Gender differences in intertype relations

[DirectorAbbie]

I think this is the biggest thing for me. My relationships with other men tend to stay at a longer psychological distance than do my relationships with women. I have close distance relationships with guys, but there tends to be more resistance to get there on both sides.

I think this has something to do with hard-wired primitive instincts. Men see other men, especially men they don't know that well, as potential threats. We don't want to open up to them for fear of revealing a weakness that they might exploit if they decide to attack. Trust can be built up over time, but it takes longer. Women are smaller and weaker and less full of testosterone, so they seem less threatening, and so we don't mind as much opening up to them.

That's my point of view, anyway -- I'm not sure if any of that is type-specific, or if it all applies across the board.

So why do I have a harder time connecting to girls than boys?

[Creepy-male]

So why do I have a harder time connecting to girls than boys?

All girls? It might just be being a Logical female makes you feel a little isolated. Likewise for me as an Ethical male.

Anyway, I find talking with other guys usually falls to exchanges through topics, or joking/acting boisterous/etc. With girls, I can talk more at length about feelery sorts of things, and I suppose both the volume of talking and the fact that such things are a little closer to me than OH MY GOD RANDOM TANGENT (which I can talk at length even more ) makes me feel like I'm connecting better with girls.

I remember someone telling me that most people would prefer to have female friends, regardless of gender.

Socionics.us on gender differences. Good read. Basically, what I was getting at... conversation gets used up a lot more slowly if I'm doing what that article calls "talking around" the topic, and a lot more quickly if I'm doing the topic/result thing.

Anyway, Abbie, I don't mean to make you feel like a martian or anything. Just my forts.

[Krig the Viking]

So why do I have a harder time connecting to girls than boys?

Well, I have somewhat less direct experience with that end of things ( ), but it could be something similar. Women compete in ways that men are largely unaware of, just as men compete in ways that women are largely unaware of. People don't compete with the opposite gender as much as their own gender.

Still, I would say that women do tend to form closer relationships with each other more easily than men do. Whether it originates from culture or biology, women's instinctive survival strategy is "I must form strong relationships so that I will have someone to protect me from danger when it comes," whereas men's instinctive survival strategy tends to be "I must become as strong as possible so that I can defeat danger when it comes." This is why women, even Logical women, tend to seem more feeling-oriented than men, and men, even Feeling men, tend to come across as more logic-oriented.

Interestingly enough, that socionics.us article Coolanzon posted seems to back up much of what I was saying. Yay for independent verification!

[JRiddy]

I don't think that intertype relations vary by gender much more than relationships in general might vary by gender. My relationships with women are different than my relationships with men. I think that's true for almost everyone.

Sure, I may notice some specific things, like that a lot of the things I (can sometimes) find annoying about, say, male ESTjs I find cute in female ESTjs. But, I guess I could say that about almost any type.

[Shazaam]

The question you are asking is more complicated than you think, because I do not think there are only 2 genders.

I think pure 'gay men' are pretty much their own gender, and then there is well men and women, the binary straight model....and there are also people who are 'gender-fucked', also what about people who do gender atypical things? Gender is different than biological sex, of course. Especially nowadays, women seem more assertive than ever, though the struggle to still let men be submissive and passive is still going on in most parts of the world.

If you want to talk about the binary straight model, (ie men who are more or less manly in society's eyes and plays with trucks as a kid and enjoys sports and hunting, 'beer and 'pussy' and women who are traditionally straight female like), then okay I guess we can categorize them that way, but you'd have to include us homos and dykes in there too, somewhere. =p

[Shazaam]

Whether it originates from culture or biology, women's instinctive survival strategy is "I must form strong relationships so that I will have someone to protect me from danger when it comes," whereas men's instinctive survival strategy tends to be "I must become as strong as possible so that I can defeat danger when it comes."

