Language and Gender

[Entropic]

What I am describing though, is the opposite of pushy. Even if it can be placed in the "Fe" category, that category would need subcategories in order to represent the different sorts of communication styles. I am familiar with Fe becoming pushy and it is a different phenomenon that what I am describing. The MBTI category are low resolution by nature and so if strongly delineated behaviors/processing fall into the same category, they can become misunderstood when diluted into a set of lower-resolution assumptions. Does that make sense?

Not so much that it's not making sense, but this entire way of understanding communication as a social act is extremely foreign to me. I thus have difficulties placing where I think it falls in terms of submissive-aggressive. I often get the sense that pushy Fe tends to come across as more passive-aggressive but again, I am extremely biased towards Fe.

I just fail to see exactly what you are doing that is submissive, necessarily, as I just read it as Fe to me.

As a sidenote, I am curious if you think my communication style in text is aggressive or not, or more male or female (should also be noted that I am not a native English speaker but it is my second language). I am largely oblivious to how I come across when I communicate unless people tell me in my face.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Not so much that it's not making sense, but this entire way of understanding communication as a social act is extremely foreign to me. I thus have difficulties placing where I think it falls in terms of submissive-aggressive. I often get the sense that pushy Fe tends to come across as more passive-aggressive but again, I am extremely biased towards Fe.

I just fail to see exactly what you are doing that is submissive, necessarily, as I just read it as Fe to me.

Giving control over to the other person in terms of topic choice, length of speaking time, allowing their assumptions to fully develop and express, allowing them to feel superior, etc. are the means by which a person submits to another person in communication. I don't do it as much online as irl, mostly because I have more time to think about a response and the ramifications of a more aggressive/contrary response. There are some T types who are quiet and submissive in conversation, but would tend to be less attentive or reassuring or aware of the other person's emotional state. I feel like there are also underlying principles about a submissive style that could apply to both T and F. It isn't necessarily solely a subcategory of Fe.

As a sidenote, I am curious if you think my communication style in text is aggressive or not, or more male or female (should also be noted that I am not a native English speaker but it is my second language). I am largely oblivious to how I come across when I communicate unless people tell me in my face.

I would describe your post as neutral. I'm very flexible about being on the receiving end of conversations and am not offended by people who are aggressive/dominant in conversation - especially if they have something interesting and valid to say. I can recalibrate to almost any style as long as it is honest in nature. With game playing - especially image based competition, I *might* be able to calibrate, but then again I might not because it makes me sick. What is offensive are the times I am more assertive and get slapped down with insults that are socially driven, but expressed as undermining knowledge and credibility.

 

[mintleaf]

I've heard people criticize the methodology of most research on the mental/psychological differences between genders, and though I haven't read up on it yet, my gut tells me not to buy the hypothesis addressed in this thread. I'd think that these potential "gender differences" would be most evident in the language styles of those with high Fe, because they're more likely to adopt common styles of expression, which are often informed by cultural expectations in regards to gender.

I mean, look at the people in this forum. Almost every time a member's gender hasn't been immediately obvious to me, they've been either an Fi type or an xxTP. The only exception I can think of seems to come from a culture different than mine, which might explain my confusion.

 

[Coriolis]

I've heard people criticize the methodology of most research on the mental/psychological differences between genders, and though I haven't read up on it yet, my gut tells me not to buy the hypothesis addressed in this thread. I'd think that these potential "gender differences" would be most evident in the language styles of those with high Fe, because they're more likely to adopt common styles of expression, which are often informed by cultural expectations in regards to gender.

I mean, look at the people in this forum. Almost every time a member's gender hasn't been immediately obvious to me, they've been either an Fi type or an xxTP. The only exception I can think of seems to come from a culture different than mine, which might explain my confusion.

Are you saying that you find it easy to tell gender from writing style, or the opposite? I started this thread largely to see what people find to be the differences. My inclination is to disagree that there are inherent stylistic differences, but I won't dismiss the possibility without evidence, and as you point out, available research is often ambiguous or flawed.

