below a bellow, you can't talk...jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/29/85)
> > Why does it SEEM to be a standard rule that the handwriting of women > is far superiour to that of men? While a women'n writing is usually quite > elegant with lovely rounded characters, the scrawl from men's pens is usually > illegible. Stranger still, while I know of men with "better than average" > script, I really can't think of any women who get complaints about their > handwriting. > (Lance Bailey @ UWO Comp Sci, London, Canada) But I *like* my scrawl. I think you're overstating it, but it's also my experience that it's unusual for a woman to have really terrible handwriting, just as it is unusual for a man to have really elegant handwriting. I think women in our society are taught to pay a lot more attention to how things look than men do. This goes for personal appearance and the appearance of surroundings. This is just a generalization, so no flames, please. I've noticed that my handwriting has really deteriorated over the past few years. I think this is because I do almost all my writing on the computer. Has anyone else had this experience? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/29/85)
> [Lance Bailey] > Why does it SEEM to be a standard rule that the handwriting of women > is far superiour to that of men? While a women'n writing is usually quite > elegant with lovely rounded characters, the scrawl from men's pens is usually > illegible. Stranger still, while I know of men with "better than average" > script, I really can't think of any women who get complaints about their > handwriting. --- The above is a completely unwarranted generalization. After 20 years of trying, I still cannot read my mother-in-law's handwriting. My wife must read it for me. My father-in-law's handwriting, on the other hand, was beautiful. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
ariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (09/30/85)
> I've only been reading net.women for a few months so this might be a rehash.... > > > Why does it SEEM to be a standard rule that the handwriting of women > is far superiour to that of men? While a women'n writing is usually quite > elegant with lovely rounded characters, the scrawl from men's pens is usually > illegible. Stranger still, while I know of men with "better than average" > script, I really can't think of any women who get complaints about their > handwriting. > -- > decvax!{utzoo|watmath}!deepthot!zaphod > (Lance Bailey @ UWO Comp Sci, London, Canada) Oh, HO! You haven't seen *my* handwriting then, have you? My parents and grandparents insist on typewritten letters. I never have to worry about people reading my journal; they simply can't! No, Lance, there are plenty of women with awful handwriting, but then, the most interesting people have the most interesting (and least regular) handwriting, don't they? Ariel (what's this say?) Shattan ..!tektronix!orca!ariels
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (10/01/85)
I do not write a lovely script but either a plain but readable backhand (drilled into me by a private tutor) or not-quite-unreadable scrawls. (I'm righthanded. My parents took great pains to make sure to make sure I wasn't a potential lefty when I was young by always offering me things dead center. I always grabbed with the right hand.) Awhile back one of my friends' kids came to a gathering at our home and asserted you could tell men's and women's handwriting apart. I had the people there all write the word "handwriting." The kid identified half of the men as women--and half of the women as men. (In other words, she came up with the results predictable by chance.) In other words, I don't think your generalization about handwriting holds true for me and my friends. It may be true for some people. If so, I suspect it's that our culture raises girls to be conformist, boys to be independent--and this manifests itself, among other things, as a willingness to heed the etiquette of handwriting. --Lee Gold
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon) (10/01/85)
> > Why does it SEEM to be a standard rule that the handwriting of women > > is far superiour to that of men? While a women'n writing is usually quite > > elegant with lovely rounded characters, the scrawl from men's pens is usually > > illegible. > > (Lance Bailey @ UWO Comp Sci, London, Canada) > > > I think you're overstating it, but it's also my experience that it's unusual > for a woman to have really terrible handwriting, just as it is unusual for a > man to have really elegant handwriting. I think women in our society are > taught to pay a lot more attention to how things look than men do. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) My own handwriting *looks* nice, with lots of rounded curves, etc. Praise for it, however, tends to come from people who do not have to read it. Those who do usually need aspirin... :- Marcel Simon
maples@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (10/01/85)
Perhaps women have had more practice as children. I know that I wrote alot when I was young. It all probably goes along with the idea that girls are more studious than boys (at young ages). Kona
jad@lanl.ARPA (10/02/85)
I found it amusing the the lady to whom I've been writing was pleased to
have a proper mailing address for my mail. She indicated it would relieve
any teasing she got when my mail arrived to her at work - that my stuff
was obviously not business related because the handwriting on the envelope
was so pretty.
