I do not. I think we're very sensitive and aware of our emotions. I do not see that as inherently feminine though, even if many will disagree.
I personally consider "feminine" as something very different, and that is embracing a feminine sense of style, a certain girly girl mentality, care for fashion and gossip and trends, the kind of mentality that gay or transgender people seem to often adopt when trying to be more "girly". And that I do not share at all.
I find it difficult to deal with girls who are very girly, and I'd prefer the company of clueless about emotions men if I had to choose who to hang out with (non-sexually).
When I think of "feminine" features, I think of the most feminine girl I know and generally we all tend to have the same view of this = gentle, sensitive, not confrontational, subtle, soft, submissive ect... Because it's directly come from the collective unconscious, it's an archetype even if this is stereotyped.
When I think of "masculine" features, I think of the most masculine person I know (confrontational, direct, rough, dominating, insensitive, etc...
I would say that INFP have a developed "feminine" side but the most feminine ? I don't think so because there are other factors such as a taste for fashion, gossip, small talk, interesting in more esoteric things and so on.
In my opinion I'm more masculine than feminine, but my "feminine" side is definitely there.
I think this is a very loaded question. There's a million ways to determine what are gender roles in society, and that changes from society to society too.
I can testify that I've felt feminine in the past, and I associated that with "caring too much". However I now think that simply caring isn't a feminine thing at all. Both males and females can care greatly about things. Even manly men care a lot- they wouldn't spend so much time at the gym if not, nor be so ecstatic when their favorite sports team wins a tournament, or be so proud of a brand new tool they bought.
I think in general I just do not like to put a gender label on things. I have the same aversion to things that are considered "masculine".
I see analyzation of emotions as a valuable source of information, therefore I don't think it's feminine.
And sensitivity can be seen as weakness, an inability to tolerate the world's uncaring nature, but can also be seen as an ability to interpret the world in a deeper way than it initially seems, and give things meaning beyond their immediate simple appearance. If that is feminine, then any good story with underlying morals is a feminine story.
Coming from an INFP guy's perspective:
Being sensitive, kind, and gentle growing up was always frowned upon in my schools/city at least.
Made it very difficult dealing with emotions later on when that was less of an issue.
I've never been told that I've been found to be attractive because of that reason
Yes feminine traits aren't inferior to masculine traits, the problem is that society value masculine trait over feminine.
The most valuable feminine trait I know that manly men lack of is "solidarity". Women are ten times more supportive than men.
The most valuable masculine trait I think is "combativity", they are more likely to fight to make their way through life.
I find it attractive...
Theres this awful myth that women are programmed to be attracted to so called "Alpha" males.. assertive, confident, domineering, goal orientated etc and its not true. I cant stand those kind of men. At least not for me and some INFJ's I know...
I don't find these traits to be feminine. I find them to be human. But I also never grasped the concept of what makes something feminine or masculine. Personally I don't see the point. People are complex individuals.
I don't find these traits to be feminine. I find them to be human. But I also never grasped the concept of what makes something feminine or masculine. Personally I don't see the point. People are complex individuals.
The concept is power to define peoples lives.
You live like this, not like that.
Every despot arguing for traditional values always have a strict idea of what constitutes male and female.
Do you think that INFP men are generally the most 'feminine' of all the personality types and is that an attractive or unattractive quality ?
Personally I usually consider it attractive....
(My definition of 'feminine' here is sensitive and emphatic and kind and gentle)
In a certain sense, yes I can see that. I know that for myself, my more feminine traits come out in things like taking an interest in poetry, art, theater, music, literature, ect. I also can be highly emotional and sensitive at times. I can be kind, but I don't think I'm gentle. I also don't really have an interest in sports aside from baseball and boxing, and that seems to be more of a masculine thing, being interested in sports and all that.
That said, I do find it interesting how those things came to be viewed as feminine as some of the most masculine men excelled at those things. Lord Byron, Picasso, Miles Davis, ect.