 

[mintleaf]

Are you saying that you find it easy to tell gender from writing style, or the opposite? I started this thread largely to see what people find to be the differences. My inclination is to disagree that there are inherent stylistic differences, but I won't dismiss the possibility without evidence, and as you point out, available research is often ambiguous or flawed.

Yeah, my inclination is to disagree, too -- and my guess is that if there were significant differences, they would be a result of social conditioning and not inherent psychological differences.

The only difference I can think of off the top of my head is that women tend to use more exclamation points and capitals/italics/etc. for emphasis.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Yeah, my inclination is to disagree, too -- and my guess is that if there were significant differences, they would be a result of social conditioning and not inherent psychological differences.

The only difference I can think of off the top of my head is that women tend to use more exclamation points and capitals/italics/etc. for emphasis.

So are we talking about written text only or speech? Because while those are related, they are not the same.

By removing all the physical nuance and pacing of spoken language, there will be much less difference, although there could still be some. I notice less difference in the actual written text than in the underlying social nuance between genders when these are identified through pictures, avatars, and usernames. Have you noticed on "T" forums, and even here, how often female "Ts" will have male images in their avatars? I've also noticed it in women who work in male dominated societies.

An isolated post of text itself is a very distilled form of language, but the more context it is placed it socially, the more the issues of gender differences come into play.

Also, my understanding of much of the research is that it is not assuming that the language differences are genetic, but that they are culturally instilled. That is still an important issue to explore. I think the feminine aspects of my communication are culturally instilled, for example.

Do you consider it an issue worth exploring if it pertains to the culturally instilled use of gender differences in language? Also, if it is addressing aspects of spoken language and not just written text?

 

[Coriolis]

So are we talking about written text only or speech? Because while those are related, they are not the same.

By removing all the physical nuance and pacing of spoken language, there will be much less difference, although there could still be some. I notice less difference in the actual written text than in the underlying social nuance between genders when these are identified through pictures, avatars, and usernames. Have you noticed on "T" forums, and even here, how often female "Ts" will have male images in their avatars? I've also noticed it in women who work in male dominated societies.

An isolated post of text itself is a very distilled form of language, but the more context it is placed it socially, the more the issues of gender differences come into play.

Also, my understanding of much of the research is that it is not assuming that the language differences are genetic, but that they are culturally instilled. That is still an important issue to explore. I think the feminine aspects of my communication are culturally instilled, for example.

Do you consider it an issue worth exploring if it pertains to the culturally instilled use of gender differences in language? Also, if it is addressing aspects of spoken language and not just written text?

I am interested in all of this: written and spoken language, influence of culture as well as anything that may be inherently hard-wired. Written language as on a forum like this is especially interesting because it is the most stripped down form of communication. We don't see the speaker, or hear their voice and intonation, and have none of the other cues that accompany in-person, telephone, or even handwritten information. Assuming a neutral avatar and username, we have only their words. I suspect it is these missing accompaniments that provide many of the cues people usually use to assign gender.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I meant to respond to this thread ages past. Luckily, I bookmarked this thread.

I agree with [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] that the supposedly "male" and "female" styles of language are really Thinking and Feeling. As an example, just a few days ago, I saw someone ask if a male Fe dom was a woman, just because of the way he talked. Regarding the Wikipedia article, while I haven't read it in depth, I can see a lot of the supposedly male features of language being attributable to Thinking rather than possession of a dick.

Truly, I have noticed a correlation between type and communication. With the exception of IxFJs, I find the Thinkers on this form easier to understand than the Feelers. This is so independent of gender. There is the distinct sense with Fi doms, of any gender, that we are discussing two entirely different things that share a meager connecting thread. Male Fi doms are no easier for me to understand.

Likewise, the women on this forum I have the easiest time understanding are all Thinkers. I should clarify that I speak of understanding, not agreement. There is little mystery present, and minimal head-scratching to be found. Thinking "gets through" to me in a way that Feeling doesn't. I can agree with Feelers on something, but be bothered by for their reasons for having that opinion. I can disagree with Thinkers, but find that they have a solid argument.

