Language and Gender

[Coriolis]

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.

 

[Galena]

How much of this is really based on gender rather than on T/F differences?

Well, much of the Wikipedia entry's examples struck me as differences between conversing from an F function (Fe especially, perhaps Fi + lots of so) versus a T function: for example, asking a question foremost as a request for information versus using questions to balance and move an exchange.

I'll be interested in what comes out of this thread, and additionally what Fi users think of what differences come up because the "female" examples in your introductory link felt Fe-heavy.

 

[Coriolis]

Well, much of the Wikipedia entry's examples struck me as differences between conversing from an F function (Fe especially, perhaps Fi + lots of so) versus a T function: for example, asking a question foremost as a request for information versus using questions to balance and move an exchange.

I'm sure this article is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are several references cited that I want to follow up when I have time. I am curious as to which apparent gender differences in language cannot be correlated with T/F. I think that is a significant aspect of it, but it may not account for everything.

 

[RaptorWizard]

That's an easy one. The pussies tend to write (in general, not as a strict rule) just like they tend to talk; it's more personal and on a subjective level, not to mention with longer-than-average amounts of characters on arbitrary topics.

 

[21%]

The wiki article seems to have a slight feminist agenda, but perhaps rightly so. If all the things they said about guys shutting girls up are true, I'm going to be very upset.

 

[FDG]

I'm sure this article is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are several references cited that I want to follow up when I have time. I am curious as to which apparent gender differences in language cannot be correlated with T/F. I think that is a significant aspect of it, but it may not account for everything.

My pet theory is that in a seuxally differentiated species there will be one gender which is more aggressive/dominant than the other, and in most human culture it now appears to be the male gender.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I'm sure this article is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are several references cited that I want to follow up when I have time. I am curious as to which apparent gender differences in language cannot be correlated with T/F. I think that is a significant aspect of it, but it may not account for everything.

I wonder if the causality is reversed. There is a tendency for people to map the MBTI functions to concepts that are already familiar. My impression is that the T/F parameter is mapped to our concepts of male and female stereotypes. This is why the T function dominates the F function online. I think those two functions also map too often to gender obscuring the fact that there are more women who thinking rationalistically and more men who think subjectively than is apparent on the surface.

I encountered this topic a number of years ago and made some efforts to change my communication style, but eventually gave up and instead changed my environment.

 

[Coriolis]

I wonder if the causality is reversed. There is a tendency for people to map the MBTI functions to concepts that are already familiar. My impression is that the T/F parameter is mapped to our concepts of male and female stereotypes. This is why the T function dominates the F function online. I think those two functions also map too often to gender obscuring the fact that there are more women who thinking rationalistically and more men who think subjectively than is apparent on the surface.

Reversed in what sense? I think T/F differences are much more inherent and significant in how an individual thinks and communicates than male/female differences. The latter are tied up in cultural conditioning, which would serve to accentuate the stereotypical traits for each gender and suppress the others. Yes, this might cause F men and T women to be underrepresented in surveys, as well as to feel out of step with society around them.

I encountered this topic a number of years ago and made some efforts to change my communication style, but eventually gave up and instead changed my environment.

Can you say more about this? What caused you to want to change your communication style? What changes did you want to make? Why did you give up, and how have you changed your environment? Was this successful in reaching your end goal?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Can you say more about this? What caused you to want to change your communication style? What changes did you want to make? Why did you give up, and how have you changed your environment? Was this successful in reaching your end goal?

My mother has a submissive style since she was the youngest of eight in a family with a dominant male, and she was a single mother who raised me. As a result I did not have a pervasive male model for speech growing up, and my style both in verbal and non-verbal language is primarily submissive, but this does not reflect entirely my internal processing, which tends to be more detached and objective than the majority of men I interact with later in my life.

