Male F, Female T

[Forever_Jung]

I'm not sure it's that bad being a male F, I think it just depends how your F manifests itself. I actually meet a lot of male ESFJ's who initially seem pretty masculine, like they just absorb the expected male social norms and act them out. And INFX's aren't really weirder than INTX's in the eyes of society.

I know other EFP men who are very popular and not considered soft or anything. They're usually funny, or good athletes/performers or something. There's also quite a prevalent stereotype of men being overgrown boys who can only drink, watch sports, and screw up fatherhood. That stereotype could easily be an EFP guy (though it could also be other types).

Furthermore, if you're a young Pe-dom with Fi, the Fi doesn't necessarily show up that much until you're older. I know when I was in high school, I was definitely thought of as more Tish (not that they knew types, people just thought of me as a math whiz/computer programmer). I was never very masculine, but now I am feeling a very strong pull from my Fi, to the point that some of my old guy friends don't relate to me as much as they used to. I've gotten spiritual and more feely (we're all connected, let's talk out our feelings, all that stuff), and they're still very Tish guys. They kinda take shots at me now, about being like a woman.

Being a feeler, doesn't make you necessarily effeminate. That being said, I think because feelers put more priority on connection, intimacy, and their own feelings, they are more likely to allow themselves to be vulnerable and open to others, which might cause them trouble as men.

 

[Frosty]

Yeah venting is totally fine, I vent to people often. With these people its something different though, they want to have these hour long heart to hearts about how everyone is so unfair to them and no one likes them and stuff, and I just sit there like well I don't wonder why if you talk to people like this all the time. It is draining to be around them for so long, they are like emotional vampires.

Anyways I digress, I can do sympathy it just is like my 8th reaction. It has to be dug out of me, I have to have that click thats like oh yeah I should probably say something supportive. My friend calls me the frigid ice bitch for how cold I can be. She gets amusement out of it, but many other women seem to find asking why something happened before immediately siding with whoever is complaining absolutely represhensible. I just like to know what happened on both sides before I judge, and I will offer my condolences eventually, they just have to be shaken out of me.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Say your boss makes some pointed but valid criticisms of your work, perhaps even more harshly than normal since there are deadlines and he is under alot of stress. You are generally on good terms with him and he sees you as a good performer overall. You even understand how/where you messed up in the present case. But you still feel the sting of the criticism, and lash out at him in anger, not namecalling but accusing him of being unfair, not appreciating you, etc. etc. The situation can easily escalate from here.

Logic will see this. It will understand: yes, I'm angry, and the boss could have been kinder in his criticism, but he's right and yelling accusations won't help. It will just make things worse. Best thing to do is to is to acknowledge my mistake, do my best to fix it, and learn from it for the future.

I'm sure T types do this sort of thing, too, but Fs seem more likely to take things personally and react from their emotion, in a way that they feel will be emotionally satisfying in the moment, even if it makes things worse overall. I think Ts are more likely to have enough detachment from the situation to realize that an emotional response will do more harm than good, even if the boss is completely wrong, never liked you, or is being irrational himself.

Essentially, the assertion is that T-types are better at handling criticism. Perhaps this true as a tendency, but as also noted, it is not true in all cases.

My observation is that some INTPs are quite fond of doling out criticism, and then are unable to handle it when someone else gives it to them. I have been guilty of this at times. It is a tendency we should work to keep in check; it arises from a lack of awareness of how we fit into a social system. Fixing it is difficult because the social system is often a "blind spot". The information pertaining to that simply isn't getting through. It can be improved upon, though, if someone wishes to improve upon it.

There is a question, though, of what can be done when the criticism itself it is illogical. What if, for instance, the criticism is for not adhering to certain social norms? Is it acceptable to regard the criticism as having validity? In this case, who is being more illogical? The person offering the unfounded criticism that goes against observations and analysis of reality, or the person who gets frustrated with operating under such constraints? Would it be better to accept the fact that this doesn't make sense, and work solely within the confines of that?

