the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

stalking the rogerian female…not for the faint of heart!

with 8 comments

Hello Readers

it’s called ‘the Wakefield Doctrine (redux)’ for a reason, yo. The Post you will find here is written for the more advanced student of the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ). If you are new to the Doctrine, then you might want to head on over to the ‘main’ blog of the Doctrine and get yourself right with the basics.  Unless you are a clark, in which case you will be able to fast-forward through the principles of the Doctrine and keep up with us.

Today’s Topic is, rogerian females,  the most difficult of all the three personality types to identify, at least to identify quickly. When compared to the other two:

  1. scotts, as far as degree of difficulty in identifying (both male and female)? Are you kidding me? they just about wear a frickin sign complete with a scanner-ready barcode. Really, if you are anything less than so new that you don’t know that there are three personality types called clarks, scotts and rogers, and you have trouble spotting  a scott from a photo, then you need to go back down the hall and look for the classroom with the sign that says: “TONIGHT MEYERS-BRIGGS FOR DUMMIES (…oh wait! THAT WOULD BE KIND OF REDUNDANT)”.  scotts you identify because they have a ‘look’ in their eyes that says, ‘predator’. That simple.
  2. clarks:  now with clarks the degree of difficulty is a little higher and the male (clark) is actually more difficult to spot than the clarklike female. The clarklike female is almost as easy to identify as is the scott, with the key to spotting them expressed in word one: their face and head and their feet** You will spot the clarklike female because you are not supposed to miss them.***  There is a saying around the Doctrine, “the clarklike female: her face (and head) say come hither, but their footwear says, ‘feets be true to me now!!”  The clarklike male will be easiest to spot by looking to the areas in your vicinity where there does not seem to be anyone doing anything,…(sort of like that old 1 panel puzzle, ‘find the Indian in this picture’   where there is a figure drawn into the background and only when you filter out the noise will you see the Indian). Its the same with identifying  clarks, once you spot them (in a situation) you will wonder,  how the hell you did not notice them before.
  3. rogers (of the male persuasion).  These guys are next in difficulty level, even though they are everywhere you look: riding bicycles, wearing hats, re-creating horrifying periods in human history, building airplanes and smoking pipes. A note here: male rogers of a certain age are  easy  to confuse with scotts, the younger, more aggressive rogers are capable of being pushy enough to appear scottian, but listen to them speak. rogers will use the personal pronoun more than any, more than that, they will be self-referential…hey, you’ll know it when you hear it

Which brings us to the rogerian female.  To find this one you must know your Doctrine cold, you need to have a comprehensive knowledge of the characteristics of the world that rogers inhabit. We all know that the Wakefield Doctrine is gender and culture neutral, and this is true…for the basic premise. But the fact remains that there are genders and there are cultures, so we must take our understanding of the world that the clark or the scott or the roger lives in and apply it through a filter of gender and culture biases and norms.

In Western culture, at least up until the last 50 years, certain professions were not available to the female women; engineering, accounting, lawyering, doctoring and such. In fact, seeing that in print, rogerian females were pretty much limited to domestic engineering.  (ALERT….CLUE TO IDENTIFICATION ) If our goal is to find male rogers, we merely need  to go to the jobs and professions that they are naturally suited to; since we are looking for rogerian  females we need look only to the places they are to be found….the home. And they are there! Homemakers! All cultures eventually evolve past the stage where the females are found only in the home, but for our purposes let us consider the home as the place we can identify the rogerian female. To aid in this process, let us first look at the clarklike (female) homemaker and the scottian (female) homemaker:

  • clarklike homemaker: can be identified in one word: home schooling,  and painting the faces of the neighborhood children who come to play at their friends (who have such a neat mom) and lots and lots of food with a heavy emphasis on the homemade breads and amino-acid enhanced fruit drinks
  • scottian homemaker: supermom, the one who organises the really cool field trips, the one with the hamburger patties than are just like BurgerKing (cept your parents make you eat burger made with fresh beef), the scottian mom also has this really cool whistle that she uses to call her kids in (it can be heard throughout the neighborhood) and the scottian mom doesn’t mind yelling at you like you were one of her kids, but you don’t mind ’cause at a certain age you realise she is kinda hot
  • rogerian homemaker: picture perfect!  really, we mean ‘picture perfect’ as in: the meals and the living room and the decor and the yard furniture and the frickin itinerary of the family vacation is exactly like what is  described in the magazines! And this is our clue, as all rogers live in the world of the herd, the rogerian female will create and align and conform to a larger herd (the one provided by the culture through the media i.e. Good House Keeping, Red Book, Better Homes and Garden).
    These magazines and television depictions of the Proper Lifestyle are the female equivalent of the laws of physics that rogerian engineers live by and the principles of math that rogerian accountants conform to and the Common Law that rogerian judges and lawyers put their faith in. If you are old enough, think: Harriet Nelson as the rogerian mom and Donna Reed as the scottian mom and June Cleaver as the clarklike mom.