Eh, most people's dads really aren't like that though. Mine never was. My mom was the 'man' and my dad was the 'woman' really. (My dad would probably get angry if I said that to his face though but it's more or less true, he's not an assertive person) And they seem to handle life challenges just fine, so I don't know about that. And all the women I know, never really fell for the alpha male act, they were only turned on by that in high school, once they dated and lived life, they preferred men who were more submissive and docile. If you want to start a family, you want a good dad right? You wouldn't want some asshole that would scream at them. Of course, my dad WAS the one that was more domineering and 'tough' in the end, but it was just more subdued then what you are explaining there.

[Shazaam]

I noticed a pattern in straight females (maybe this even applies to gay guys as well as I seem to be fitting this lately

Teenage years= Get SUPER turned on by bad boys
Lost 20s = ambivalent stage, conflicted on what they want
30s, adulthood+ = get turned on much more by the nice guys

Most women I know seem to fit this model. The bad boy lust can last a bit longer but in the end they marry a guy that is more submissive, or at least middle-class diplomatic like.

[xerx]

Do intertype relations vary according to gender?

Women of every type tend to dislike me.

[sigma]

Perhaps subtype is also involved.
Any thoughts?

Maybe each gender can be considered a subtype of the original type.
There is a lot of sexual bias in the society, maybe not as much as it used to be but still... a lot. There are still "traditional roles" for men and women. This traditionalism shapes, more or less, the way that a particular person behaves.

[xkj220]

Wow, very good discussion. This phenomenon appears to have a lot of implications.

So far what I can draw is simply that attraction between two human beings has an influence on how well they get along with each other, which makes perfect sense actually. So it is not so much gender differences, but their disposition towards each other (not necessarily in a sexual way). I wonder how much of an influence this has (disposition towards someone). Could it even trump a negative intertype-relation (conflict or supervision for instance)?

[sigma]

I wonder how much of an influence this has (disposition towards someone). Could it even trump a negative intertype-relation (conflict or supervision for instance)?

Intertype negative effects are relevant mostly in close, long term relationships.
It you don't have a frequent, consistent interaction with the person... you can easily handle the issues. The problem arise when you have to handle the issues to often.

[The Exception]

I noticed a pattern in straight females (maybe this even applies to gay guys as well as I seem to be fitting this lately

Teenage years= Get SUPER turned on by bad boys
Lost 20s = ambivalent stage, conflicted on what they want
30s, adulthood+ = get turned on much more by the nice guys

Most women I know seem to fit this model. The bad boy lust can last a bit longer but in the end they marry a guy that is more submissive, or at least middle-class diplomatic like.

I've never experienced bad boy lust. I would much rather prefer a nice guy even if they appear bland and uninteresting to others.

[JRiddy]

I noticed a pattern in straight females (maybe this even applies to gay guys as well as I seem to be fitting this lately

Teenage years= Get SUPER turned on by bad boys
Lost 20s = ambivalent stage, conflicted on what they want
30s, adulthood+ = get turned on much more by the nice guys

Most women I know seem to fit this model. The bad boy lust can last a bit longer but in the end they marry a guy that is more submissive, or at least middle-class diplomatic like.

I think the teen period (hahaha menstruation joke lol) is actually better divided into two:

Tween/early teenage years: Obsession with non-threatening, baby-faced tool types, e.g. the Jonas Bros.
Late teen, early twenties: Bad boys

[xkj220]

I think the teen period (hahaha menstruation joke lol) is actually better divided into two:

Tween/early teenage years: Obsession with non-threatening, baby-faced tool types, e.g. the Jonas Bros.
Late teen, early twenties: Bad boys

Yes, that is consistent with my observations.

[Slacker]

I went through a bad boy phase. It's a good argument for waiting till you're a bit older to marry.

[Shazaam]

lmao @ the jonas brothers.

[Blaze]

I went through a bad boy phase. It's a good argument for waiting till you're a bit older to marry.

lol too true

to me type expression is pretty variable even without gender, but with gender, types can seem really really different.

couple examples:

male IEI much more aggressive and forceful than female. female IEI's i know IRL are more quiet and sedate.

male ILE usually a little more geeky or nerdy than female ILE. female ILE's dress for success and come across as at least a little more ethical.

nevermind i see where i'm leading...it's like rick says, male version usually more extreme and aggressive than female version. *shrugs*