There is another difficult case that I have still not worked out a solution for, and that is the issue of false character defamation. A statement defaming someone's character is not solely between the person making the accusation, and the person receiving it, but can spread throughout the group, potentially resulting in social ostracism. What is the logical response, then? What if, say, your boss hears it, and your boss chooses to take the claims at face value, and has essentially indicated as such?

Acknowledging their claim is unacceptable, because one knows it to be false. One should not apologize for a sin someone is not guilty of. Alternatively, countering it will not work, because this will be taken as further evidence of their claim. The rational response here is unclear.

Furthermore, after a previous incident involving someone engaging in character defamation, your promised you that he would be willing to hear your concerns if you handled the situation by reporting them to HR. You report them to HR, as requested, and the response is essentially that you should stop wasting HR's time. The statement isn't that they do not agree with your concerns, or think it is unfounded, but that the mere act of reporting them imposes an unreasonable burden upon them. Further attempts to bring this to the attention of HR have resulted in finger-wagging for causing a disturbance. (Eventually, attempts result in penalties.)

There is, then, considerable evidence presented to you that your boss and HR is not willing to listen to your side of the situation. The logical approach here becomes unclear. Do you have any ideas for handling this kind of situation? One can adopt an approach of detaching themselves from the situation even further, rather than descending into the muck, and perhaps this is the most practical. On the other hand, should one tolerate an environment where manipulative behavior is catered to? This can make adhering to certain principles difficult or impossible. Is this an acceptable compromise? I suppose this depends on whether or not rationality can include room for personal principles. (I believe that it can, and should.)

I understand how accusing someone of being unfair, or of mishandling the situation, can make someone upset. Perhaps wisdom would dictate shelving these accusations. This does not, however, mean that there is not a problem. If HR and the boss, for instance, are unwilling to present evidence to counter the accusations, and would prefer that you just drop the issue and stop talking about it, without any explanation, doesn't this suggest that there might be validity to the accusations? In that case, the boss and HR need not apologize for their conduct in the past, but I would hope that they plan on avoiding such errors in the future, rather than assuming that things must be conducted in such a fashion, and that moving along an alternative path is simply too difficult.

 

[Frosty]

Essentially, the assertion is that T-types are better at handling criticism. Perhaps this is so as a tendency, but as also noted, it is not true in all cases.

My observation is that some INTPs are quite fond of doling out criticism, and then are unable to handle it when someone else gives it to them. I have been guilty of this at times. It is a tendency we should work to keep in check; it arises from a lack of awareness of how we fit into a social system. Fixing it is difficult because the social system is often a "blind spot". The information pertaining to that simply isn't getting through. It can be improved upon, though, if someone wishes to improve upon it.

There is a question, though, of what can be done when the criticism itself it is illogical. What if, for instance, the criticism is for not adhering to certain social norms? Is it acceptable to regard the criticism as having validity? In this case, who is being more illogical? The person offering the unfounded criticism that goes against observations and analysis of reality, or the person who gets frustrated with operating under such constraints? Would it be better to accept the fact that this doesn't make sense, and work solely within the confines of that?

There is another difficult case that I have still not worked out a solution for, and that is the issue of false character defamation. A statement defaming someone's character is not solely between the person making the accusation, and the person receiving it, but can spread throughout the group, potentially resulting in social ostracism. What is the logical response, then? What if, say, your boss hears it, and your boss chooses to take the claims at face value, and has essentially indicated as such?

Acknowledging their claim is unacceptable, because one knows it to be false. One should not apologize for a sin someone is not guilty of. Alternatively, countering it will not work, because this will be taken as further evidence of their claim. The rational response here is unclear.

Furthermore, after a prevous incident involving someone engaging in character defamation, your boss had promised you certain things, and advised you to handle such a situation by reporting them to HR. You report them to HR, as requested, and the response is essentially that you should stop wasting HR's time. Additional attempts to bring this to the attention of HR have resulted in finger-wagging for causing a disturbance. (Further attempts result in sanctions.)