When studying at the university I paid attention to the women who are successful in that environment, and noticed that their speech and demeanor are more masculine than the average woman. They typically have very short hair, a brusque, non-maternal, non-nurturing demeanor, and speak abruptly, concisely, with finality, and in a dominant manner that requires the responder to adapt to their thinking and style. It is not a negotiating style by nature. It is similar to racial minorities taking on the manner and speech of the dominant group in order to be successful in corporate culture. Both groups are successful to the degree they can imitate the white male mannerism and speech style.

My language use is innately disarming, negotiating, responding. While at the university I began to try to make more concise responses or remain quiet. I also stopped wearing make-up and began wearing some women's apparel that is modeled after male apparel like the suit jackets. In my profession I have had a problem with men either attempting to create a flirtatious dynamic with me and/or becoming contemptuous in their behavior towards me, except for my composition professor who was a completely fair-minded INTP and not influenced by social norms. The individuals who have given me my professional leg-up with honesty, fairness, and respect have been women, and some who are at the top of their fields. These women are quite "masculine" themselves, but have more ability to be objective in their evaluation of gender because they can see a wider spectrum without personal fear of ego harm. The men who are oriented towards dominating women are deeply threatened when one demonstrates more intellectual skill than they do. Interestingly enough their communication takes on a dishonesty and aggression that I would compare to what I encountered with seventh grade girls in junior high. The main problem is that anything that hints of emotions or vulnerability is compartmentalized away or treated dishonestly. This inability to integrate all levels of the psyche in male dominated environments makes it dysfunctional and results in an image focus that produces style over substance. Perhaps that happens in female dominated environments as well, but I haven't been in as many of those. Also, this is just my experience and so has limited universal application.

As a added note, in reaction to these experiences I have always sought out personal partners who are the clearest, most reasonable thinkers in my environment at the given time. Their communication is more what I would call actual "T" objectivity in most contexts, and perhaps my interactions in those contexts have guided my language use as well.

 

[Ene]

I can't help but wonder if N and S preference makes a difference, too, at least in topics.

For example, among my S women friends at work, topics will include:

family, fashion, health, friends, relationships, food, gardening, housing, organizing [there are others, too, but these will do]. These are what I call mashed potato and little league people.

Topics among my N friends may include the above but not as much, however they will include such things as:

existence of multiple dimensions, Magneto's motivations, spontaneous human combustion, origination of homogeneous societies, commonalities of language origins, [topics are endless, but see type of topics is different]. They are often bored by the mashed potatoes and little league conversations, sometimes left thinking, "How long does it take to establish that little Johnny is cute in his uniform, anyway?"

My sister is an ESTP and she can go for hours talking about her baby's cute toes, how much her husband's raise is and why the coffee's too strong. I feel bad because I don't know how to respond to what seems to obvious to discuss.

On the other hand, yes, I also think T/F play a bigger part in style of communication than gender.

 

[Coriolis]

I can't help but wonder if N and S preference makes a difference, too, at least in topics.

I agree, and not only for topics, but for how they are discussed as well My ISTJ (male) friend enjoys discussing history and science, but focuses more on the facts and details - exactly what happened and when, or how something functions. My ENTJ (female) friend will skip right to the motivations behind historical events and their significance, or the implications of some discovery or invention for our lifestyle. I wonder if N types use more metaphor and allegory in their speech and writing. I have never looked into this, so it is pure speculation.

My mother has a submissive style since she was the youngest of eight in a family with a dominant male, and she was a single mother who raised me. As a result I did not have a pervasive male model for speech growing up, and my style both in verbal and non-verbal language is primarily submissive, but this does not reflect entirely my internal processing, which tends to be more detached and objective than the majority of men I interact with later in my life.

When studying at the university I paid attention to the women who are successful in that environment, and noticed that their speech and demeanor are more masculine than the average woman. They typically have very short hair, a brusque, non-maternal, non-nurturing demeanor, and speak abruptly, concisely, with finality, and in a dominant manner that requires the responder to adapt to their thinking and style. It is not a negotiating style by nature. It is similar to racial minorities taking on the manner and speech of the dominant group in order to be successful in corporate culture. Both groups are successful to the degree they can imitate the white male mannerism and speech style.