Of course, here in the 21st Century, we are not as limited by the culture as to which profession men  excel in and which are where women are  to be found. But since the Wakefield Doctrine in nothing if it is not a description of the world that an individual lives in, we need to know what avenues of self-expression are available to them!

If you are still puzzled, go check the blog of the a scottian female and a clarklike female…or if you are really a roger…the Progenitor roger‘s blog.


8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Succinct post.
    I would like to make reference to rogerian women and their “groups”. Might only be one, but rogerian women will belong to at least one group/club. This is not to say these groups are populated only with rogerian women. scottian females join groups at high rates themselves (food/energy source)
    rogerian women are the ones complaining about the newest member(s)-(“Bitch! Who put her in charge?!” “who does she think she is!”, etc.
    Someone speak about competition among rogerian women. There can only be conflict of interest to a certain point…


    May 14, 2011 at 11:10 am

  2. hey people!, she right ya know!

    (the above re-ply courtesy Girlie On the Edge)

    …someone ask her, the edge of what?


    May 14, 2011 at 12:22 pm

  3. Hi, I found your site from reddit. It’s not an article I would typically read, but I loved your perspective on it. Thank you for making a piece worth reading!

    Maryland Vorce

    May 16, 2011 at 1:57 am

  4. Well, M. we get a lot of visitors via reddit, it being the deeply thoughtful and refective resource of the best of the internet…lol just kidding
    You caught us here (at the Doctrine) in a fairly introspective phase but we have fun too, sometimes!
    Stop in again.


    May 16, 2011 at 6:04 am

  5. Pretty awesome but somewhat intimidating that I could understand myself so simply. The bigger fear now is that I will either identify myself incorrectly and lead myself down the wrong path OR not figure it out quickly enough and get bored with it.

    I was also born with slight cerebral palsy on my left side and thus am incredibly sensitive to attention – positive or negative (real or perceived).


    May 23, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    • Hey there Mike. There really is no wrong path. Regardless of which of the three you think you are, eventually you will come to a conclusion as to which you are.I “mis-diagnosed” myself initially but it didn’t stop me from being who I really am. The beauty of the Doctrine is that there are no categories or boxes to fit in. Given your knowledge that we all have some of each will lead you to discover whether you are a clark, a scott or a roger (predominantly).
      Seeing as I am responding to your comment from over a month ago, I have to ask: have you, in fact, determined which of the three you are?

      Jennifer Wilson

      July 6, 2011 at 7:50 am

  6. Since we have the (most) vested interest in your figuring this thing out quickly enough to grow the itnerest that the Doctrine offers, allow us two suggestions:
    the type we are is the one that is the predominant, the (other) two are still there. The people who read this blog and ‘get it’ and even more so those who take the large step to write a Comment, have a larger ‘balance of the three types’ than the typical clark or scott or roger, all of us here, at this stage of the Wakefield Doctrine are kinda unusual, in as much as we have a high degree of flexible intelligence.
    So welcome to the Doctrine, yo.
    As to which you are, it is often best to eliminate one of the three off the bat and then look for the stronger of the remaining 2.

    (btw thanks for writing in, it is the question you pose, in the form that you pose it that we are struggling with of late, so it is helpful to us to hear from people from the world.)

    As Ms AKH mentioned, stepping up and writing (her) first Comment was difficult, but now looking back she is glad that she did (as are the rest of us).

    One last thing, since you can’t quite get the answer too wrong, it may be reassuring to know that your true form will express itself, whether you pick the correct one on the first try or not.

    Keep reading and asking questions, someone around here will probably say, (after enough Comments) “Hey dude, clearly you are a (fill in the blank)
    Your timing is excellent as I was planning on a new Post over at the Wakefield Doctrine (.com) on the very subject you have raised.


    May 23, 2011 at 9:12 pm

  7. Clearly fear is not a factor for you Mike. The fact that you use forms of the word(s) “intimidate” and “simple” in the same sentence is quite impressive:) I look forward to reading more comments from you here and at the “original” the Wakefield Doctrine blog. As much as I/we enjoy reading posts here and at the Doctrine, it is often through the “conversation” of comments that learning takes place.
    Hope to “hear” from you again.


    May 24, 2011 at 8:47 am

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: