Socionics Types and Gender Roles by Filatova¶
Part 1. Socionics and gender roles.¶
The term “genderity’” has appeared in the literature not too long ago. It indicates the characteristic features of genders - male and female. In classical socionics, this question is still examined insufficiently thoroughly. Thus, this work is dedicated to the relationships of sociotypes in marital pairs taking into account their gender i.e. sex specialized features (…)
Chapter 3. Masculinity, Femininity, and Androgyny.¶
Let us start from the fact that the woman, by her very nature, was intended to conceive, to bring up, and to provide for her children, and this role cannot be even purely physiologically equated to the male role. This finds confirmation in the differences of social roles, and, correspondingly, expectations which society has for men and the women. The woman is tender and vulnerable essence, the manager of the household, the governess of children, the loving and thoughtful companion for her husband - such is the exemplary social ideal of the “real” woman, and such are, correspondingly, the expectations of a society. Such qualities, which are inherent to a considerable degree in women, are called “feminine”.
The man is expected to show confidence and power (including physical), endurance, the skill to provide for his family materially, the ability to protect the weak, to be the source of support for them. Indeed, as much as we talk of emancipation, women and children have always been the weaker group in human societies, a group that needed protection. Such are the social roles and, consequently, the demands society places on “real” men. The corresponding character traits, inherent in the larger degree to men, are called “masculine’”. At first glance it may seem that masculinity and femininity are opposite in nature: high masculinity means low femininity and vice versa. However, experience shows that this not always the case.
In order to make our examination in this part more extensive and thorough, let us turn for some explanations to a well-known researcher of domestic gender roles of men and women, I.S. Kon. In his book “Introduction Into Sexology” he in particular writes about the fact that “the individuals can, within some limits, differ in the level of M and F traits. Nevertheless, the M/F properties are mutually exclusive: high M must correlate with low F and vice versa; for the men high masculinity is normative and desirable, while for women the desirable trait is high femininity. Soon, however, it was made clear that not all psychological qualities are polarized to ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’.
The new, more advanced tests no longer assume that M and F are opposite poles of the same continuum, but treat them as independent measurements. The comparison of indices of one and the same individual according to the scales M and F makes it possible to calculate the degree of his or her psychological androgyny. Individuals are considered if they have high indices both on F and on M, which makes possible for them to less rigidly adhere to gender standards and roles, to more freely switch from traditionally female occupations to the male ones, etc.
The concept of psychological androgyny concerns not somatic qualities, but only behavior and orientation; the discussion deals with the independence, the care and the ability to fulfill the specific male and specific female functions that are not differentiated by gender.
Now let us examine which sociotypes correspond most of all to these social expectations.
Hardly anyone will doubt that in light of social expectations logic is more sought from men, and ethics - from women, hence we can immediately predict a larger social correspondence of women of ethical types and men of logical types with their expected social roles. Indeed, nature itself has ensured that more men are of logical types and more women are of ethical types.
However, on scale sensing-intuition there is no such straight and obvious correspondence. On one hand, sensing types are more practical. This quality is useful for men, who need provide and support their family, and also for women, who need to manage the household, ensure comfort and coziness, plan the budget, provide food and for clothing not only for their children but also for their husbands.
However, intuition is by no means an extraneous function for both “putting the bread on the table” and for raising and educating children, for the ability to see their talents and inherent inclinations in order to not undermine or destroy the sprouts of their individual abilities, but on the contrary to encourage their further development. Though sensing is probably more needed for the tangible prosperity of the family than intuition.
What do we have in the end? Since, the most suitable dual combinations of sociotypes occur between groups of “Pragmatists” [STs] and “Humanitarians” [NFs] and also “Researchers” [NTs] and “Socials” [SFs], if the family consists of “Pragmatist” type man and “Humanitarian” type woman, this family will prove to be sufficiently harmonious as each of the spouses will naturally perform their social role. The same can be said of “Researcher” type men and “Social” type women. However if the husband and the wife belong to groups that don’t correspond to their social roles very well (e.g. man-“Humanitarian” and woman-“Pragmatist”, man-“Social and woman-“Researcher”), then this nonconformity of spouses to their social roles can lead, correspondingly, to the dissatisfaction of the partners.
For example, the husband of type ESI will probably not be enthused that his wife of type LIE instead of being occupied by housework and conducting traditional lifestyle for women, is always going out somewhere with friends, going on expeditions or travels. Perhaps this is the reason for the fact that some socionics authors write about the fact that dual relations are an idealization, which often enough don’t satisfy either partner, and that they (the partners) prefer another nature of relations? True, up to this point we haven’t considered androgyny. It will be addressed when we begin to examine in detail each sociotype from these points of view.