I don't believe genders, or sexes, are so inherently different that there are things about the other gender I can't "comprehend" simply because I'm a man. If I don't understand something, more often than not it has to do with the way it is being expressed. it usually has to do with the way it's being expressed, rather than the issue being simply unfathomable. Humans read and learn about things they don't personally witness all the time, and seem to be capable of getting some understanding regardless. If human understanding did not work this way, then the teaching of history as a subject is worthless. I don't understand why so many people assume things work differently once we stop talking about the War of 1812 and start talking about living, breathing people of different genders. .

Regarding the submission [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION] spoke of, I think that might be a Thinking vs. Feeling thing as well. To be able to judge if someone is bothered by an idea or not requires the use of some function other than Thinking. Possibly, this is Feeling, but I can see Intuition playing this role in myself. I do not really witness the women who are Thinkers on this forum employ that kind of style, either.

But, speaking for myself, I'm not usually attuned to people enough (when they are represented as disembodied strings of text, anyway) to know if they have an extreme antipathy toward an idea or not. Moreover, if I'm convinced of an idea, and they reject it without giving a good reason, I just assume they don't understand and continue to press on and explain my idea. If I stop doing this, usually it's because I'm bored, and not out of any consideration of their feelings. (My general philosophy of life is that truth can never really hurt, only sting a little at first.)

I can see some people thinking I'm arrogant, but in truth, I don't actually believe I'm always right. Rather, I'm not inclined to give up an idea I worked hard on without a decent explanation from someone else, and Feelers seem to demand I do this the most. And it's not just the Feeler females that do this, but the Feeler males as well.

Thinkers, male or female, will either give me an explanation or just tell me I'm an idiot. The latter seems like something people who are Intuitors or Sensors first (and have thinking in an auxiliary position) tend to do, but I find that if I'm tenacious enough, I can get some kind of explanation. Feelers just get offended by this.

As far as I can tell, all the Thinking women of this forum share the same bull-headed tenaciousness I do. We may disagree on things, but I truly think we share some kind of communication style.

I find Ti clear, and Fi opaque, regardless of which gender it's coming from.

Fe doms, too, have a style. I would not say that that I find Fe hard to understand, but Fe doms very obviously communicate in a different fashion than the Thinkers do.

Now, onto the problematic section: The IxFJs won't behave and fit my model. I find myself confusing you for INTPs all the time over the interwebs, while I do not do this for Fe doms. Perhaps what's going on with the IxFJ's is that they are encouraged by me entering discussions in good faith. (Usually I enter arguments or discussions for the sake of understanding, usually... I'm indifferent to whether or not I "win." Actually, I seem to be indifferent to competition in general, despite a love of competition being seen as a male trait.) I wonder if they can tell that I'm actually willing to listen, and so find themselves not needing to submit. Does this seem probable?

 

[five sounds]

I had a linguistics teacher who specialized in linguistics and gender. In her class we learned that women are more likely to interrupt each other, build off of what each other says, and participate more in cooperative communication. Men are more likely to speak more in monologues, allowing each other to finish points and then responding. Would that resemble P vs. J? Or is that still evidence of F and T?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I had a linguistics teacher who specialized in linguistics and gender. In her class we learned that women are more likely to interrupt each other, build off of what each other says, and participate more in cooperative communication. Men are more likely to speak more in monologues, allowing each other to finish points and then responding. Would that resemble P vs. J? Or is that still evidence of F and T?

Not sure. None of those things really apply to written communication. My spoken communication style is somewhat more disjointed because I don't have the opportunity to refine what I'm saying.

Moreover:

With spoken communication, I rarely engage in monologues. I can't really talk for hours without the other person doing something too. Trying to maintain that is simply too exhausting. I often interject, and I have a natural tendency to interrupt people, which I've curbed somewhat. Monologues vs. building seems more extrovert vs. introvert. I've definitely known a decent amount of women to monologue.

