Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Socionics Types and Gender Roles by Filatova
¶
Published by
Ekaterina Filatova
in “
Marriage
in the system of
Socionics
”, 2007.
Original
article
.
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.