Generally speaking, it would be useful to consider subtypes here, as they can also affect the comfort of relations. Subtypes most vividly manifest in strengthening of the functions of the leading block, or even entire vertical blocks. The greatest dual compatibility is achieved with strengthening of the identical leading functions or blocks - right or left. Upon considering this, we should in actuality examine the compatibility of not 16, but 32 types. But we not will concern with this task now, and allow for the reader to introduce the appropriate corrections and additions for more particular cases.
Next aspect of family life are sexual relations. They undoubtedly comprise an important part of the feeling of being in love. If we consider which of Jung’s functions are most significant in manifestations of love, then, most likely, these will be ethics (emotionalism) and sensing (sexual sensations). In these functions partners are not equal, since they occupy different positions in the models of their sociotypes. On one end, the presence of these functions in the leading positions gives the strongest manifestation to the emotional and sexual feeling of a person. But for those for whom sensing and ethics are in weaker channels, this gives sensitivity and vulnerability, and the need for an especially careful and considerate approach and treatment.
Love, most certainly, is a very important feeling in marital relations, but the family cannot exist without a sufficient material foundation, that is necessary in order to ensure physical well-being and good education for the children. Here, it is difficult to do without strong logic, especially business logic. Thus, the aspects that are most in demand in family life are business logic, and both ethical and sensing aspects. In author’s point of view, intuition, which is undoubtedly important in general, is not as significantly and substantially needed for family life compared with these other aspects.
Chapter 5. General system of scores of attractiveness in consideration of gender roles of sociotypes.¶
On the basis of these general considerations, let us introduce a scoring system of measure of attractiveness (BP) of marital relations on different parameters. This proposed system of scores is derived from purely personal perceptions and feelings of the author. It shows only the comparative degree of comfort or discomfort of the corresponding relations in a family, that is, at close, thorough, everyday contact.
In selection of scores and scales, it was necessary to proceed by the method of sequential approximations. Only two scales of attractiveness were examined at first. It turned out during calculations that some relations strongly fall out from the overall system. Furthermore, there was an explicit inconsistency in measure of attractiveness with what is observed in actuality. Consequently, other scales were added. The scores were selected via the same system of successive approximations.
I. Socionics compatibility - classical compatibility based upon consideration of the positioning of functions of partners in communication channels.
Duality |
16 |
Identity |
0 |
Activity |
14 |
Benefit |
-5 |
Semi-duality |
10 |
Superego |
-7 |
Mirage |
10 |
Extinguishment |
-10 |
Mirror |
10 |
Kindred |
-12 |
Business |
10 |
Conflicting |
-14 |
Quasi-identity |
5 |
Supervision |
-16 |
The first position is the strongest one. On this position we will evaluate classical socionics compatibility. Maximum value for the most supporting dual relations was chosen as +16, while minimum value for the most negative relations of supervision was chosen as -16. Identical relations, in which partners’ types are completely identical, were given a value of 0.
Remaining relations are distributed within this scale according to the principle: the more the partners can support each other - the more positive a score is assigned to the corresponding intertype relation, and vice versa, the greater the probability to impact each other’s painful channels, the more negative the score.
The next two scales take into account the gender particularities of sociotypes, both physiological and social, precisely those characteristics that play a determining role in marital relations after socionics relations.
At present time for determining the “social gender” (that constitutes the goal of our examination) the term “gender role” is used - this was mentioned above. This is the role that is set and reinforced by the moral norms and social expectations for men and for women.
In our case, it is convenient to consider gender roles by examining the following two scales of characteristics of sociotypes.
One scale is a purely emotional perception of partner, as a certain awaited and cherished ideal. This is the quality by which we with certainty determined for for ourselves: “She is a real woman”, having before us a mental image of tenderness, agreeableness, softness in contact, vulnerability. Or “He is a real man”, assuming this implies an image of a courageous, strong, confident individual, who will protect the weak and who is courteous in relation to women. It is that, which is most highlighted by the terms “masculinity” and “femininity”. However, let us not forget that these concepts are not mutually exclusive and some types can possess both of these properties i.e. be androgynous.
Thus, the first part of gender characteristics of sociotypes is given by the base value II.