By that definition I certainly do have a feminine side, although I also think that this poses a false dichotomy: having emotions isn't so much "feminine" as it is an essential part of the human condition, and a complete absence of the qualities you list here would make existence pretty much unbearable. The way I see it, sensitivity is just an awareness of ones own emotions, and empathy is an awareness of, and respect for, the emotions of others, and I think that a certain degree of kindness and gentleness will naturally emerge if you're in tune with those things.
Now it may be true that men and women in general have slightly different ways of dealing with emotions, or attach different meanings or varying degrees of importance to them. Perhaps it's true that stereotypically speaking, men tend to suppress emotions and attempt to rationalize them to a fault, while women tend to indulge in their emotions to a fault... but IMO both of those extremes are a sign of emotional immaturity.
Personally speaking, I haven't had much difficulty integrating these "feminine" qualities with the fact that I'm a man, and I never really think of it in gendered terms. Perhaps there's also a cultural element to this: some cultures seem more dismissive than others of the idea that men are emotional creatures just as much as women are.
Yes i have probably a stronger developed feminine side than most people do, but I really value it and I also hide it when I probably have too. It does help I also have a well developed masculin side. Although I like my feminine side so much more. I have no idea if i'm more feminine or masculin.
Personally I believe that there are two forces at work, often getting thrown under these labels associated with gender. I really think they are the forces of "hard" and "soft". Of rigidity, aggression, action; and gentleness, calmness, vulnerability. Rather than any attributes necessarily belonging to particular, I believe we all must balance these forces within ourselves.
So going by this perspective, INFP men may be likely to feel "soft" in comparison to their counterparts. But then, there's lots of complex social reasons why others would wish to appear this way. Perhaps the INFP is less likely to care about who they are "supposed" to be. Because if we really were to generalize about who is the softest, I would say ISFJ. But they may be more willing to hide it. The INFP on the other hand, you could argue, is asserting himself, therefore balancing his softness, in his refusal to bend.
As far as the stereotype of masculinity goes, I don't even really find that concrete enough to say one way or the other. Many assign the ESTJ to represent the pinnacle of masculinity; loud, traditional and bossy. However in my experience, I find the ISTP to be the token "man". He likes sex, football, forgot to take out the garbage last night and doesn't care that his pants are dirty. And his ESFJ wife won't stop nagging about it, after all the budgeting and organizing she just did without even a "thank you". Yes this "J-ness" to me has always been the stereotypically feminine archetype, and yet so many associate it with masculinity. Perhaps growing up as a messy perceiver of a girl, being criticized far more harshly than a boy with comparable handwriting or organization skills, I always assumed that messiness was seen more as a masculine quality. Also this day in age, with girls on average getting better grades, and more attending college. As we become less rigid in our society and better realize the impact of our individual experiences, it's becoming less and less relevant to even need to define.
Everything else aside, I actually just think INFPs are among the most androgynous of types. A good mixture of traits, minimal willingness to change them.
To give a good framing on how to understand what femininity is, its generally identified by what men are not, Simone De Beauvior being a pivotal figure in helping this idea getting traction.
But I think this summary of Derrida's deconstructionist view might help.
One of the major forces in contemporary literary criticism and theory is Jacques Derrida, whose meticulous critique on structuralism and the tradition of Western philosophy has inaugurated a wide range of influential critical activities generally known as deconstruction. This critical approach is multifaceted: it "has been variously presented as a philosophical position, a political and intellectual strategy, and a mode of reading" (Culler On Deconstruction, 85). As for literature, it has overwhelmingly shaped the course of literary studies and has diverted the development of the literary theory. The very language of literary criticism has also been largely affected by deconstructive concepts. Key terms and phrases of deconstruction such as "logocentrism," "differance," "supplement," "misinterpretation," and "reversal of hierarchies," have enriched the vocabulary of literary discussions.
According to Robert Con Davis and Roland Schleifer, deconstruction is a strategy of reading and deconstructive reading starts from "a philosophical hierarchy in which two opposed terms are presented as the 'superior' general case and the 'inferior' special case"(207). These opposed terms are too numerous to list but the most common dichotomies will definitely include good/evil, day/night, male/female, active/passive, and nature/culture. However, not all of them are "natural" oppositions; some might be considered "cultural," others "biological," and still others "thematic" (Green and Lebihan 69); namely, binary positions are not universal but culturally variable. Different cultures might assign various attributes to each term of the polarities and some dichotomies might belong to a certain culture only. For example, Yin and Yang are exclusively Eastern concepts, while Apollonian and Dionysian distinctions in literary representations originate from Greek mythology.