 

[Coriolis]

I had a linguistics teacher who specialized in linguistics and gender. In her class we learned that women are more likely to interrupt each other, build off of what each other says, and participate more in cooperative communication. Men are more likely to speak more in monologues, allowing each other to finish points and then responding. Would that resemble P vs. J? Or is that still evidence of F and T?

I would be interested in the basis for this conclusion about women interrupting more. If anything, I hear men interrupting more, especially if they are speaking with a woman. Women seem less much likely to interrupt men, especially in professional situations. I hear monologues almost equally from both, though on different subjects. As for functional correlation, I would say Ts would be more likely to do to, especially Te, and more especially TJ. I am one, and know this is a tendency I need to curb. I can often tell what someone is going to say, and find it hard to resist short-circuiting them with an interruption, to get to the point quicker and move on.

 

[Thalassa]

People can't tell my gender if I communicate academically enough. Once on INTJforum in the chat room I was mistaken for a man...and someone informed me it was "a good thing."

I majored in English and minored in French and I tend to communicate in various dialects of English, causing people to say things ranging from "I think you're a genius" to "you're a fucking idiot."

Something I've noticed is that women are socialized to communicate in a more conversational tone and to also be aware of other people's feelings or rules of being considerate; even some T women.

I actually notice a bigger difference between women being socialized to be "comforting" and men to be "tough." I also notice that when I am a woman am "tough" I am called a bitch, crazy, and all other kinds of personal insults. I actually ironically see a lot of personal insults coming from T men, despite their admonitions to me to stop telling so many personal anecdotes to make pertinent points in my posts.



Coriolis, in mistaking you for a man on this forum, I think the principle thing would be your complete refusal to "comfort" anyone in your discussions; even when you're being irrational, it's about your own ethics or beliefs, it's never to make someone else feel better. One sees this more socialized into men.

Women are encouraged to be "motherly" practically from their own birth. Anyone who is a Marmie Dearest who beats people with wire coat hangers is demonized not because she's a tough girl, but because she's a "bad mother" (even if she has no kids).

I think this is the source of a lot of guys on the Internet whining about feminists; they think women exist to comfort, nurture, and mother them, if not give them sex or entertainment. They seem quite irritated when confronted with a woman who won't "supply."

That's the main difference I've noticed.

I recently saw someone call me a guy on another forum. I'm a lot more respected there than I am here, but I'm also a lot more "my normal IRL self" there and less of an exaggerated Internet caricature; still it's usually pretty apparent that I am a woman eventually because I am heterosexual and open about my sexuality, as well as expressing feminist politics.

 

[five sounds]

I would be interested in the basis for this conclusion about women interrupting more. If anything, I hear men interrupting more, especially if they are speaking with a woman. Women seem less much likely to interrupt men, especially in professional situations. I hear monologues almost equally from both, though on different subjects. As for functional correlation, I would say Ts would be more likely to do to, especially Te, and more especially TJ. I am one, and know this is a tendency I need to curb. I can often tell what someone is going to say, and find it hard to resist short-circuiting them with an interruption, to get to the point quicker and move on.

I was talking about women speaking with women versus men speaking with men. It gets more complex when they communicate with each other, and there's a lot of research that says that, especially in the workplace, women are prone to use language much differently around men than they do with other women. It's like gender-based code-switching. There are a lot of power and fear-based theories around this phenomenon. I'm trying to find some good articles that I have access too so I can better support what I'm talking about. My professor's name was Catherine Hicks in case you happen to come across anything as you're exploring this topic.

As for my personal experience with functions, my husband is Te and I'm Fi, and I absolutely prefer to talk and reason "cooperatively" while he tends to stay silent and then speak in long, well thought out monologues.

[MENTION=4660]msg_v2[/MENTION] I was for sure specifically talking about spoken language. Written language, of course, is completely different, although, it might look more like conversation in contexts like this forum and other more casual and conversational online environments.

 

[five sounds]

Ok, so I found "The Handbook of Language and Gender" which I was able to access fully. It cites Tannen's work, which my professor talked about a lot, so I think this might be as close as I can get right now to what was specifically presented by her. This is, of course, one theory among many as far as sociolinguistic gender studies, but it's what I was recalling.