Value |
Most to least masculine sociotypes |
|---|---|
+3 |
SLE, LSI, LIE, LSE, SLI |
+2 |
ESI, LII, SEE |
+1 |
ILE, ESE |
=0 |
ILI |
-1 |
SEI |
-2 |
EIE, EII, IEE |
-3 |
IEI |
Value |
Most to least feminine sociotypes |
+3 |
SEI, ESE, IEI, EIE, SEE, EII, IEE |
+2 |
ESI |
+1 |
|
=0 |
LSI, ILI, LSE, SLI |
-1 |
ILE, LII, SLE, LIE |
-2 |
|
-3 |
II. Gender roles - masculinity and femininity by sociotype¶
The scale of variation of M[asculine] and F[eminine] traits is chosen to be +/-3.
ILE [ENTp] (Don Quixote); M=+1, F=-1. Masculinity of type ILE is lowered in comparison with the maximum (M=3), since a certain impulsivity and scatteredness is inherent to this type, that imparts an impression of unreliability, while reliable nature is one of the valued qualities in a man by women. Femininity of this type is set at -1, since girls and women of this sociotype show little interest in acquiring the full arsenal of feminine methods for attracting representatives of opposite gender.
SEI [ISFp] (Dumas); M=-1, F=+3. Masculinity of this type is set to a minimal negative value, since gentleness in contact, presence of emotionalism, and significant unpredictability in behavior don’t quite correspond to the social expectations of a masculine type, while the same qualities are particularly valued in women by men.
LII [INTj] (Robespierre); M=+2, F=-1. LII, this fighter for truth and advocate of fairness, of course fits a higher masculinity than femininity score. However, certain austerity, submersion in work, lack of initiative and indecisiveness when it comes to women somewhat lowers this mark from its maximum to a value of +2. As far as femininity of this type is concerned, it is, as a rule, not very high, since women of this sociotype are similar to LII men - internally independent, self-sufficient, and logical. Purely feminine methods go against their nature, as they are not coquettish and often don’t even use make-up for enhancing of their attractiveness
ESE [ESFj] (Hugo); M=+1, F=+3. A woman of this type is the embodiment of sunny happiness, merriment, and coquettish behavior, which is attractive for many men. Certainly, in this case we assign the maximum feminine score of +3. As far as ESE men are concerned, in spite of their courteous behavior, their optimism, and an excellent sense of humor, qualities so valued by women, within them one can feel a heightened emotionalism and vulnerability, which substantially decreases general masculinity of the representatives of this sociotype to a value of +1.
SLE [ESTp] (Zhukov); M=+3; F=-1. Naturally, SLE men possess maximum masculinity, +3. It is among the SLE men that we meet the most characteristic representatives of the “male kind” physically strong, possessing indestructible will, knowing how to stand up for themselves and not forgive offenses from others. SLE women, having all the same traits, nevertheless are capable of displaying an assertive femininity, which, however, is not welcomed or expected by all. Thus, we have assigned a minimally negative value of femininity for this type of - 1.
IEI [INFp] (Esenin); M=-3, F=+3. Before us is the most feminine type even of all “Humanitarian” types, which obviously corresponds to a maximum feminine score of +3. Gentle and vulnerable, as unearthly beings, they “float above” rather than walk, as if the earthly doesn’t have any pull for them. But this tender vulnerability, constantly changing moods, and poetic nature don’t correspond to the social expectations of a “real man”, and thus we assigned to this sociotype a maximally negative masculine mark of -3.
LSI [ISTj] (Maxim); M=+3; F=0. All “Pragmatist” types undoubtedly correspond to the strongly masculine types. This characterizes LSI men to a considerable degree, since they are reliable, true to their feeling of responsibility, firm and uncompromising. Therefore their masculinity score is set to +3. Steadfast and uncompromising, the LSI woman doesn’t correspond as well to the image of an ideal of woman in the social consciousness. However, sensing types, even if they are logical, know how to appear elegant and intriguing. Let us equate this to a feminine score of 0, something in-between.
EIE [ENFj] (Hamlet); M=-2; F=+3. In contrast to “Pragmatist” types, all “Humanitarian” types are endowed with expressed feminine traits. Accordingly, the EIE woman, emotional, admiring, artistic and vulnerable, knowing how to be mysterious and unpredictable we correlate with the maximum feminine mark of +3. But for men of this sociotype to the qualities listed above we can also add self-involvement (this trait is also often encountered in EIE women), thus their masculinity value should be attributed a minus sign M=-2.