My language use is innately disarming, negotiating, responding. While at the university I began to try to make more concise responses or remain quiet. I also stopped wearing make-up and began wearing some women's apparel that is modeled after male apparel like the suit jackets. In my profession I have had a problem with men either attempting to create a flirtatious dynamic with me and/or becoming contemptuous in their behavior towards me, except for my composition professor who was a completely fair-minded INTP and not influenced by social norms. The individuals who have given me my professional leg-up with honesty, fairness, and respect have been women, and some who are at the top of their fields. These women are quite "masculine" themselves, but have more ability to be objective in their evaluation of gender because they can see a wider spectrum without personal fear of ego harm. The men who are oriented towards dominating women are deeply threatened when one demonstrates more intellectual skill than they do. Interestingly enough their communication takes on a dishonesty and aggression that I would compare to what I encountered with seventh grade girls in junior high. The main problem is that anything that hints of emotions or vulnerability is compartmentalized away or treated dishonestly. This inability to integrate all levels of the psyche in male dominated environments makes it dysfunctional and results in an image focus that produces style over substance. Perhaps that happens in female dominated environments as well, but I haven't been in as many of those. Also, this is just my experience and so has limited universal application.

Thanks for the detailed reply. When you describe your mother's (or anyone's) communication style as submissive, do you mean the opposite of the highlighted? To what extent do you think your own original style was influenced by her, as opposed to growing out of your own preferences and tendencies? You seem to be saying the university women had taken on a masculine style to be successful. By this do you mean that such a style cannot be inherent or "natural" in women? Again, these differences seem based more in T vs. F. Given that around 1/3 (or more) of women are T, it seems silly to label their interaction style "masculine". Such a vision of masculine and feminine is much too narrow.

I have found it to be among groups of women that the conversation tends to superficialities vs. substance. I have little patience with this, and therefore dislike such encounters. An exception is a group I volunteer with consisting primarily of women. Here, the conversation is much more substantive and intelligent, but still much more scattered and inefficient than in the mostly male groups I associate with professionally. It takes them longer to reach conclusions, and I feel I have to pussyfoot around people's sensibilities just trying to get something done. It is very frustrating.

 

[Entropic]

Not read through everything here, although I find this subject interesting. Only scanned the Wikipedia article, but I immediately thought of discourses, personally. For those unfamiliar, a discourse can be explained as a particular use of language in order to reinforce specific power structures or relationships in society.

As such, one could equally argue that female and male language don't exist as much as they are social constructions, discourses, to maintain the power relations between genders.

I also read some study many years ago where they had studied the language of male and female authors and it appeared as if male authors were more likely to use definitive over indefintive articles and females vice versa, but this only applied to English authors. There is also an aspect where British women as a whole, are often expected to add tag questions to language e.g. He didn't do that, did he? at the end of sentences, but I am not sure how common this is among British speakers anymore.

Ultimately though, I think whatever perceived difference there is between male/female language is probably constructed.

As for N/S and T/F differences in language, I do not believe in such a thing. It might dictate your focus of content, but I think that is as far as it goes. Interests have nothing to do with whether one is S or N for example. Rather, it is not so much the subject of discussion but the content of the discussion that dictates an S or N preference. There was this online stream some time ago, where various people discussed what human consciousness. There were more sensors present at the debate than intuitives. One might stereotypically think that the subject would have the opposite effect. That made it apparent that these people were sensors is how they related to what human consciousness is, how they understood human consciousness. The ESTP thought of it as the very direct physical world he could perceive such as the neuroconnectivity in the human brain, whereas the xSTJs thought of it as that which we know and have experienced in the past.

Cognition is how we relate to the world and how we understand it, not what we are interested in per se.

Therefore, if we perceive a man to appear as effeminate and we read him as a feeler, this might have no real bearing on the language he actually uses. That we read this from him therefore indicates that the question about gender and gender perception is a bit more complex than the mere simple language used.