There is a lot of discussion on the construct of gender which is not really central to what we've been talking about, but seems very relevant. Aside from that, though, the connection is made between social group/cultural linguistic variation as a model for gender variation. So, essentially, women and men are coming from arguably different social subgroups which gives them a different "code" or style that they use to communicate. Women are able to use this style freely with other women without switching to the man model. The "women's model" definitely has a lot of F at play: affirmation, support, politeness, apologies, etc. while the "man's model" has lots of T things: criticism, harsh arguing styles, fact-driven rather than feelings-driven rhetoric. When women and men interact, there is an awareness on the women's part that their style is not as highly valued by men, and they are quicker to back down, more likely to pad statements with phrases like "in my opinion" and "maybe", and tend to speak in shorter utterances. It gets into lots of different situations and settings (in the family, in the workplace, on the internet, in schools etc.) and also talks about different norms and stereotypes, and like I said lots and lots on gender and identity.

I copied the piece on online communication because I thought it might be particularly relevant given how we're all communicating now:

"The linguistic features that signal gender in computer-mediated communication (CMC) are similar to those that have been previously described for face-to-face interaction, and include verbosity, assertiveness, use of profanity, politeness (and rudeness), typed representations of smiling and laughter, and degree of interactive engagement (cf. Coates 1993). There is an overall tendency for some of these behaviors to correlate more with female CMC users, and for others to correlate more with males. This does not mean that each and every female and male manifests the behaviors; exceptions to the tendencies can readily be found.^ It does mean, however, that gender predicts certain on-line behaviors
with greater than chance frequency when considered over aggregate populations of users, controlling for variables such as age, topic, and the synchronicity of the medium.

In asynchronous CMC of the type that takes place in discussion lists and newsgroups on the Internet and Usenet, males are more likely to post longer messages, begin and close discussions in mixed-sex groups, assert opinions strongly as "facts," use crude language (including insults and profanity), and in general, manifest an adversarial orientation toward their interlocutors (Herring 1992,1993,1996a, 1996b, forthcoming; Kramarae and Taylor 1993; Savicki et al. 1996; Sutton 1994). In contrast, females tend to post relatively short messages, and are more likely to qualify and justify their assertions, apologize, express support of others, and in general, manifest an "aligned" orientation toward their interlocutors (Hall 1996; Herring 1993, 1994, 1996a, 1996b; Savicki et al. 1996). Males sometimes adopt an adversarial style even in cooperative exchanges, and females often appear to be aligned even when they disagree with one another, suggesting that these behaviors are conventionalized, rather than inherent character traits based on biological sex. Moreover, there is evidence
that the minority gender in an on-line forum tends to modify its communicative behavior in the direction of the majority gender: women tend to be more aggressive in male-dominated groups than among other women, and men tend to be less aggressive in female-dominated groups than in groups controlled by men"^° (Baym 1996; Herring 1996b). This observation suggests that the more numerous a gender group is on-line, the greater the influence it will have on shared discursive norms.

Politeness is one common means through which gender is cued in asynchronous CMC. Women are more likely to thank, appreciate, and apologize, and to be upset by violations of politeness; they more often challenge offenders who violate on-line rules of conduct (Smith et al. 1997), and predominantly female groups may have more, and more strictly enforced, posting rules designed to ensure the maintenance of a civil environment (Hall 1996; Herring 1996a).

