Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Personality Traits vs Gender Roles  (Read 3384 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline soulguard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1698
  • Reputation: +4/-10
  • Gender: Male
Personality Traits vs Gender Roles
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2014, 12:10:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: wallflower

    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.



    Your explanation is:

    In order for male and female to form a relationship, there must be one submissive and one dominant. There must be one who is initiative and one who is amenable to that initiative. The truth is that the submissive cannot remain submissive forever, for they also have needs and desires which conflict with the dominant (at times) and which are the subject of negotiation with the dominant. The dominant cannot be dominant forever without escaping the limitations of his own weaknesses and overcoming his needs of the other. Dominance carried to extreme pretends to independence of the submissive, for his needs are perceived in an exclusive manner. Submissiveness carried to extremes brings with it sadness and un-fulfillment. The result observed in happy couples is a sharing of dominance and submissiveness, and the establishment of traditions and routines in which one is submissive who is mainly dominant and the other who is submissive is dominant for that time. Ideas are established like a territory which the other must be submissive when entering. Women are dominant in the territory of children. Men are dominant in the territory of dealing with those outside the family. Nature has the perfect system already, but where there is sadness, the remedy is to modify the relationship.

    PS:

    I have a great interest in psychology so pm me with your question if you want my opinion again