There is, then, considerable evidence presented to you that your boss and HR is not willing to listen to your side of the situation. The logical approach here becomes unclear. Do you have any ideas for handling this kind of situation? One can adopt an approach of detaching themselves from the situation even further, rather than descending into the muck, and perhaps this is the most practical. On the other hand, should one tolerate an environment where manipulative behavior is catered to? This can make adhering to certain principles difficult or impossible. Is this an acceptable compromise? I suppose this depends on whether or not rationality can include room for personal principles. (I believe that it can, and should.)

Generally if I hear something said about me that I believe will effect me in the future, I first go to the person who said it and confront them. If the outcome of that is not acceptable, I will then go above their head and report it to someone of higher authority if I deem it appropriate. Generally though, I only report criticism if it is unjust and results in me getting penalized in some unfair way. Personal criticism pisses me off for about 3 seconds, until I generally look at the source and the context. Actually, alot of the time the criticism doesnt even resonate, it is like it goes in one ear and out the other. It is weird because my reaction to criticism is generally along these lines, a few seconds of indignation, a minute or two of trying to decide if what was said is valid in any way/representative of my behavior, and then either accepting the criticism as a true statement or rejecting it and trying to defend myself. Apparently though my face is an open book, because people generally think that I am heartbroken by what they said. I have expressive features apparently.

I guess Ts in general are less likely to take what is said at face value, so maybe they would be better able to rationalize other peoples apparent rejection.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Generally if I hear something said about me that I believe will effect me in the future, I first go to the person who said it and confront them. If the outcome of that is not acceptable, I will then go above their head and report it to someone of higher authority if I deem it appropriate. Generally though, I only report criticism if it is unjust and results in me getting penalized in some unfair way. Personal criticism pisses me off for about 3 seconds, until I generally look at the source and the context. Actually, alot of the time the criticism doesnt even resonate, it is like it goes in one ear and out the other. It is weird because my reaction to criticism is generally along these lines, a few seconds of indignation, a minute or two of trying to decide if what was said is valid in any way/representative of my behavior, and then either accepting the criticism as a true statement or rejecting it and trying to defend myself. Apparently though my face is an open book, because people generally think that I am heartbroken by what they said. I have expressive features apparently.

I consider whether criticism might be valid or not, and if I have my doubts, I sometimes devise means of testing this, in my better moments. I appreciate the value of criticism, but some criticism is baseless and has less to do with me than the person doing the criticizing.

 

[Coriolis]

Essentially, the assertion is that T-types are better at handling criticism. Perhaps this true as a tendency, but as also noted, it is not true in all cases.

Criticism is just one example. I was getting at the idea of short-circuiting an unproductive emotional response by analyzing the situation. This can happen also if someone gets angry at you, insults you, you have bad luck/something bad happen to you even if no one's fault, etc.

There is a question, though, of what can be done when the criticism itself it is illogical. What if, for instance, the criticism is for not adhering to certain social norms? Is it acceptable to regard the criticism as having validity? In this case, who is being more illogical? The person offering the unfounded criticism that goes against observations and analysis of reality, or the person who gets frustrated with operating under such constraints? Would it be better to accept the fact that this doesn't make sense, and work solely within the confines of that?

It depends. As the end of my post mentioned, one can recognize criticism is unfounded or illogical, while still understanding that responding with anger and hostility is unproductive. This usually happens with someone in authority like a boss or instructor, or with someone very close to you, like a sibling or parent.

There is another difficult case that I have still not worked out a solution for, and that is the issue of false character defamation. A statement defaming someone's character is not solely between the person making the accusation, and the person receiving it, but can spread throughout the group, potentially resulting in social ostracism. What is the logical response, then? What if, say, your boss hears it, and your boss chooses to take the claims at face value, and has essentially indicated as such?

Acknowledging their claim is unacceptable, because one knows it to be false. One should not apologize for a sin someone is not guilty of. Alternatively, countering it will not work, because this will be taken as further evidence of their claim. The rational response here is unclear.