 

[prplchknz]

I write like i speak.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Thanks for the detailed reply. When you describe your mother's (or anyone's) communication style as submissive, do you mean the opposite of the highlighted? To what extent do you think your own original style was influenced by her, as opposed to growing out of your own preferences and tendencies? You seem to be saying the university women had taken on a masculine style to be successful. By this do you mean that such a style cannot be inherent or "natural" in women? Again, these differences seem based more in T vs. F. Given that around 1/3 (or more) of women are T, it seems silly to label their interaction style "masculine". Such a vision of masculine and feminine is much too narrow.

That is a question I don't have enough information on the specific individuals to answer. My guess is that it is a combination. We ultimately reflect what we encounter through nature and nurture. Our language, gestures, nuance of communication are all reflections of our encounters. The study of feral children shows just how extreme our ability to imitate our early encounters really are. The professional environment selects for individuals that most closely match its dominant demographic. Women who have more traditionally masculine qualities are a more natural fit for the environment. At some point they are influenced by women who have mirrored the male style, whether they imitated their fathers or their mothers imitated their fathers, etc. The question of whether those styles are inherent to women is a good one, and possibly they are as well.

I have found it to be among groups of women that the conversation tends to superficialities vs. substance. I have little patience with this, and therefore dislike such encounters. An exception is a group I volunteer with consisting primarily of women. Here, the conversation is much more substantive and intelligent, but still much more scattered and inefficient than in the mostly male groups I associate with professionally. It takes them longer to reach conclusions, and I feel I have to pussyfoot around people's sensibilities just trying to get something done. It is very frustrating.

Superficial conversations with women could be the case in non-academic or non-professional contexts. In my experience it is not the case for some reason, but then again I have had very few female friends in the past. At this point the female friends I have share deep conversations. What I was referring to is not content, but style. A submission style can still have content, but it defers to the other person. I start with their context and if I disagree, I still work within their framework and only disagree to a small degree and check in with their reaction. If their reaction is negative, then I go back to just listening. If it is positive, then I move a little further towards my position. I also give them far more time in the rhythm of the conversation and tend to work from a questioning standpoint rather than a conclusive one. When they push back I tend to nod and respond as though they have said something important because I analyze and don't disagree unless I am extremely certain. We just got a new pitbull puppy and I see her submit to the other dogs in our home and even though she is strong and intelligent, her nuance of communication submits. I see myself in her and I'm not certain that is the position I desire.

A few years ago I went to a music composers conference and there were primarily men present. Communication had some significant frustrations. I found that as I attempted to enter idea space with them, they had a tendency to tell me about their wives and girlfriends. It felt like my presence as a female was an invitation into social/relational space. While I'm happy to hear anything a person wants to share, I found the information quite irrelevant for me. It wasn't what I wanted to talk about. With one conversation when I was sharing technical information about my instrument, the man turned the conversation towards sexual innuendo. I was devastated and had an anxiety attack. I had to just get up and leave the room. With another man I thought we were having a great conversation about the core approach to music theory. He said that his ex-wife believed that there were universal elements to music which he found to be mis-informed. I told him that my position was that in today's post-modern environment there was a great need as artists to approach the many different systems of music from an integrative approach - to break these systems down to their core principles and see how those relate without concern for absolute universalities. Instead the approach should find commonalities, since the integration of peoples, ideas, and societies in our world need a sense of commonality and integration. I was excited and lost in idea space and while not aggressive, I wasn't deferring to the other speaker as I typically do. Suddenly, what felt like out of nowhere, he started to insult me as a harpist. I was blindsided and realized that I had somehow insulted him deeply.

This is one reason that I seek out the most intelligent, analytical, and clear thinking romantic partners. My husband, HilbertSpace (a former member here) is a complexity scientist and far beyond me in intellect, but I get to have that idea space exchange with him. I still tend to defer to him, but he is never insulted or demeaning to me in idea space.

