I don't know if it's just me but I've noticed when we speak of gender roles, masculinity and femininity, it seems as if the default setting is that a choleric is the "perfect" man and a phlegmatic is the "perfect" woman. As long as the man can take charge and be aggressive and the woman can disappear sweetly into the backdrop, there's a perfect couple! So masculine and so feminine!

But is that the Catholic reality? I don't know if there's much literature on it but I would be interested to know where this perception of choleric being equivalent to man and phlegmatic being equivalent to woman came from. How would you explain the difference between personality traits and gender traits? Or maybe how a man and a woman with the same personality would express it differently as male and female? A choleric strength is a choleric strength yet it's taken positively from a man and negatively from a woman. Same for phlegmatic men. Something about that seems unfair and unrealistic but I don't know what I am missing for it to make sense.

I don't know if it's just me but I've noticed when we speak of gender roles, masculinity and femininity, it seems as if the default setting is that a choleric is the "perfect" man and a phlegmatic is the "perfect" woman. As long as the man can take charge and be aggressive and the woman can disappear sweetly into the backdrop, there's a perfect couple! So masculine and so feminine!

But is that the Catholic reality?

Well, it's not my Catholic reality. I have difficulty getting my head around these personality types, and difficulty remembering the names of the types and what they mean - no matter how many times I am told what they are and mean.

So... I just now did two different tests and both showed me to be choleric.

No wonder I can't get my head around it. I'm phlegmatic and not in the least choleric, according to your definitions, Soldier.

I definitely find phlegmatic to be a masculine trait and choleric to be a feminine trait.  People don't look to leaders who have no control over their temperaments.  "Speak softly and carry a big stick".  Meanwhile, the choleric like to speak loudly and carry a twig.  There's nothing manly about a lack of control over your emotions.  Think about it, even society is much more forgiving to women who lose their tempers than they are to men, all the while, perpetuating this myth that men are allowed to get angry, but women are forced to hold their tongues.  Simply not true.  The toughest man that I've ever known, I have never seen angry.  That's not to say that it doesn't happen; just not often.

For reference, I used the following definitions of phlegmatic and choleric.

phlegmatic: (of a person) having an unemotional and stolidly calm disposition.
synonyms:   calm, cool, composed, 'calm, cool, and collected', controlled, serene, tranquil, placid, impassive, imperturbable, unruffled, dispassionate, philosophical;

choleric: bad-tempered or irritable.
synonyms:   bad-tempered, irascible, irritable, angry, grumpy, grouchy, crotchety, testy, cranky, crusty, cantankerous, curmudgeonly, ill-tempered, peevish, cross, fractious, crabbed, crabby, waspish, prickly, peppery, touchy, short-tempered;

But this quotes all the strengths of a phlegmatic and none of the weaknesses and all the weaknesses of a choleric and none of the strengths.

I will try it find a quick and easy breakdown of the temperaments later today unless someone else gets there first.

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist

I definitely find phlegmatic to be a masculine trait and choleric to be a feminine trait.  People don't look to leaders who have no control over their temperaments.  "Speak softly and carry a big stick".  Meanwhile, the choleric like to speak loudly and carry a twig.  There's nothing manly about a lack of control over your emotions.  Think about it, even society is much more forgiving to women who lose their tempers than they are to men, all the while, perpetuating this myth that men are allowed to get angry, but women are forced to hold their tongues.  Simply not true.  The toughest man that I've ever known, I have never seen angry.  That's not to say that it doesn't happen; just not often.

For reference, I used the following definitions of phlegmatic and choleric.

phlegmatic: (of a person) having an unemotional and stolidly calm disposition.
synonyms:   calm, cool, composed, 'calm, cool, and collected', controlled, serene, tranquil, placid, impassive, imperturbable, unruffled, dispassionate, philosophical;

choleric: bad-tempered or irritable.
synonyms:   bad-tempered, irascible, irritable, angry, grumpy, grouchy, crotchety, testy, cranky, crusty, cantankerous, curmudgeonly, ill-tempered, peevish, cross, fractious, crabbed, crabby, waspish, prickly, peppery, touchy, short-tempered;

But this quotes all the strengths of a phlegmatic and none of the weaknesses and all the weaknesses of a choleric and none of the strengths.

I will try it find a quick and easy breakdown of the temperaments later today unless someone else gets there first.

The definitions are one-sided, but perhaps they help point out a problem with your premise: in the OP you seem to be nearly equating choleric with active and dominant, and phlegmatic with passive and submissive. That is how I read it, anyway. If choleric can mean prickly and phlegmatic imperturbable, there may be an issue with your premise stemming from false definition. But what we could use are traditional definitions.

Quote from: wallflower

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist

I definitely find phlegmatic to be a masculine trait and choleric to be a feminine trait.  People don't look to leaders who have no control over their temperaments.  "Speak softly and carry a big stick".  Meanwhile, the choleric like to speak loudly and carry a twig.  There's nothing manly about a lack of control over your emotions.  Think about it, even society is much more forgiving to women who lose their tempers than they are to men, all the while, perpetuating this myth that men are allowed to get angry, but women are forced to hold their tongues.  Simply not true.  The toughest man that I've ever known, I have never seen angry.  That's not to say that it doesn't happen; just not often.