Derrida and his followers discover that these pairs, however "reasonable" they may appear, are not simply oppositions; they are hierarchies. In each pair, one term is viewed as being superior and also the general case while the other is regarded as inferior and therefore the specific case.
For instance, the term "man" can be used to signify "human," but "woman" can only refer to the special case of a female human being. Moreover, the superior term in each hierarchy dominates the inferior one, serving as the yardstick against which the inferior term is defined and gains its identity.
We know what "evil" is because it is not "good" in itself. When it is "dark," there is no "light." Therefore, these secondary terms are described by virtue of the absence of certain qualities that characterize the privileged terms. As feminists have pointed out, "woman" is often defined as an insufficient man lacking certain male features, especially the penis (Selden Practising Theory, 56).
Consequently, the two ends of the polarity are by no means equal terms. Rather, one is privileged and the other suppressed. The former is given great priority over the latter.
In other words, the one establishes its authority at the expense of the other. Deconstructionists take great interest in the operation of binary oppositions and proceed to question the inherent logic on which these oppositions are based. By examining the interaction of the two opposites within each hierarchy, they can trace the distribution of power between these two extremes.
Derrida claims that In a traditional philosophical opposition we have not a peaceful coexistence of a vis-à-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand. To deconstruct the opposition, first of all, is to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment. (Position 41).
To overturn the violent hierarchy, Derrida first exposes how the privileged term depends upon the suppressed one in the process of accumulating its own meaning. He detects that truth, social norms as well as standards gain their identity and authority by gestures of exclusion via differentiation. In philosophy, to define what is true, there should be a second beginning, paradoxically, prior to the first. It is an act of opposition and differentiation that expels those which are conventionally considered inferior, secondary, derived, contaminated, and added on into an outside that then allows an inside to be established (Rivkin and Ryan 340). Only when what belongs to the outside is discriminated and excluded can those superior and original terms secure their position on the inside or at the center. If it is so, then the poststructuralists will proceed to ask the following questions: Isn't what it begins by declaring secondary and additional already at work in its foundation, at its point of origin? Isn't difference more original than identity? And doesn't this mean that all the values established by that initial differentiation or setting in opposition are questionable? Is substitution really outside and below authenticity if authenticity comes into being through an act of substitution? (Rivkin and Ryan 340) Consequently, there is no such thing as "a prior truth" that is entirely self-sufficient, without needing an opposed term from the outside to define against. Since the privileged term cannot come into being without the presupposition of the presence of its antithesis in the hierarchy, and since difference should always exist prior to the establishment of identity and authority, we can conclude that the boundary that demarcates the inside from the outside is actually ready to collapse. "Perhaps what is outside is also somehow inside," as Terry Eagleton notes, "what is alien also intimate. . . .the absolute frontier between the two realms . . .may always be transgressed, has always been transgressed already, and is much less absolute than it appears" (Literary Theory 133).
Thus, by laying bare the logic of binarism and displacing the very basis of Western philosophy, Derrida succeeds in interrogating accepted values, destabilizing hierarchies, and undermining the absolute truth as well as power systems. To illustrate this rather abstract and somewhat obscure reversal of hierarchies, Nietzsche's deconstructive argument of causality is often cited as a prototype. The principle of causality is fundamental to human reasoning. We always trace back to a certain cause to account for an effect because we take it for granted that causes produce effects. Following the logic of the principle of causality, causes have priority over effects. Causes are prior and prerequisite to effects. However, Nietzsche asserts that the concept of causal structure is in fact a product of chronological reversal. When feeling a pain, man is tempted to look for a cause. If a pin meets this need, it will be associated with this pain and regarded as the cause of it. Man then reverses the perceptual order (from a pain to a pin) to produce a causal sequence (from a pin to a pain). Consequently, the cause assumes the role of the origin, logically and temporally prior, while the effect is derived, secondary, dependent upon the cause.