 

[Nicodemus]

I write like i speak.

No one would ever doubt that.

 

[Totenkindly]

Superficial conversations with women could be the case in non-academic or non-professional contexts. In my experience it is not the case for some reason, but then again I have had very few female friends in the past. At this point the female friends I have share deep conversations. What I was referring to is not content, but style. A submission style can still have content, but it defers to the other person. I start with their context and if I disagree, I still work within their framework and only disagree to a small degree and check in with their reaction. If their reaction is negative, then I go back to just listening. If it is positive, then I move a little further towards my position. I also give them far more time in the rhythm of the conversation and tend to work from a questioning standpoint rather than a conclusive one. When they push back I tend to nod and respond as though they have said something important because I analyze and don't disagree unless I am extremely certain. We just got a new pitbull puppy and I see her submit to the other dogs in our home and even though she is strong and intelligent, her nuance of communication submits. I see myself in her and I'm not certain that is the position I desire.

A few years ago I went to a music composers conference and there were primarily men present. Communication had some significant frustrations. I found that as I attempted to enter idea space with them, they had a tendency to tell me about their wives and girlfriends. It felt like my presence as a female was an invitation into social/relational space. While I'm happy to hear anything a person wants to share, I found the information quite irrelevant for me. It wasn't what I wanted to talk about. With one conversation when I was sharing technical information about my instrument, the man turned the conversation towards sexual innuendo. I was devastated and had an anxiety attack. I had to just get up and leave the room. With another man I thought we were having a great conversation about the core approach to music theory. He said that his ex-wife believed that there were universal elements to music which he found to be mis-informed. I told him that my position was that in today's post-modern environment there was a great need as artists to approach the many different systems of music from an integrative approach - to break these systems down to their core principles and see how those relate without concern for absolute universalities. Instead the approach should find commonalities, since the integration of peoples, ideas, and societies in our world need a sense of commonality and integration. I was excited and lost in idea space and while not aggressive, I wasn't deferring to the other speaker as I typically do. Suddenly, what felt like out of nowhere, he started to insult me as a harpist. I was blindsided and realized that I had somehow insulted him deeply.

I don't have energy to recall and go into details, but I know I've had the same tendencies in conversation (I typically start in other people's frames and only push a little bit, etc, only disagree strongly when very certain and it seems appropriate, etc.) in the past.

I've changed a bit in the last few years, though, and find my conversation style has developed into something more blunt and assertive at times, with less regard for deference. (I still maintain deference style in casual conversation with others, especially other women, without problem.) And I have noticed more pushback from men in particular. I even had my first experience where I felt like I was being overtly "gaslighted" so to speak, because I was speaking with conviction about something personal. It was a very unsettling moment, as I had no way to respond to it without looking like I was either acknowledging or validating the comment in some way. When I look back, I think I've experienced that a little more tacitly at times (if I was allowing myself to speak passionately about something, as a choice to drive a point home -- it's interesting how emotions = evil/irrational to some, when that is not necessarily the case, it simply shows intensity of thought).

I think there are perils in being more assertive; whether to persist or shift footing I suppose is something to determine in the moment.

It's especially weird when I feel like I have less credibility simply because of gender and social expectations; I never really had a "masculine" approach even in the old days, but I am very sure the gaslighting approach would not have been used if I had been perceived as male. Still, I talk to a lot of men who are fair, open conversationists; I don't want to give a different impression.

 

[Coriolis]

Not read through everything here, although I find this subject interesting. Only scanned the Wikipedia article, but I immediately thought of discourses, personally. For those unfamiliar, a discourse can be explained as a particular use of language in order to reinforce specific power structures or relationships in society.

As such, one could equally argue that female and male language don't exist as much as they are social constructions, discourses, to maintain the power relations between genders.