For reference, I used the following definitions of phlegmatic and choleric.

phlegmatic: (of a person) having an unemotional and stolidly calm disposition.
synonyms:   calm, cool, composed, 'calm, cool, and collected', controlled, serene, tranquil, placid, impassive, imperturbable, unruffled, dispassionate, philosophical;

choleric: bad-tempered or irritable.
synonyms:   bad-tempered, irascible, irritable, angry, grumpy, grouchy, crotchety, testy, cranky, crusty, cantankerous, curmudgeonly, ill-tempered, peevish, cross, fractious, crabbed, crabby, waspish, prickly, peppery, touchy, short-tempered;

But this quotes all the strengths of a phlegmatic and none of the weaknesses and all the weaknesses of a choleric and none of the strengths.

I will try it find a quick and easy breakdown of the temperaments later today unless someone else gets there first.

The definitions are one-sided, but perhaps they help point out a problem with your premise: in the OP you seem to be nearly equating choleric with active and dominant, and phlegmatic with passive and submissive. That is how I read it, anyway. If choleric can mean prickly and phlegmatic imperturbable, there may be an issue with your premise stemming from false definition. But what we could use are traditional definitions.

Yes I probably should have put up definitions in the OP. Cholerics being active and dominant and phlegmatics being passive and submissive are part of their traditional definitions. But there are two sides to each temperament. Their strengths and their weaknesses. Part and parcel of a choleric being dominant is that they can also be peevish and bad-tempered, bossy, intent on getting their way. Part and parcel of a phlegmatic being passive and submissive is that they can also be tepid, slothful, timid.

My observation is that many people confuse temperamental qualities, both strengths and weaknesses, as being feminine or masculine, when in reality they are qualities of that temperament and found in both men and women.

Cholerics are natural born leaders and phlegmatics are natural born followers which somewhat explains why it has become the stereotype for choleric strengths to equal masculine and phlegmatic strengths to equal feminine but my objection is that that leaves three other types of men out in the cold and three other types of women out in the cold. It makes more sense to me that each temperament is meant to work as male or female within the capacity of its own strengths and weaknesses.

For example, the easiest one is that many fundamentalist Protestants as well as Catholics who are influenced by this thinking would loathe to say that a choleric woman is a good thing. A woman with natural born leader qualities? A woman with drive and will? A woman who could efficiently run an organization? Horror of horrors! Same with a phlegmatic man, a man who is submissive, a follower, content to be an introvert. But my contention is that a woman being choleric or a man being phlegmatic are neutral depending on how they use their strengths and weaknesses,  and even good and necessary in the overall picture that all types are needed in both sexes.

There are many areas within the traditional understanding of gender roles that require a woman to have or try to acquire choleric leadership strengths. Managing domestic duties, raising children, establishing or running charitable organizations within the community, rallying other women to participate, teaching other women by word and example, establishing and running girl schools and convents, all of these very feminine roles require choleric women. So it is mistaken to say that choleric traits of dominance, drive, leadership, efficiency, discipline, extroversion, etc.... are not feminine. I think that's where people confuse temperament vs sex.

On the flip side men who are quiet, submissive followers are seen as unmanly when in reality those are the traits of his temperament and not indicative of masculinity or femininity. Both sexes need phlegmatics and there are many areas in the traditional male roles that require phlegmatic strengths. They have to be able to submit themselves to God and to other men in spiritual, religious, political, or professional/job-related matters. They should be able to listen and empathize with their wives and children. So again it is mistaken to say that the phlegmatic traits of peace, submission and gentility are unmanly. They reflect a temperament rather than sex.

I found a site explaining temperaments that I think I like. I have to read a llittle more before posting the link.

Crossbro I don't understand your post.

I don't think I quite understand the thread, but something I noticed recently was a song called, "stupid girl" by a rock band called iirc "pink."  Her point seemed to be that girls have only two choices in life:  be a girl who's wrapped up in getting men to like her, presumably in order to get them to take care of her/just buy her things or be a girl who will learn to get those things for herself.  The video seems to present what I think is a false choice, but probably the one our culture offers girls, to either be a paris hilton type or a hillary clinton type.  In other words, career girl or man-eater/gold digger/whatever.  

 :dancing-banana:
Each temperament has its positives and negatives, gender aside.  Both male and female manifest them differently.  Both genders should work to build on the positives and eliminate the negatives.
Example:  Choleric Positive=Enthusiastic, self-directed, energetic, goal oriented
Choleric Negative=Impulsive, loses temper, makes rash judgements, perfectionist

Male-  (+) A natural leader in family, Church, employment, accomplished, a good provider, creates atmosphere of teamwork, enthusiasm is catching.
(-)  Acts like a dictator at home, Church, on the job, alienates others, misses important facts due to impatience, self-centered, "My way or the highway!"

Female- (+)Plans and runs home efficiently with little need of assistance, effective homeschooler, supplements family income from home, leads other women by her good example,  meets children's needs, enthusiasm is catching.
(-)  Tries to wear the pants, usurps, demeans husband, has "hissy fits" when her plans don't work out,  drives husband and children away by nagging, yelling, alienates others with unreasonable demands, overbearing, inclined to harsh remarks, cuts others up with her tongue.

Temperaments in themselves are morally neutral.  It is what we do with them that counts.  Let us imagine I have unusually large feet.  (I don't!)  It is neither good nor bad to have large feet.  I can use them for good in walking to to visit a sick friend.  Or I can use them for evil by kicking a hole in the wall of my friend's bedroom.  The choice is ours to make for good.