Furthermore, after a previous incident involving someone engaging in character defamation, your promised you that he would be willing to hear your concerns if you handled the situation by reporting them to HR. You report them to HR, as requested, and the response is essentially that you should stop wasting HR's time. The statement isn't that they do not agree with your concerns, or think it is unfounded, but that the mere act of reporting them imposes an unreasonable burden upon them. Further attempts to bring this to the attention of HR have resulted in finger-wagging for causing a disturbance. (Eventually, attempts result in penalties.)

There is, then, considerable evidence presented to you that your boss and HR is not willing to listen to your side of the situation. The logical approach here becomes unclear. Do you have any ideas for handling this kind of situation? One can adopt an approach of detaching themselves from the situation even further, rather than descending into the muck, and perhaps this is the most practical. On the other hand, should one tolerate an environment where manipulative behavior is catered to? This can make adhering to certain principles difficult or impossible. Is this an acceptable compromise? I suppose this depends on whether or not rationality can include room for personal principles. (I believe that it can, and should.)

All solutions begin with determining what your ideal outcome is. Do you want the boss to acknowledge that he understands the information about you is wrong? Do you not care about the boss as long as your coworkers continue to respect you because they see the value of your work on a day-to-day basis? Is the "defamation" really relatively harmless in that it has nothing to do with your professional reputation, but makes people socially more distant, for instance being accused rightly or wrongly of being gay in an organization where gay tolerance is low? Is the entire organization beyond hope and you need to leave?

Whatever your ideal outcome, either an action or response on your part contributes to achieving it, is neutral, or works against it. In most cases, giving in to the emotionally satisfying response of getting angry, saying bad things about the person who is defaming you, or continuing to pester HR when it is clear they are not willing to help, will not bring you closer to your goal. In focusing your actions to best effect, you must also acknowledge that your ideal outcome can change along the way depending on how successful your efforts are. Ultimately an organization where your boss believes unsubstantiated hearsay over your (presumably) good reputation and HR won't intervene in workplace problems is not somewhere you need to stay.

 

[Hitoshi-San]

Female Thinker here. I don't think it's hard for me to fit in with girls that are feelers. Like, some are a bit irrational and constantly need reassuring, but anyone can be like that, I just notice it's more of the feelers that are like that in my life. But then there are girls that try to act like stereotypical thinkers -- trying to pull off the "heartless, my-soul-is-pitch-black" act or that "tell it how it is" and are "brutally honest".

I'm not an emotional person at all in the sense that I don't get mad all that easy and I rarely full-blown cry, but I'm emotional in a way where I can express myself, I'm just more physical about it. If I'm happy, I smile and feel energetic, like I could run a marathon, but if I'm upset I want to be left alone and feel tired. I've never been the person to compose a song, paint some masterpiece, or write a poem when I'm in a certain mood.

I'm as affectionate as anyone else, really want to try to make people happy (it's so cheesy but I feel like I try too hard to please people sometimes), but the only difference is that I value logic and evidence over my intuition and values.

 

[Mademoiselle]

I support your point when you compared female types and male types based on emotions,..
As any female T in this world, I've been told by comunity that I should be an F, and shown the 'ideal' female characteristics.
But as community developed many traits were count 'ideal' that were actually opposite, providing room to be yourself, and be best of who you are as a female.
Still, there is more time needed for community to realise emotions are not necessarily expressed or overrated by all kinds of females, and that IS normal.
I had learned how to talk community.

That's, perhaps, the reason why thinking females fight an easier battle than emotional males.

 

[outofplace]

I'm a female T and my boyfriend is a male F. In public or at the workplace, he always has to put on a mask/facade to show how tough-minded and unemotional he is when making decisions. But in private (around me) he does show more of his nurturing, caring side. There are times when I feel like I'm the "man" in our relationship because I always have to be the proactive one when it comes to decision-making, planning and organizing things in our relationship. In the beginning, I didn't like it but now, I don't mind it, anymore.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm a female T and my boyfriend is a male F. In public or at the workplace, he always has to put on a mask/facade to show how tough-minded and unemotional he is when making decisions. But in private (around me) he does show more of his nurturing, caring side. There are times when I feel like I'm the "man" in our relationship because I always have to be the proactive one when it comes to decision-making, planning and organizing things in our relationship. In the beginning, I didn't like it but now, I don't mind it, anymore.