I am not following this. What constitutes "a particular use of language" - using certain terminology to refer to things, or certain sentence structures, or formal vs. colloquial speech? This is not a definition of "discourse" with which I am familiar. If male and female language are in fact social constructs, how does this imply their nonexistence? It would seem instead to imply their basis or origin.

I also read some study many years ago where they had studied the language of male and female authors and it appeared as if male authors were more likely to use definitive over indefintive articles and females vice versa, but this only applied to English authors. There is also an aspect where British women as a whole, are often expected to add tag questions to language e.g. He didn't do that, did he? at the end of sentences, but I am not sure how common this is among British speakers anymore.

I have read that tag questions are more prevalent in (American) women's speech than men's, along with lead-in statements ("I think that . . . ", "It's my opinion that . . . "), and qualifiers ("It seems as though . . . ").

Therefore, if we perceive a man to appear as effeminate and we read him as a feeler, this might have no real bearing on the language he actually uses. That we read this from him therefore indicates that the question about gender and gender perception is a bit more complex than the mere simple language used.

Our perception of someone as a feeler or effeminate would indeed be based on much more than his use of language. I wonder, though, whether the language of male Fs differs from that of male Ts, and likewise for female F vs. T. The answer would shed some light on to what degree language differences are based on type rather than gender.

I write like i speak.

I tend to speak like I write.

That is a question I don't have enough information on the specific individuals to answer. My guess is that it is a combination. We ultimately reflect what we encounter through nature and nurture. Our language, gestures, nuance of communication are all reflections of our encounters. The study of feral children shows just how extreme our ability to imitate our early encounters really are. The professional environment selects for individuals that most closely match its dominant demographic. Women who have more traditionally masculine qualities are a more natural fit for the environment. At some point they are influenced by women who have mirrored the male style, whether they imitated their fathers or their mothers imitated their fathers, etc. The question of whether those styles are inherent to women is a good one, and possibly they are as well.

So does each of us then start off as a liguistic tabula rasa, absorbing the language patterns of those we identify with, look up to, or simply associate with? This would suggest that any M/F differences are entirely the product of conditioning. On the other hand, if women who have a more "masculine" language style developed it by preferentially absorbing the language patterns of men (or women with that style), and then used it in traditionally masculine settings, that could easily indicate a natural preference for those modes of expression, interaction and activity.

What I was referring to is not content, but style. A submission style can still have content, but it defers to the other person. I start with their context and if I disagree, I still work within their framework and only disagree to a small degree and check in with their reaction. If their reaction is negative, then I go back to just listening. If it is positive, then I move a little further towards my position. I also give them far more time in the rhythm of the conversation and tend to work from a questioning standpoint rather than a conclusive one. When they push back I tend to nod and respond as though they have said something important because I analyze and don't disagree unless I am extremely certain.

Interesting. My interests seldom overlap with those of women in social settings, but then their use of such a style wouldn't help. I am used to speaking my mind and having the other person do the same. The kind of conversational deference you describe would make me view the other person as indecisive, inarticulate, even evasive, as if they have no opinions of their own, or are trying to avoid revealing them. If someone cannot push back effectively, there is little point in conversing with them. I will resort to a more deferential style only in certain limited social situations, e.g. among elderly relatives at a funeral, where I am just trying "to be polite".

A few years ago I went to a music composers conference and there were primarily men present. Communication had some significant frustrations. I found that as I attempted to enter idea space with them, they had a tendency to tell me about their wives and girlfriends. It felt like my presence as a female was an invitation into social/relational space. While I'm happy to hear anything a person wants to share, I found the information quite irrelevant for me. It wasn't what I wanted to talk about. With one conversation when I was sharing technical information about my instrument, the man turned the conversation towards sexual innuendo. I was devastated and had an anxiety attack. I had to just get up and leave the room.

I cannot say I have ever had experiences like these, and I have spent my entire academic and professional life in predominantly male settings. The world is full of gender bias, and I wonder more and more how I have managed to escape so much of it. Perhaps my initial presentation discourages these unwelcome digressions; perhaps I automatically nip them in the bud by refusing to accept them as part of the conversation. I don't know.