In contrast, men generally appear to be less concerned with politeness; they issue bald face-threatening acts such as unmitigated criticisms and insults, violate on-line rules of conduct, tolerate or even enjoy "flaming," and tend to be more concerned about threats to freedom of expression than with attending to others' social "face" (Herring 1994, 1996a, 1999). These patterns have been noted even in gay and lesbian discussion groups (Hall 1996), and among women who have succeeded in traditionally male-dominated professions such as computer science (Herring and Lombard 1995). "Inappropriately" appreciative or contentious messages can "give away" individuals in Internet
discussion groups attempting to pass as the opposite gender, evidence that stereotypes about on-line gender styles based on these patterns have emerged.Gender differences in on-line communication tend to disfavor women. In mixed-sex public discussion groups, females post fewer messages, and are less likely to persist in posting when their messages receive no response (Broadhurst 1993; Herring forthcoming). Even when they persist, they receive fewer responses from others (both females and males), and do not control the topic or the terms of the discussion except in groups where women make up a clear majority of participants (Herring 1993, forthcoming; Herring, Johnson, and
DiBenedetto 1992, 1995; Hert 1997). The lesser influence exercised by women in mixed-sex groups accounts in parf-^^ for why wo men-centered and womenonly on-line groups are common (Balka 1993; Camp 1996), whereas explicitly designated men-only groups are rare.-^^

Moreover, an inherent tension exists between the conventionally masculine value on agonism and the conventionally feminine value on social harmony. The contentiousness of male messages tends to discourage women from participating, while women's concern with politeness tends to be perceived as a "waste of bandwidth" by men (Herring 1996a), or worse yet, as censorship (Grossman 1997; cf. Herring 1999). This tension does not inherently favor one gender over the other - each value system potentially constrains the other. In Internet discussion groups, however, where civil libertarian values have traditionally constituted the dominant ideological context, and where few structures are in place to sanction anti-social behavior, aggression tends to prevail over less aggressive behaviors. In a number of documented cases, repeated aggression from disruptive males has forced women-centered on-line forums to disband, move elsewhere, and/or reconfigure themselves with strict rules and regulations regarding acceptable participant conduct."

Here's a link to my source if anyone's interested in checking it out.
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/5593953/1378527240/name/the_handbook_of_language_and_gender.pdf#page=37

How's that for a female writing a short apologetic post on an online forum with mixed genders

 

[Red Herring]

Thanks, [MENTION=14921]Nic[/MENTION]olia, that's about what I expected to hear and what I remember from Sociolinguistics back in college.

The only part of the quote I don't get is this:

Males sometimes adopt an adversarial style even in cooperative exchanges, and females often appear to be aligned even when they disagree with one another, suggesting that these behaviors are conventionalized, rather than inherent character traits based on biological sex.

Not that I doubt that a huge part of it is social convention, I am just puzzled by the sentence's inner logic. If people stick to their gender's style even when the context does not at all call for it, how does that suggest that it is pure convention rather than deep-rooted?

Anyway, I get the impression that this has turned into a chicken and egg debate about whether women tend to act F-ish because that is the gender expectation or whether the gender expectation is to act F-ish because that is the natural preference of the majority of women. My guess would be that it's a bit of both, the two are mutually strengthening each other.

As a T woman I do see how my communication is often steered by cripple Fe, i.e. I automatically and mostly unconsciously adjust to my environment (as best I can in the midst of my obliviousness).

Also, what has mostly been called F behavior in this thread sounds mostly Fe. I'd be interested to hear from some Fi dom/aux ladies about that.

 

[Coriolis]

Something I've noticed is that women are socialized to communicate in a more conversational tone and to also be aware of other people's feelings or rules of being considerate; even some T women.

I actually notice a bigger difference between women being socialized to be "comforting" and men to be "tough." I also notice that when I am a woman am "tough" I am called a bitch, crazy, and all other kinds of personal insults. I actually ironically see a lot of personal insults coming from T men, despite their admonitions to me to stop telling so many personal anecdotes to make pertinent points in my posts.

Coriolis, in mistaking you for a man on this forum, I think the principle thing would be your complete refusal to "comfort" anyone in your discussions; even when you're being irrational, it's about your own ethics or beliefs, it's never to make someone else feel better. One sees this more socialized into men.

I don't understand this last paragraph. Wouldn't the appropriateness of providing comfort depend significantly on the topic of the thread - e.g. someone venting about personal troubles vs. discussing some political topic? By irrationality do you mean subjectivity, and why would this be connected with trying to make others feel better? When I am speaking subjectively, it is going to be rooted much more directly in my own personal experiences.