But of course, I received C's in grade school for my cursive, and do not
use that style at all, having developed my own and having practiced it
quite a lot since high school.
----------------------
"Even ghosts can love"
John Atwood deVries II
jad@lanl (ARPA) or .. {cmcl2 | ihnp4}!lanl!jad (UUCP)crs@lanl.ARPA (10/03/85)
> No, Lance, there are plenty of women with awful handwriting, but > then, the most interesting people have the most interesting (and > least regular) handwriting, don't they? YOU BET! BRAVO! > Ariel (what's this say?) Shattan > ..!tektronix!orca!ariels It's a good thing I can't get my *real* signature in .signature! -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
marvinm@ttidcb.UUCP (Marvin Moskowitz) (10/04/85)
In article <653@deepthot.UUCP> zaphod@deepthot.UUCP (Lance Bailey) writes: >I've only been reading net.women for a few months so this might be a rehash.... > > > Why does it SEEM to be a standard rule that the handwriting of women >is far superiour to that of men? While a women'n writing is usually quite >elegant with lovely rounded characters, the scrawl from men's pens is usually >illegible. Stranger still, while I know of men with "better than average" >script, I really can't think of any women who get complaints about their >handwriting. It was my experience that the small percentage of the women in my computer science department at Cal. State University, Northridge, who would be outwardly classified by the general public as nerds (i.e. there was a small % of female nerds not a small % of women, thank god) had just as bad chciken scratches as the men. I therefore inferred that the differnce in writing between the genders was a part of the same social conditioning that taught little girls to play cleanly in their frilly pink dresses while the guys got to do whatever they wanted in the mud. The few women who weren't so conditioned end up as not fitting many of the social "norms" in their dress and other habits. These observations are from a VERY small sample and are not to be interpreted as in any way conclusive, OK flamers? (i.e I'm sure SOMEONE could argue a genetic predisposition that prevents these women from adapting to social norms, but I'm not buying it) Marv Moskowitz (Iconoclast)
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (10/08/85)
>...I therefore inferred that the differnce in writing >between the genders was a part of the same social conditioning that taught >little girls to play cleanly in their frilly pink dresses while the guys >got to do whatever they wanted in the mud. The few women who weren't >so conditioned end up as not fitting many of the social "norms" in >their dress and other habits. Actually, I would go further and say that people with bad handwriting, both men AND women, may be less conformist. Penmanship is one of the most constricting subjects that children are taught--at least it was to me. All that practice at making perfect loops seemed so stupid. A lot of drill to try and make everyone do something exactly the same. Yuck. The only thing that blows this whole theory is that my father is a very straight-arrow, conforming person--a judge, no less. However, all the law clerks recognize his signature immediately--it is the one in which they can't identify a single letter. -- Sue Brezden Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb AT&T Information Systems 11900 North Pecos Westminster, Co. 80234 (303)538-3829 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I march to the beat of a different drummer, whose identity, location, and musical ability are as yet unknown. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
wildstar@nmtvax.UUCP (10/08/85)
I think the generalisation that men's handwriting is sloppier than ladies is too sweeping. I generally have two kinds of writing... One kind is for taking notes, a very fast economical font, but it is still readable by anyone. The other kind is the cursive I was taught in childhood. I use it rarely, but it has never degenerated, since I use it for personal letters and calligraphy, some people say it is really attractive. So what about two scripts? One for business, one for pleasure. Andrew Fine
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/09/85)