I still tend to defer to him, but he is never insulted or demeaning to me in idea space.

Why do you defer?

It's especially weird when I feel like I have less credibility simply because of gender and social expectations; I never really had a "masculine" approach even in the old days, but I am very sure the gaslighting approach would not have been used if I had been perceived as male. Still, I talk to a lot of men who are fair, open conversationists; I don't want to give a different impression.

You have some interesting insights. I was wondering what differences you noticed after transitioning. I too know plenty of men who don't exhibit this kind of bias in conversation. I count some among my closest friends.

 

[Entropic]

I am not following this. What constitutes "a particular use of language" - using certain terminology to refer to things, or certain sentence structures, or formal vs. colloquial speech? This is not a definition of "discourse" with which I am familiar. If male and female language are in fact social constructs, how does this imply their nonexistence? It would seem instead to imply their basis or origin.

Because it implies that the gender binary that is created is constructed, it does not actually exist per se as much as it is something imagined. It is all imaginary.

I have read that tag questions are more prevalent in (American) women's speech than men's, along with lead-in statements ("I think that . . . ", "It's my opinion that . . . "), and qualifiers ("It seems as though . . . ").

Not sure what the point is here though.

Our perception of someone as a feeler or effeminate would indeed be based on much more than his use of language. I wonder, though, whether the language of male Fs differs from that of male Ts, and likewise for female F vs. T. The answer would shed some light on to what degree language differences are based on type rather than gender.

I honestly doubt it. I am a big fan of anime and one thing that is noticeable in anime is how characters speak when referring to themselves. In Japanese culture, there are different pronouns unique to each gender that all connote something different. For boys specifically, there are two variants: ore and boku, where the latter is generally regarded as boy-ish and the former more tough-guy talk.

It doesn't matter if the character uses tough-guy talk by falling back on slang language or if he refers to himself in more boy-ish and formal terms such as boku. I have not found any correlation here. If anything, the use of language is a self-reflection of the character and how is supposed to see himself. So we have characters that overall are rather rational, direct and unemotional in their approach and refer to themseles as ore, and then we have characters who are clearly ruled by feeling in their ego who refer to themselves as boku and vice versa. And this might also change depending on the situation. Speech patterns are all situated within specific social contexts. As the contexts change so do our speech patterns.

Also, level of directed-ness in speech is probably affected more depending on whether one actually favors Se or Te as egoic perspectives. You will find that Se types in particular can be very direct in speech: Put it over there. Yes, you can add formal niceities such as "Can you please put it over there" but the meaning of the sentence and the way in which it is delivered remains the same.

Keirsey tried to connect types to speech but I honestly don't find Keirsey's types particularly valid or truly reflective of Jungian cognition (he doesn't even believe in functions as a theory anyway), so I rather not mix them up to begin with.

Another way one can approach speech patterns is through the idea of cognitive styles: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Gulenko_Cognitive_Styles

I think how we structure and formulate our thoughts to other people will reflect our cognitive styles and this might be much more useful as a descriptor than male/female or T/F alone.

 

[Entropic]

Superficial conversations with women could be the case in non-academic or non-professional contexts. In my experience it is not the case for some reason, but then again I have had very few female friends in the past. At this point the female friends I have share deep conversations. What I was referring to is not content, but style. A submission style can still have content, but it defers to the other person. I start with their context and if I disagree, I still work within their framework and only disagree to a small degree and check in with their reaction. If their reaction is negative, then I go back to just listening. If it is positive, then I move a little further towards my position. I also give them far more time in the rhythm of the conversation and tend to work from a questioning standpoint rather than a conclusive one. When they push back I tend to nod and respond as though they have said something important because I analyze and don't disagree unless I am extremely certain. We just got a new pitbull puppy and I see her submit to the other dogs in our home and even though she is strong and intelligent, her nuance of communication submits. I see myself in her and I'm not certain that is the position I desire.

