RE: Spotting Rogerian Females

Just a quick post today.

I have been tasked with describing how to spot rogerian women over at Wakefield Doctrine  by the creator (who happens to be a clark). Over there they are exemplified by the Harriet Nelson’s  of the 1950’s. This aspect, as it relates to rogerian women, can be summarized by two words: Home Economics. They are the “Suzie Homemakers” …. the epitome of the ideal American family life.

Unlike their predecessors , the rogerian females of the 21st century are exceedingly more independent. Which is not to say that they are not the glue that holds the family together. For the most part they still are the anchor of family life but with all of the freedoms that define women’s liberation. Not necessarily extremists, but benefactors of the results of the movement.

As with all rogers, they still maintain a herd-like quality. They are friends that get together and socialize on a regular basis. Small groups that have a common interest in a specific activity or hobby. They can be seen on the golf course or at an art exhibition. Anywhere that there is a common interest. But this does not mean that they are concerned with being understood amongst the group or elsewhere. Just because they are in a group together, do not misconstrue them as necessarily being “bff‘s.” Rogerian women are more concerned with what they are doing rather than becoming emotionally involved.

Bottom line: Mutual interests. That is what constitutes rogerian women.

For more insight and interpretations to spotting rogerian women as well as the 3 personality types (clarks, scotts and rogers) head on over to the original Wakefield Doctrine . You can also find the topic of rogerian women at  GirlieOnTheEdgethe original roger of the Doctrine , and of course the purpose for this post at Wakefield Doctrine Redux.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Personality Types, Psychology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to RE: Spotting Rogerian Females

  1. RCoyne says:

    Damned nice work up in here, Ms. AKH. But I have two minutes to add something here.
    It’s not necessarily that they don’t care, they actually do. But if they’re collectively involved in a theme- based activity, they will sulblimate/subjugate ( some “sub” kind of word ) their personal issue to the greater good. They’re actually quite competitive, behind the scenes. And once given the parameters of an activity, ( a ” box” ), the whole three- personality- type thing begins to play itself out again.
    Gotta go. Boss on horizon.

    • Good point. I’d have to agree. Think P.T.A. While all of the women on the committee are immersed in friendly conversation with the attendees they are (the rogerian females), unbeknownst to the parents consuming their confections, elbowing each other and making sure that their baked good contributions are the better than the other rogerian females. All while smiling amongst themselves. Sounds a little scottian to me, yes?

  2. Girlieontheedge says:

    clarkscottroger stole my lick! The point about necessarily being bff’s is a good one. And true. Superficiality is a component of the group thing with rogerian women – the appearance that all are “friends”. In actuality, members (of the group) may be friends with only one or two other women in the group.

    I too am totally blown away by rogers‘ “total lack of curiosity outside of their immediate interest group.”

    • I realize that they (rogerian females) don’t care about what anyone thinks of them. However, I can’t imagine that anyone, whether from a herd-like mentality or not, would not be curious about others. A very strange phenomenon that someone could be so close-minded.

  3. clarkscottroger says:

    …”Just because they are in a group together, do not misconstrue them as necessarily being “bff‘s.” Rogerian women are more concerned with what they are doing rather than becoming emotionally involved”…
    Interesting point, one that I would agree with, that this an aspect of the ‘herd mentality’ of the rogerian world that totally escapes me, i.e. that they don’t really care about being involved with their fellow herd-members. It seems that what appears to the rest of us (clarks and scotts) as being a ‘social association’ is not really that social, at least not the way that a clark might see it or a scott see it.

    Since you mention common interest associations, one of the things about rogers (both male and female) that has always fascinated me is their total lack of curiosity outside of their immediate interest group.
    Strange thing…but it can be nothing else (other than strange) because it is the world (that another is experiencing) not likes and dislikes. No wonder all those other personality systems are such failures!

    • I agree. What’s amazing to me is the subjectivity of all of those other personality type theories. And the fact that so many people who subscribe to them can’t see that. Myers-Briggs and Enneagram are among the scientific systems. But, being based on interpretation and observation, objectivity is thrown out the window. How can a personality type theory be valid when it is based on interpretation and observation? Hell, just the word interpretation should be a red flag. They are broad categorizations that, frankly, I see no value in.
      Read more about that and the validity of the Wakefield Doctrine on my home page.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s