I agree about the gender-based acculturation. Do you get those negative reactions ("bitch", etc.) IRL also, or mainly online? It is not something I have experienced. Finally, what do you mean by a conversational tone - more informal or casual? How would you describe the opposite tone that men would take: professional, formal, business-like?

I think this is the source of a lot of guys on the Internet whining about feminists; they think women exist to comfort, nurture, and mother them, if not give them sex or entertainment. They seem quite irritated when confronted with a woman who won't "supply."

Again, do you see this IRL as well?

Ok, so I found "The Handbook of Language and Gender" which I was able to access fully. It cites Tannen's work, which my professor talked about a lot, so I think this might be as close as I can get right now to what was specifically presented by her. This is, of course, one theory among many as far as sociolinguistic gender studies, but it's what I was recalling.

Thanks for the reference. It looks fascinating - but quite long, and will certainly address many of my questions, though likely prompt more. Seeing correlation of gender and language as culturally based makes sense, and viewing it as a statistical reality rather than a definitive conclusion about individuals is what I would expect. I still see significant correlation with T and F, which explains why F men and T women often feel out of step with expectations for their gender; their "gender culture" to use the paradigm of the reference. I know I feel this quite strongly. I will no doubt have more comments after reading some of the papers.

Not that I doubt that a huge part of it is social convention, I am just puzzled by the sentence's inner logic. If people stick to their gender's style even when the context does not at all call for it, how does that suggest that it is pure convention rather than deep-rooted?

I don't see the contradiction. First, the statement is qualified by "sometimes" and "often", implying that sometimes both men and women can adjust their typical gender-based style to conform to the situation. The conventions one is raised with can become deeply rooted, though. It is why even those of us (men and women) who try the most to be inclusive and unbiased will every now and then slip up, allowing some unconscious reflex to surface. At best we will see it for what it is, and know better next time. Someone with less awareness won't even do that. It is not surprising, then, that both men and women will sometimes stick with their prevailing gendered style, even when not suited to the circumstances. The image of a man just "calling a spade a spade" in a group of painfully polite women, or a woman introducing "feminine touches" in an all-male enviroment should be familiar, and are often the basis for humor in entertainment and fiction, precisely because the audience understands the cultural contradiction.

 

[Red Herring]

I don't see the contradiction. First, the statement is qualified by "sometimes" and "often", implying that sometimes both men and women can adjust their typical gender-based style to conform to the situation. The conventions one is raised with can become deeply rooted, though. It is why even those of us (men and women) who try the most to be inclusive and unbiased will every now and then slip up, allowing some unconscious reflex to surface. At best we will see it for what it is, and know better next time. Someone with less awareness won't even do that. It is not surprising, then, that both men and women will sometimes stick with their prevailing gendered style, even when not suited to the circumstances. The image of a man just "calling a spade a spade" in a group of painfully polite women, or a woman introducing "feminine touches" in an all-male enviroment should be familiar, and are often the basis for humor in entertainment and fiction, precisely because the audience understands the cultural contradiction.

Sure. I just meant that I don't see how one can jump to the conclusion that this is social rather than biological simply based on tzhat observation.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Sure. I just meant that I don't see how one can jump to the conclusion that this is social rather than biological simply based on that observation.

Biology.... I'm inclined to think that very little gender differences are based on biology. The human body has 23 chromosomes, only one of which has anything to do with sex. I'm sure this is vastly over-simplifying, but how different could men and women inherently be if there is only 1/23rd of something that is actually "different"?

I know that's genetics for idiots, but given that no one has yet been able to map genes to psychology completely, it's a reasonable assumption to make.

The discussion now seems to be centering on the fact that people are capable of adapting to a more male or female style. This doesn't imply that the male/female style isn't T/F, however. Every Thinker supposedly has a Feeling side and vice versa, so I suspect that when this adapting occurs, they are merely using the "opposite" function. The relevant question is if the women who are Thinkers feel as out of step in a "male communication style" environment as the women who are Feelers. I suspect that if this were to be polled, the answer would be no.

