Article: Examination of Gender Roles by Sociotype by E. Filatova

[Pallas]

well, that was an entertaining read. it appears Filatova is stuck in the 19th century.

EII is of the most "feminine" types according to this article, but people have always told me that i come off as very androgynous, both in mannerisms and how i present myself. i have never felt comfortable in femininity or masculinity, i'd rather do away with the concepts altogether. i believe there is no correlation between type and femininity/masculinity levels; characteristics like vulnerability, adventurousness, etc aren't gendered. the sooner we abolish that kind of thinking, the better.

also, i thought evolutionary psychology stopped being relevant ages ago. this article is merely unfounded speculation, and also fundamentally biased:

Yes, I feel pretty "androgynous" myself as well, and often enough come off as that to other people, but in a more of both masculine and feminine way, rather than neither masculine nor feminine. And even if you did gender characteristics like vulnerability and adventurousness, I don't think this article actually gets the individual types right as regarding those whatsoever. I mean, EII and EIE have the exact same masculinity and femininity ratings despite having basically completely opposite behaviors? That's just off. SLI are also not very manly at all from my experience, they tend to be extremely sensitive and vulnerable due to the Si lead. SLE tend to be slightly "androgynous" by modern standards due to Fe HA as well, and IEI, the supposedly least masculine type of all, tend to be pretty gutsy and have no problem being involved in conflicts (I sort of think the Viking berserkers were mostly IEIs for some reason, probably because berserkers supposedly just got amped up on drugs and did shamanic sorts of things which I attribute to IEI). I think whoever wrote this was basing it on MBTI rather than Socionics to be honest, since it says things like "pragmatists are extremely masculine and humanitarians are extremely feminine" rather than looking at Reinen dichotomies, function stacking, or any of the other real Socionics things.

I don't see how Narc said it's "commonsense"...

Also, to add something, I don't see how they rated masculinity and feminity without any regard to introversion and extraversion. It seems if you want a man to go out in public and be initiating and a woman to sit around the house and be responsive you'd want a stereotypically extraverted man and introverted woman above all else (not that that's how extraversion and introversion actually work, but they didn't get how anything else works either).

In terms of stereotypical masculinity/feminity though, here are my observations:

Stereotypicaly masculine: ILI
Stereotypically feminine: SEI

Everyone else tends to not fit male/female stereotypes in rather significant ways. Gulenko's masculinity/feminity of types seems to have nothing to do with stereotypical ideas of "manliness" or "girliness".