See - this is the problem: not that you take on this role because it is more aligned with your personality and abilities, but that people want to call that "being the man". It isn't. It's simply being you. Men and women come in all flavors. Limiting descriptions like that are counterproductive.

My current boss is an ISTJ female. She seems so determined not to show any sensitivity to human factors in her decision-making, that she ignores them even when productivity suffers as a result. She also gets very vehement in insisting how willing she is to make "the cold, hard decisions". Altogether this makes her come off as more emotionally driven than if she included the human factors along with the others.

 

[RandomINTP]

My opinion: It is much easier to be a male F than a female T. Despite this, T and F can't be compared like that because S and N play a very big role in this too. Sensors generally adjust more to the environment because sensors are the environment. Intuitives are so rare it hurts.

ST male: Normal.
ST female: Seen as cold and calculating, but I assure you, if you take the average monthly salary of an SF woman, it's safe to say that the ST woman gets three times as much in a month. Either social or wealthy. It's up to you.

SF male: Never met one.
SF female: Talks just for the sake of talking. Bla bla ha ha, all day, just to be social. Wtf is the meaning of this? They only fit in because they exist like pidgeons: there are too many.

NT male: Competent minds with great ideas and plans. Only fit in with their kind.
NT female: Like the above, just with the adverb "surprisingly" because that's how rare they are. It's a shame I don't know one. Not sure if they would fit in.

NF male: This is more complicated. They can vary from not fitting in to being the most popular guy in the city.
NF female: Usually fit in. Not exactly sure though...

 

[Kas]

SF male: Never met one.

It's hard to believe. No ESFP or ESFJ? There are rather many of them.

Do you think that it is harder to be a male F in a society where men are stereotyped as alligning more with thinking traits. Do you think that it is more difficult to be a female T in a country where women are supposed to naturally be more feeling oriented. Do you think that it is more difficult to be a male F or a female T?

Are male Fs less expressive with their feelings than their female counterparts because of societal expectations? Are female Ts more likely to act more nurturing and emotional than male Ts because that is what is expected of them?

I think it could be hard both to T women and F men, after all they’re in minority. It could lead to behaving “against” what’s natural to them. But people are getting more tolerant, or is it just wishful thinking of mine?

Do you think it’s hard when you’re kid too? The functions may not be fully developed, but I think that children can easily see when somebody is different, and they can be very cruel sometimes. I have at least two female T friends who have bad memories from kindergarten, since school no social difficulties. Could it have influence too or is it only about some early social skills of children?


OT Is it only me or F-man and T-woman sounds like superheroes, someone is looking for idea for comic book? Sorry I'm tired.

 

[Kensei]

Well F males seem to get the girls while T girls just repel most males, so it's probably harder to be a T-Mama.

 

[BadOctopus]

Well F males seem to get the girls while T girls just repel most males, so it's probably harder to be a T-Mama.

"T-Mama". I like that. Especially since becoming a sort of TypoC den mother.

 

[Cygnus]

I actually think emotionalism/rationalism is completely type-related and has no linkage to gender.



#3edgy5me

 

[Coriolis]

My opinion: It is much easier to be a male F than a female T. Despite this, T and F can't be compared like that because S and N play a very big role in this too. Sensors generally adjust more to the environment because sensors are the environment. Intuitives are so rare it hurts.

Yes, S/N does make a difference. I suspect SJs especially are more likely to be influenced by social customs.

SF female: Talks just for the sake of talking. Bla bla ha ha, all day, just to be social. Wtf is the meaning of this? They only fit in because they exist like pidgeons: there are too many.

This is horrible stereotyping, but sadly has been my experience of most SFs. The men talk for the sake of talking as well, just often about different topics: sports and cars instead of fashion and celebrity gossip.