I can tell you that I feel very odd in a place where every post has 15 smilies, but I'm sure I could post those smiles if I needed to. If someone is using a lot of them, I do tend to adapt and start using those as well. I also have found I feel very odd and out of place in social environments with a lot of NF men. The things I say seem to bump up and offend the NF men just as they might with the women female communication style environment described above. I cannot seem to avoid causing offense or making faux paus. (Of course, in those days, I was less comfortable with my Intuition, so maybe I'd do better these days.)

Also, I found something relevant on the socionics Wiki.... they've mapped the judging/rational functions to communication styles. (Feeling is called Ethics so it doesn't get confused with emotions here.) I wish there weren't so many weird translation issues here, but my communication style, as an introverted Thinker, is "cold-blooded" which makes sense. Introverted feelers are '"sincere." Extraverted feelers are "passionate", while extraverted thinkers are "firm."

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Communication_styles

Aren't all four of those terms gendered? And, no surprise, the feminine-sounding qualities of "sincere" and ''passionate" are linked to Feeling, while "cold-blooded" and "firm" are linked to Thinking.

 

[Coriolis]

The discussion now seems to be centering on the fact that people are capable of adapting to a more male or female style. This doesn't imply that the male/female style isn't T/F, however. Every Thinker supposedly has a Feeling side and vice versa, so I suspect that when this adapting occurs, they are merely using the "opposite" function. The relevant question is if the women who are Thinkers feel as out of step in a "male communication style" environment as the women who are Feelers. I suspect that if this were to be polled, the answer would be no.

I can tell you that I feel very odd in a place where every post has 15 smilies, but I'm sure I could post those smiles if I needed to. If someone is using a lot of them, I do tend to adapt and start using those as well. I also have found I feel very odd and out of place in social environments with a lot of NF men. The things I say seem to bump up and offend the NF men just as they might with the women female communication style environment described above. I cannot seem to avoid causing offense or making faux paus. (Of course, in those days, I was less comfortable with my Intuition, so maybe I'd do better these days.)

Good grief - I don't like smilies either, and don't care whom I offend by refusing to use them. On the other hand, I am quite willing to put up with those who do. I like to feel free to be me, and do my best to accord the same freedom to others. We don't all have to become best buddies, just get along reasonably and be civil.

As for the highlighted, I am a T woman and feel much more comfortable with what is usually termed the "male communication style", whether used by men or women. The main exception is that I have little tolerance for profanity, crude language, and baseless insults. "Your solution is idiotic because of x, y, and z", on the other hand, is OK. This style has been the norm throughout my education and professional life, and always seemed to reflect the "natural me". When I am among largely female groups practicing "female communication style", it is like walkingn on eggshells, constantly having to pussyfoot around. In the best cases, it can still seem almost surreal.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Red Herring brought up the connection between language and gender on another thread. Rather than derail that thread, I am pursuing the discussion here.

What connections do you see between gender and how people use language, including both spoken and written language? I mean here the way people write and speak, not the subjects they choose to discuss. For those of you who speak languages other than English, do you see the same connections there? How much of this is really based on gender rather than on T/F differences?

For a brief introduction to the topic, see this Wikipedia entry.

I wonder how much of this is embedded within language itself. I learned Japanese for a year when I was overseas, and was surprised to learn that there were certain words and modes that were only used by women or men. The one example I remember is that women are supposed to say "ohana" for flower instead of just "hana" because it its a softer sound... more akin to a woman. As my (female) Japanese teacher explained to us. I remember the (extremely) little Thai I learned had a very distinct female/male difference in words, etc.

I see way down at the bottom that this is briefly touched upon.

It reminds me of an article I had read some time ago about how languages effect how we think. The example they used was having participants from a variety of backgrounds watch a video in which a lamp gets broken. Then they were asked what happened in the video. English speakers were apt to point out that "the man broke the lamp," whereas other speakers such as Japanese said "the lamp broke" with no blame portioned upon the man breaking it.

I don't mean that aside as a derail but just as to how intertwined this topic seems to be... it's hard to grasp an edge of yarn to discern where the beginning is at.