...
This is expected because we understand things by contrast, that we have to draw a line to differentiate things from one another and often we position things as opposites rather than simply different.
And what men are thought to be is dependent on the time and place under examination, otherwise one is appealing to some sense of universal abstractions rather than considering the historical grounding for such things. Which only appeals to those that think that we have some access to a metaphysical reality of ideas.
I'm not entirely sure what all INFP men are like, but somethings might lend themselves to a feminine association out of misunderstanding. For example, the idea of men/masculine as primarily rational and logical whilst women/feminine is emotional and wise in feelings lends people the impression that being a feeler is a feminine disposition. And even though some misunderstand the term Feeling, using its common usage rather than how it may be specifically defined in Jungian terms, it still likely retains an impression of being feminine.
And so in the sense that INFPs tend towards considering social/feeling elements to understand things makes them feminine in some degree. But on the other hand, I've seen people position a more expressive Fe as being more feminine because INFPs who are enneagram 4s particularly with 5 wing can seem more cerebral, cold and distant which isn't seen as feminine. Type 9s tend to have a more go with the flow and ditzy dreamy detached sense to them that probably makes them come off closer like a type with dominant Fe. But they're still not likely to be seen as so warm, as they are still in a sense kind of detached, distant. This can be intimidating, but at the same time many can also sense that INFPs of such types aren't really threatening and can feel quite immediately comfortable with them, that they're not judge harshly by some social standards that when treated as a universal standard might be more prominent in Fe types.
So I'm not sure how one would measure how feminine a type is, as it seems things are a matter of degrees and what characteristics one chooses to emphasize and in what way.
In saying all this though, no matter the type, MBTI isn't really able to consider gender at it's core, so it's not sensitive to any examination of how gender beliefs act on the sexes regardless of type. This comes from other theoretical perspectives and I would say that while by some standards the INFP isn't typically masculine, that I think they are still deeply effected by gender roles in that they are perceived and thus treated on people's functioning assumptions of how to treat a man. That it means that male INFPs thus have many experiences that the female one's don't on the basis of the gendered manner in which a society organizes itself and it's rules.
But at the same time, that some of the characteristics identified as feminine might lead to a tension that I imagine most men to varying degrees feel some pressure from, which is to suppress feminine aspects if they feel that they are looked down upon for such behaviour/association.
I know for myself that such treatment lead me to ask questions about gender and how certain social expectations, rituals and so on were gendered, that there was a distinct difference when I was hanging around all male group of friends or female group.
As to whether it's attractive, I suppose would have to consider beliefs about gender in a certain population. In some places, the social relations and dominant belief system about gender means that even if one intellectually thinks that feminine men have attractive qualities overall. That one has a emotional aspect that might make them inhibited from feeling such an attraction, because one has over the course of their life time internalized a lot of assumptions about what is attractive, sexy about a man from their social experiences and our minds though private are heavily embedded in our social world. That even when there are no direct social expectations placed on us and even when we don't fear direct consequences for breaking social expectations. We still behave in accordance with such social expectations because its been so thoroughly drilled into ourselves that we are inhibited from doing certain things.
So, for a feminine man to be considered attractive, I would say that one has to be of a fundamentally different ideological outlook than others, in spite of possible friction with societal expectations and norms.
But I think some of the qualities that people take as feminine simply aren't attractive, that some ideas of femininity pretty much make a passive child out of a woman and thus make a passive man. To which when there are masculine expectations they are denigrated for being feminine and even when one is egalitarian in mindset, they see a child and not a responsible adult on equal standing because they position themselves in a passive manner that requires paternalism and greater responsibility from the other. This sort of childishness isn't something attractive except to those that are willing to adopt greater responsibility for the care of the other but also greater control, which is normative to some ideas about gender roles of a man being the head of the household.
So childish qualities I would say aren't considered that attractive overall, particularly for men and only for women in relation to men who also hold the expectation of themselves to take care of them. But I don't believe their is a comparable and influential gender ideology where women are interested in having control over men by keeping them in childish position. Because its not taken as empowering for women, rather its considered a drain on them, as they feel like mothers to a child rather than the feeling of status of some men in having power over a woman in the relationship.