NT female: Like the above, just with the adverb "surprisingly" because that's how rare they are. It's a shame I don't know one. Not sure if they would fit in.

Fit in with what? We fit in where we care to, and don't care much about the rest.

I think it could be hard both to T women and F men, after all they’re in minority. It could lead to behaving “against” what’s natural to them. But people are getting more tolerant, or is it just wishful thinking of mine?

Do you think it’s hard when you’re kid too? The functions may not be fully developed, but I think that children can easily see when somebody is different, and they can be very cruel sometimes. I have at least two female T friends who have bad memories from kindergarten, since school no social difficulties. Could it have influence too or is it only about some early social skills of children?

How F men and T women behave IS natural to them. It is part of the F or T preference. It thus conflicts not with their natural tendencies, but with traditional norms and social expectations. This is likely to bother Ns less, though NF men have Fe dom/aux, which might cause them to be more sensitive to maintaining harmony, and therefore more likely to make concessions to expectations.

Yes, in some respects it was hard when I was a kid, but in other respects, it was very easy. I wouldn't have wanted it otherwise. The pluses so outweigh the minuses. Also, I think the NT temperament is particularly suited to weathering the sort of nonsense that kids spew at those who are different, while staying true to themselves in pursuit of their goals and dreams.

Well F males seem to get the girls while T girls just repel most males, so it's probably harder to be a T-Mama.

Not at all. The males we repel tend to be unsuitable in one way or another, leaving those few who measure up. An effective filter, all in all.

 

[Kensei]

Yeah I like it too, that's why I used it. Hope you dudn't take offense to that remark about T-Mama's repelling most males xD

"T-Mama". I like that. Especially since becoming a sort of TypoC den mother.

 

[Kas]

How F men and T women behave IS natural to them. It is part of the F or T preference. It thus conflicts not with their natural tendencies, but with traditional norms and social expectations. This is likely to bother Ns less, though NF men have Fe dom/aux, which might cause them to be more sensitive to maintaining harmony, and therefore more likely to make concessions to expectations.

I think you misunderstood me. Probably because my poor English...
What I meant is that T female or F male could use their natural functions less in the environment where they would not feel accepted (because they’re in minority). And because of that they could change their behavior (to follow social expectations).

Yes, in some respects it was hard when I was a kid, but in other respects, it was very easy. I wouldn't have wanted it otherwise. The pluses so outweigh the minuses. Also, I think the NT temperament is particularly suited to weathering the sort of nonsense that kids spew at those who are different, while staying true to themselves in pursuit of their goals and dreams.

I think you're right about it. My INTJ friend just says that she prefers now when she has more reasonable people around.

They say that INFJ type is the one that seems to be mature very early. I don’t remember knowing any INFJ as a kid (?), but I noticed something similar about INTJs among the people I know. Is it typical?

 

[Frosty]

Could being in a large family vs. being in a small family affect how the child learns to relate to others dramatically enough to overset the limitations of a particular type? Would an ISTP girl born in a house full of extroverts be likely to have better control over her Se at a younger age? Or is type something that pretty much develops independently, at a set pace, not unsettled by near anything? Bit of both? Of course the ISTP female would still need that time to recharge with Ti, but would she have developed more creative and low-key ways of getting that time? When do you start to bend with those around you, and where is the tradeoff? Is there always a tradeoff?

 

[Poki]

I'm a female T and my boyfriend is a male F. In public or at the workplace, he always has to put on a mask/facade to show how tough-minded and unemotional he is when making decisions. But in private (around me) he does show more of his nurturing, caring side. There are times when I feel like I'm the "man" in our relationship because I always have to be the proactive one when it comes to decision-making, planning and organizing things in our relationship. In the beginning, I didn't like it but now, I don't mind it, anymore.

I think thats more of the J side then T vs F for you being the planner. it sucks that F men are looked down on.

My last 2 relationships we were both P and our plans were always half ass, but as P types 90% of the time we really dont care if things screw up. We do appreciate it when someone helps out with planning as long as its not over kill and to structured or we wil walk off in a heart beat from the plans.