LIE [ENTj] (Jack London); M=+3; F=-1. In social perception, this is one of the more “masculine” types a romantic and an explorer, oriented at overcoming severe hardships and tribulations in life this type, of course, receives a maximum masculine score of +3. But these very same traits correspond very little to a feminine style. Even in mature years the LIE women love outings, expeditions, tents, kayaks… but, as a rule, they are little interested in fashion and make-up to enhance their feminine attractiveness, therefore their femininity score is set to -1.
ESI [ISFj] (Dreiser); M=+2, F=+2. Social club types are more feminine rather than masculine types. However, ESI women frequently appear as cold, inaccessible, and strict, therefore, their femininity score was somewhat lowered to +2. However, these same qualities help ESI men to appear to possess fortitude, despite their emotionalism and “program” ethics, which, however, is concealed due to their introversion, thus they are assigned a somewhat lowered positive masculinity score of +2. Thus, the ESI is an androgynous type, reflected by identical positive marks on our scale.
ILI [INTp] (Balzac); M=0, F=0. According to our chosen scales, masculinity of type ILI is poorly expressed in contrast to the representatives of opposite gender. Philosopher, critic, and skeptic, the ILI often doesn’t worry about his appearance. ILI men often count on attracting women by their intellect and yielding behavior. Among ILI women, not all seek a family life, as internally they are quite independent and often financially self-sufficient. Moreover, they are often set their opinions and love to show off their logic, which is not always appealing for men. Therefore, their feminine score is set to 0. Here we have another androgynous type. Although, androgyny presupposes that M/F qualities are displayed equally strongly, and in the case of ILIs they are simply not manifested very clearly.
SEE [ESFp] (Napoleon); M=+2, F=+3. It is difficult to resist the charms of a SEE woman, if man has attracted her attention. Here, all the possible tricks from characteristically female arsenal will be put into use, from emotionally and sexually manipulative behavior to appearance and looks. Thus we assign this type a maximal feminine score of +3. As is known, many leaders in organizations and companies (and generally the leaders of various kinds) belong to the type SEE. However, this discussion is about the “average” representative of this sociotype. Therefore, we cannot but consider strong emotionalism and frequent scatterdness of type SEE, that slightly lowers its masculinity score to +2. Androgyny is also characteristic for this sociotype.
LSE [ESTj] (Shtirlits); M=+3, F=0. “Pragmatist” types, as we have already mentioned, are usually endowed with well expressed masculine traits. Steadiness, reasonableness, tendency for objectivity and reliability are characteristic for LSE men: masculinity mark of +3. These same qualities are not fully congruent with the notions of what is considered as feminine. However, the sensing trait of female representatives of this type makes it possible for them to appear elegant, to demonstrate an outstanding sense of taste, and to be able to present themselves attractively. Taking the aforesaid into account we set the femininity mark of this sociotype to 0.
EII [INFj] (Dostoyevsky), M=-2, F=+3. As with all other “Humanitarian” types, EII is primarily a feminine type, characterized by depth of feelings, ability to love and to keep faithful, tendency to remove psychological stress and emotionally be supportive of people certainly, all these qualities make it possible to give this sociotype the maximum score of femininity +3. However, as far as the men of this sociotype are concerned, everything listed above corresponds very little to accepted ideals in the society for men. Moreover the tendency toward the depressions of this sociotype and uncertainty in oneself lend to a negative masculinity score of -2.
SLI [ISTp] (Gabin), M=+3, F=0. This type is another representative of “Pragmatist club”. Calm, not wordy, and very reliable. For many women this is precisely the embodiment of manliness, thus we assign this type a maximum masculinity score of +3. For SLI women, just as for female LSEs, we assigne a femininity score of 0, since for them certain unpretentious elegance, restraint, and calmness are characteristic. The introverted SLI woman appears not so much unapproachable as simply closed off, and thus for many she remains a riddle that other people want to solve.
IEE [ENFp] (Huxley), M=-2, F=+3. Cheerfulness, unpredictability, and playfulness of women of this sociotype are primarily feminine characteristics. To the IEE woman there is always inherent an inordinariness in behavior and novelty, qualities that so much attract men to women of this sociotype. Certainly, here we must assign the highest femininity score of +3. These same qualities that are so attractive in IEE women may not be ideal for a man. Unpredictability, novelty, are playfulness are frequently are associated with light-heartedness, wantonness, infidelity, and unreliability, qualities that women rarely seek in men, thus M=-2.