If anything, what I read from this is a very Fe way towards approaching communication. Whether I think it is submissive or not I don't know as Fe can be very aggressive and pushy too.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

If anything, what I read from this is a very Fe way towards approaching communication. Whether I think it is submissive or not I don't know as Fe can be very aggressive and pushy too.

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?

So does each of us then start off as a liguistic tabula rasa, absorbing the language patterns of those we identify with, look up to, or simply associate with? This would suggest that any M/F differences are entirely the product of conditioning. On the other hand, if women who have a more "masculine" language style developed it by preferentially absorbing the language patterns of men (or women with that style), and then used it in traditionally masculine settings, that could easily indicate a natural preference for those modes of expression, interaction and activity.

My understanding is that there is a significant degree of gender conditioning in society, but your question about natural preference for T/F directing one's attention towards whom to imitate is something that is difficult to measure. I suspect that every configuration occurs. For example, everyone in my family is strongly "F" oriented, and I was personally drawn towards reasoning and made choices to connect my life with clear thinkers. This has had some affect on my language use, but not in terms of expressing dominance.

Interesting. My interests seldom overlap with those of women in social settings, but then their use of such a style wouldn't help. I am used to speaking my mind and having the other person do the same. The kind of conversational deference you describe would make me view the other person as indecisive, inarticulate, even evasive, as if they have no opinions of their own, or are trying to avoid revealing them. If someone cannot push back effectively, there is little point in conversing with them. I will resort to a more deferential style only in certain limited social situations, e.g. among elderly relatives at a funeral, where I am just trying "to be polite".

It is worth noting that the external expression of opinion does not necessarily represent the internal realm. My reason for not expressing opinion is somewhat reasoned. If I sense that a person will argue in a closed manner, what purpose would it serve to express an opinion strongly? It would be a waste of energy from my perspective. I have also noticed that in competitive environments people want to feel successful and reassured, so dominating them does not seem to serve a purpose either. For that reason, in most real-life contexts I tend to focus on keeping the peace because it is a kind of social/emotional efficiency. In the same way that INTs like efficient systems internally or externally for more "objective" system, I prefer this for the fuzzy, subjective systems.

The female authority figures who accept me professionally tend to be extremely "T", but have a broad enough gender perspective to not judge the submissive communication style and to look directly at my work. It also helps that I don't get offended, and have noticed that these women do end up offending a lot of people, both men and women with their dominant, direct style. I genuinely like their communication style because I don't have to expend energy interpreting layers of meaning, which strangely enough, I have had to do far more often with many male authority figures in the arts. I have had some positive interactions with male authority figures who have tended to be INTP and sometimes an ENFJ.

I cannot say I have ever had experiences like these, and I have spent my entire academic and professional life in predominantly male settings. The world is full of gender bias, and I wonder more and more how I have managed to escape so much of it. Perhaps my initial presentation discourages these unwelcome digressions; perhaps I automatically nip them in the bud by refusing to accept them as part of the conversation. I don't know.

There could be a number of reasons including your field being in the sciences, but I'm not sure about that. Also, if you more closely match the required communication style of that context, then it might help keep you in a different position. Also, if you are focused enough in idea space, it is possible that some occurs that slips notice. It would be interesting to figure out the exact reason.

I will mention that the male authority figures that were oppressive to me also behaved negatively towards gay males and/or Feelers. It would be difficult to compare experiences, so their rejection could be equivalent. In one instance a strongly feelingful gay male had a worse time with one conductor, who he described as a "monster", and I concurred.

Why do you defer?

This comment referred to my tendency to submit in personal settings. This is an area I am trying to change because it is not reasoned or healthy. I do it because or environmental experiences in my life which have diminished my sense of self, but I now make a conscious effort to exert myself more. In settings where I sense the person cannot or will not negotiating in communication, I don't attempt to dominant with my ideas because that seems more like a waste of energy. I need to focus on more assertive communication in contexts where it will be accepted.