About "femme",Not sure, really.
Maybe how we go about defining femme, whether being a thinking type can further isolate us, any labeling differences/preferences between thinking types and feeling types?
Thank you for the response!About "femme",
It begins in youth, when a person acquires these concepts from their parents or a secondary group. You become "enculturated" - to borrow a term from anthropology. Then, as you get older, sooner or later you start to reject some parts of your indoctrination and formulate your own opinions, deciding that the term itself needs to be redefined. In doing so you might believe that if others did the same then social expectations would change and thus future generations become enculturated differently. This is how social movements gain traction over time. A historic example of this occurring might be the civil rights movement. The LGBTQ community is another example of a steadily growing contemporary social movement/group with the goal of restructuring social institutions in order to alter the thinking of future generations.
I can relate to your experience. Throughout my life, people have described me as gentle, nice, caring, shy, aloof, cold, uncaring, critical, selfish, arrogant. The constant has always been quiet. I'm reserved and non-expressive for the most part. I feel it's been a bit more difficult for me because I'm a woman, and women are supposed to be open and nurturing. I'm not even attached to the idea of marriage or parenthood, something which has sparked heated arguments throughout the years. I think an inability to express one's inner world is hard on anyone, but at the end of the day, society is better at tolerating this behavior when it comes from men. In fact, there's an expectation for men to be "thinkers" rather than "feelers," which has its own set of problems.About being labeled (thinker, preferences, etc),
Intuitively it would seem to be the case that these labels have some harmful aspects to them, and can obfuscate a person's self-image. This ties into the way we conceptualize gender differences due to social/cultural definitions. If society in general attributes, say for instance, something like being tough-minded and critical, as something masculine, then it follows that one should expect the average man to score higher in the thinker category than women. And, as it turns out, that is precisely the case in reality. According to various sources, the distribution of men to women in the "thinker" dichotomy is skewed heavily in favor of men.
As to whether this isolates us further, in my experience it most certainly does. The result of having a strong preference for thinking in my life, as I grew up, was that it made it much harder for me to express myself correctly. As an example, it has taken me 32 years to really come to terms with myself as simply not fitting into traditional gender stereotypes enough to call myself one or the other. I had to spend most of my life analyzing my deepest motivations, which compelled me to study the humanities extensively, in order to possess a framework within which to define myself objectively, to myself. Because growing up I did not have immediate access to large bodies of empirical research that I could use to classify myself, nor was I raised by particularly caring parents, I lacked any way to rationalize what I was. This made interacting with people very difficult, because I could not really justify how I felt, or what was happening inside me - and naturally, as a thinker, if I couldn't make a good argument for something, I tended to remain silent.
I believe a feeling preference might have helped me accept my identity in a healthier way. At the very least, I would've been open to sharing my thoughts, feelings, and experiences with other people. I would've made connections rather than disconnect myself from both the mainstream experience and the LGBT experience. But at the same time, I think looking at myself with a certain level of detachment has been protective in the long-run.If I were a feeler, I imagine it might've gone a different way. Unrestrained by the internal need for logical consistency, I could've just listened to my "heart" and followed my feelings wherever they were leading me at the time. Through trial-and-error, I imagine I probably would have just found my niche a lot sooner, because I wouldn't have spent so much time second-guessing my feelings and either analyzing them or ignoring them when they made no sense to me. And as much as I want to say that learning about personality theories like MBTI helped me to flesh out my self-image, the truth is that it didn't. It only served to confuse me even more, especially when I saw the statistics showing distributions of males to females in each dimension. In fact, it sent me almost back to square one, as suddenly I had to reconcile everything I believed to be true about myself in light of this new information.
I couldn't agree more.The result of that process has made me a lot wiser when it comes to the pros and cons of typology, and so, whenever I become involved in discussions about psychometrics, or the analysis of a person's personality, I make sure to explain to whoever I am speaking with that it is necessary to take into account the way society and culture defines the concepts before we apply them to ourselves, in order to distinguish who a person really is.
