Tradition in Romance: Gender Roles and Personality Type

Traditional gender roles in romantic relationships – now there’s a charged issue, eh? Whether we revere or challenge them, traditions surrounding romantic partnerships have a big impact on our lives. Of course, tradition means different things to different people, since it’s so heavily influenced by region and culture. Some people are more likely to welcome new ways over established ones, and as you might suspect, personality traits have something to do with that.

But this isn’t a discussion about what the right point of view is – other than the idea that mutual fulfillment is a key aspect of successful romantic relationships. People have different ideals and requirements for happiness. However, when two people are romantically involved, their differences certainly affect the relationship. Exploring group personality statistics can help individuals better understand each other – and be happier together.

How might couples with more opposed personality types reconcile different views on traditional gender roles in a relationship? How are their conflicting beliefs tied to their personality traits? That’s worth talking about, because one thing we can all agree on is that harmony helps love flourish. Let’s start with a question from our ongoing “Romance [Everyone]” survey (take it for yourself to see additional data) and the responses that we’ve gotten so far:

Based on the above chart, when asked whether they prefer traditional gender roles in their relationships, Sentinels seem substantially more likely than other personalities to agree, though it bears noting that no group shows a particularly extreme response rate. The Intuitive and Observant traits seem to be the biggest dividing factors here, with Intuitive personality types (Analysts, Diplomats) less likely to agree (about 45% overall) than Observant personality types (Sentinels, Explorers at 62% overall).

The differences between Sentinels and Explorers may reflect the somewhat flexible mindset of most Explorers. Whatever their beliefs, they’re not as likely to insist on a rigid way of life, compared to structure-loving Sentinels.

Sentinels tend to focus on what is over what could be – their daily lives, responsibilities, and the sense of community that helps make their world strong. Historical patterns like roles associated with gender are often a part of the societal structure that appeals to their grounded, practical mindset. For Sentinels, that which is familiar and proven tends to appeal more than experimentation, and that attitude influences every aspect of their lives, including their romantic partnerships. For these personalities, a sense of stability and harmony often outweighs any concern about being limited. They don’t necessarily see adherence to established practices as binding them, but rather as supporting and protecting them.

Intuitive Analysts and Diplomats, on the other hand, love to imagine and experiment with new possibilities. The success of this approach is almost incidental to its appeal – these personalities are willing to digest many complications in the pursuit of a hope or ideal. Consequently, they may welcome nontraditional practices, often valuing potential gains over familiarity or reliability. When it comes to gender roles in romantic relationships, they may find that a sense of freedom suits them better than tradition can.

So what happens when two personalities with different views on traditional gender roles are romantically involved? Let’s consider a couple of the personalities with the most extreme differences in agreement: Architects (INTJs, about 41% agreeing) and Logisticians (ISTJs, about 70% agreeing). This pairing highlights the Intuitive/Observant divide, because these two personality types share all other traits in common.

Architects might point out that while tradition may exist to serve certain societal concerns, the more nuanced requirements of two people in a relationship are more important and are perhaps different than those of wider society. Furthermore, they may point out that some of the historical issues, pressures, and needs that led to traditional gender roles may have evaporated long ago, and such traditions are lagging behind modern reality.

Those ideas are just examples of what might drive Architects’ mindset of optimization – they favor a structured approach, but they often prioritize improvement above maintaining stability. So in a romantic relationship, many people with this personality type (let’s remember that by no means do any of the personality types mentioned here agree unanimously) might see nontraditional gender roles as an excellent opportunity for couples to maximize the benefits of their relationship.

Logisticians may retort that all that is well and good, but unless and until a new mode is proven to be superior to a traditional one, it’s just an idea and not as beneficial as tested practices. They may point out that while much of the world has changed, many of the key needs, pressures, and core elements that govern the success of romantic relationships have not. Given that, these personalities may think that traditional roles can provide couples with a measure of comfort and assurance that newer ideas cannot.

The reasons why individual Logisticians might favor traditional gender roles may vary from the above examples (please speak up in the comments, dear Logisticians), but in general, the tradition-oriented mindset of these personalities reflects the high value that they place on functional continuity. They appreciate improvement but not necessarily at the cost of stability. In a romantic relationship, they may be less concerned about reaching for an ideal than about maintaining harmony. For them, fulfilling a traditional role may also have a certain romance unto itself, appealing more than what they may see as somewhat ephemeral ideals.

So would Architect-Logistician couples be unable to reconcile such conflicting attitudes? Hardly. In fact, this is likely to be a compatible mix of personalities, because they often have very similar trait-based preferences, even if their specific views differ on some subjects.

Both Architects and Logisticians cherish structure, efficiency, and certainty. They love organized systems that produce the results that they seek. In romance, we can safely assume that they both desire happiness, validation, and a sense of worth, both in themselves and from their partner. Both personalities crave harmony, even if they see slightly different paths to it – Logisticians tend to want to respect a system, while Architects usually want to create a system. Likewise, both partners will recognize that there is no harmony if one of them is unhappy with their role in the relationship.

In order to make the case for altering or dispensing with a tradition, Architects may need to offer their partner evidence of why that will bring greater harmony to the relationship. But that’s a bread-and-butter task for Architects, who love to craft detailed rationales to justify their preferences, ideas, and actions. Chances are they’ll have compelling thoughts on the benefits of unconventional gender roles and, perhaps more importantly to their partner, a solid explanation of why their preferences are important to their happiness.

Logisticians might be more open than usual to bucking traditions when the one calling for it is someone they love, rather than external cultural forces. They ultimately value harmony (and the stability that it brings) as highly as anything. If they cling to tradition, it may be due to uncertainty as much as preference. They may think, “If not this, then what?” If Architects demonstrate the value of a new structure or practice, then experiencing those benefits might prompt Logisticians to release an old tradition. They may be slow to change their mind about some things, but they are guided by logic.

But is it fair that Architects (or any other personality who finds themselves on the progressive side of this subject) should persuade their more tradition-minded partners to accept change? Logic says that any point of compromise between a specific tradition and another practice is, by definition, a break with the tradition. For most couples, a respectful and fair compromise on tradition may just be a matter of degrees and something that they can embrace gently together. But it’s certainly not the only way for a couple to reconcile such differences and be happy.

For example, Architects could extend their search for optimization to include evaluating Logisticians’ preferences through direct experience. In other words, try the tradition. That might require setting aside their preconceived notions, cultural ideas that they’ve assimilated, and even their past experiences with other partners in order to see things solely in the context of their current relationship. Everything else aside, does it work for them?

Conclusion: Traditions for the Making

Traditions evolve, and that’s a fact. In a romantic relationship, recognizing the difference between external and internal influences can be freeing. If one believes that love, respect, and validation are critical components of successful romance, then the health of the relationship is more about the needs of the people in it than anything outside of it. A couple may choose to prioritize whatever brings them the most happiness, regardless of whether that means embracing or going against traditional gender roles.

One of the most amazing things about a balanced romantic relationship is that a couple gets to write their own rules for mutual fulfillment and work together toward shared happiness in whatever way they want. For our example Architect and Logistician couple (thanks for standing up to be counted and letting us talk about you two!), that might mean exploring the joy of creating their own traditions.

Conclusion: Traditions for the Making

Further Reading