> Actually, I would go further and say that people with bad handwriting, both > men AND women, may be less conformist. Penmanship is one of the most > constricting subjects that children are taught--at least it was to me. > All that practice at making perfect loops seemed so stupid. A lot of drill > to try and make everyone do something exactly the same. Yuck. I guess I believed some version of this when when they wanted *me* to practice all those loops and stuff. (I go back to the Palmer Method; anyone remember the Palmer Method?) I don't know that I believe it now. I even wish now that I had practiced more because the Palmer Method was capable of producing writers with beautiful *legible* handwriting. The reason that I don't now believe that the practice that is required for good handwriting is conducive to conformism and that the effect is to make everyone exactly the same is the same reason that I don't believe that practicing scales causes all musicians to be exactly the same. Of course the attitude and method of the teacher may, in many cases, be more acceptable to more conforming students. Perhaps it would be better if penmanship teachers would explain this to their students (assuming that anyone would listen at that age). Perhaps penmanship teachers should emulate *good* music teachers, who, it seems, are able to get their students to practice all of those nasty scales without making conformists of them. Wouldn't it be boring if all musicians were "exactly the same?" I certainly believe that the interests of good penmanship would be better served if less emphasis were placed on having everyone use exactly the same cursive alphabet. I realize that this simplifies things for the teacher but I believe it *does* alienate those less conforming students. (What I should have said above is that teaching or learning good penmanship *needn't* be an exercise in conformism.) Obviously, the letters & words must be recognizable but they certainly *don't* need to be anything close to identical. In my case, I must admit that my failure to adequately practice the ovals and slants of Palmer Method probably had more to do with laziness and boredom than with non conformism. Though I must also admit that I don't put much effort into conforming either, I don't think that was an issue there. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
sth@rayssd.UUCP (Stephen T. Hirsch) (10/09/85)
I think that it has something to do with the fact that women are much better
than men at delicate hand movements. Big, muscular hands are better for
moving heavy things than moving small objects.
Heavy generalizations here, fully realized.
Steve Hirsch, {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccieng5}!rayssd!sth
Raytheon Co, Submarine Signal Div., Portsmouth, RIterry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (10/10/85)
zaphod@deepthot.UUCP (Lance Bailey) says: > Why does it SEEM to be a standard rule that the handwriting of women >is far superiour to that of men? While a women'n writing is usually quite >elegant with lovely rounded characters, the scrawl from men's pens is usually >illegible. Stranger still, while I know of men with "better than average" >script, I really can't think of any women who get complaints about their >handwriting. I do. Try being a "free" notary public in a busy office and it'll deteriorate anyone's handwriting *REAL* fast. After being out of that job for approximately 5 years now, my handwriting is just coming back up to "legible". -- \"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c _______________________________________________________________________ Terry Grevstad Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry
tll@sabre.UUCP (Trudy Leonhard) (10/10/85)
> > I think that it has something to do with the fact that women are much better > than men at delicate hand movements. Big, muscular hands are better for > moving heavy things than moving small objects. > > Heavy generalizations here, fully realized. > > Steve Hirsch, {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccieng5}!rayssd!sth > Raytheon Co, Submarine Signal Div., Portsmouth, RI I must have big muscular hands then :-) Trudy
cheryl@lasspvax.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (10/24/85)
>> >> I think that it has something to do with the fact that women are much better >> than men at delicate hand movements. Big, muscular hands are better for >> moving heavy things than moving small objects. >> I have a small object that likes to be moved. Guess that leaves men out of the running. ;-) Except for one (you know who you are).
lee@dsi1.UUCP (Lee Hagerty) (10/29/85)
> >> > >> I think that it has something to do with the fact that women are much better > >> than men at delicate hand movements. Big, muscular hands are better for > >> moving heavy things than moving small objects. > >> > > I have a small object that likes to be moved. Guess that leaves > men out of the running. ;-) > > Except for one (you know who you are). Isn't that one of the reasons men have tongues? Lee