I myself thought of you as a woman over here (smile).Although I don't outwardly dress feminine in meatspace, when I'm online (especially when I'm logged into something like Second Life), I usually portray female characters because I find it feels more natural (although sometimes I will use really femmy male avatars), and I enjoy being treated like a female more than a male (I am biologically male). I do always keep a picture of my real self in my profile (whenever possible) as well as notes in my biography letting people know that I am "male/genderfluid" to avoid confusion about the issue (it can sometimes be really awkward when I turn my microphone on).
I consistently score INTJ, but I consider myself extremely empathic. I'm very sensitive to the emotions of people around me all the time, and I need to be able to feel comfortable, otherwise I get drained easily and move on. People who act macho, or sleazy, or narcissistic, or toxic or whatever, really annoy me, so I either ignore them or avoid them. Being empathic, I can sympathize with people very well, but I still score strongly as a thinker because of the way I process my feelings through logic. Which is to say, I acknowledge my feelings, and then at that point I know I've got to make a choice about them (I can't just ignore my feelings). But I strive to be reasonable and fair above all else, and if it means I might have to hurt someone's feelings by being honest, then I choose to be honest. That being said, I also try to have tact - I don't want to seem like a rude jerk - but with some people... you know, no amount of tact makes a difference. Even if you're nice about it they take offense because they're so sensitive to it. But with those sorts of people - although I'm honest - I tend to feel bad about it anyway because I can't turn off my empathy. I just kind of feel sorry for them.
I guess I just try very hard to be gentle, but that's because I analyze things a lot and I think it is logical to be. It could simply be a matter of maturity (which I'm inclined to believe is in fact what it is), but whenever I see "thinkers" who have no tact at all and put people down or act very aggressive toward some perceived unethical thing, because they think it's some kind of morally appropriate thing to do (to be hard on people), I don't identify with that and I see it as a sign of immaturity in most cases. This is because I have literally studied moral philosophy, as well as critical thinking, and if I sit down with someone and I engage them in a dialogue about their reasons for being so harsh, it usually ends up being that they haven't given it the proper thought. Sometimes I can get them to see how you can get objectively better results with people most of the time if you build rapport with them instead of just verbally punching them in the face - but not always.
As a side note, however, I do notice that it tends to be mostly male thinkers, who identify as male, who tend to be more on the aggressive side of the spectrum when it comes to being critical. Most of the female thinkers I've met tend to be a lot more mellow or detached about it, much like myself. I assume perhaps that's a testosterone driven thing, but who knows.
Anyway, I hope that all helps answer some of your questions.
Okay...I do not identify as femme; I'd say I am a "masculine of center" androgynous queer person. I guess I just prefer "person" to any gendered terms. I would prefer to be known for my ideas and my mind than my biological functions.
But, I'm INTJ, enneagram 5, queer....so more or less within your parameters?
Things tend to be easier with males, especially gay men, where it's easier for me to fall into a "girly" role and attract my partner. But I'm actually pansexual. What arouses me is primarily the emotional aspects of a relationship - the idea of being "femmy" around my partner, and them being really turned on by it. Their gender isn't really a factor to me, although I do have standards when it comes to physical appearance - they aren't specific to any single gender. If you look cute/hot to me, and you're attracted to me, and you have a fun sense of humor, that's pretty much all it takes to pique my interest.I myself thought of you as a woman over here (smile).
Not as typical woman,but as a "unicorn like" INTJ woman.And that observation on female thinkers I think is also very much true;and as you observed you yourself gives off such vibes....
Are you attracted to males?I am not sure whether you mentioned it in the passage.Maybe I missed it out...
I suppose being female in a male dominated type preference is likely to produce females that don't fit in as easily to the predetermined female mold. Ask around in the INTJ forum, I'm not sure they would all identify as being on the queer spectrum by any means but they will identify with being odd in regards to female social expectations. "Femme" probably isn't as common among T females. On the other hand, I have met a lot of NT males who came off as much softer than traditional ST males, so I'm thinking NTs fall somewhere outside of social gender expectations as a whole.Okay...
So we stand close together.I know personality type doesn't have much to do with sexual orientation.
But do we INTJ's contribute more androgynous people on the ***** side?
Maybe a survey will help.
What do you think?