For myself, in many ways I am well liked by some women who are my friends on account that I don't maintain some of the views and behaviours of my male friends who are stuck in some masculine norms. But at the same time, there is good arguments as to how I'm still stuck in gendered ways that I acknowledge and need to consciously change. Because being raised as a male meant being raised with masculine expectations and while not all of them stuck, many things are internalized simply by the experience of being perceived male and treated in certain ways based on the assumptions about men.
That in some ways, I look rather masculine relative to some others and I wonder if part of that was my own fathers influence, that I don't appeal to a lot of things that more sensitive artistic types of different tastes to. Whether it be a sense of fashionable awareness (metro) or really pushing the boundaries of gender expectations (cross dressing).
So I come over pretty masculine because my body is clearly that of a male and I dress in a way that clearly shows that rather than in a more gender ambiguous fashion that doesn't emphasize my male shape. So people might be clearly attracted that I have a male look whilst not necessarily maintaining certain masculine behaviours, my fiance seems to think I do alright
And... I guess I am attracted to masculinity, since 'man' is the masculine gender and I consider myself heterosexual.
But I don't think I view qualities like you described as particularly masculine or feminine. I guess I just associate masculinity with the male gender. There are women and men who possess those qualities, as there are women and men who possess other qualities more.
I mean...I could look at historical cultural associations.
And to me they seem kind of flat...and useful for that. They are not necessarily useful to me for determining personal attraction to an individual.
I love flat things for sure--papers to draw and write on. But I don't see people that way, though certainly it can be fun to draw on them too.
So...no.
Edit: Also I came into this thread after spending like two or three hours thinking about sexism, articulating and deciding not to speak, and dabbling my feet into historical sexism and even misogyny, and was rather frustrated. So I apologize if I'm sounding dismissive and am not being very candid.
I do think it's interesting to explore what masculinity and femininity means to individuals. But maybe it is something very subjective--perhaps both my 'sense' of what masculinity and femininity are and also my experience with mbti types. So idk. Either way, some of that probably leaked through and I am perhaps overmaxed on thinking about gender and what constitutes 'masculine' and 'feminine' in the moment. Spending hours dissecting a sexist attitude, only to choose not to do or say anything about it makes me a little snippy (and I don't think OP is being sexist in exploring what masculinity and femininity mean to people, and what they associate with it--this is something that had nothing to do with this thread.)
They tend to come across the most feminine to me... But also masculine, just a man who has integrated his feminine side nicely. Like JFK Jr.
I think men like that are very attractive. I have a soft spot for men who want to be fathers and are good with children, for example. I think it's important to be in touch with one's feminine side in order to be nurturing, but I think if men can integrate that side of themselves they can sometimes be better at nurturing than women because they have that rock like physical strength and emotional stability that comes from their masculine side.
Or to flip things around women who have integrated their masculine side could sometimes be better on the job than men because they have that instinct to incorporate everyone's viewpoints and create harmony in addition to their more masculine acquired reasoning skills and exertion and such.
They tend to come across the most feminine to me... But also masculine, just a man who has integrated his feminine side nicely. Like JFK Jr.
I think men like that are very attractive. I have a soft spot for men who want to be fathers and are good with children, for example. I think it's important to be in touch with one's feminine side in order to be nurturing, but I think if men can integrate that side of themselves they can sometimes be better at nurturing than women because they have that rock like physical strength and emotional stability that comes from their masculine side.
Or to flip things around women who have integrated their masculine side could sometimes be better on the job than men because they have that instinct to incorporate everyone's viewpoints and create harmony in addition to their more masculine acquired reasoning skills and exertion and such.
It remind me of the concept of "animus" and "anima" from Carl Gustav Jung which is respectively the masculine side in women and the feminine side in men. I find his concept very interesting because he said in order to be more balanced you have to accept and integrate your anima for men and animus for women.
A forum community dedicated to all ranges of personality types and people. Come join the discussion about health, behavior, care, testing, personality types, and more!
