i agree with this but how in the world could someone just… not know anyone of the opposite gender? at least not enough to ask a pretty simple question in person?
then i’m maybe more… well-rounded? than most. because that wouldn’t be a problem for me. nor would it be for the people in my social group… it’s just a strange concept that someone could have in their retinue of people they know from polite acquaintances to close friends and family not a SINGLE person of the opposite gender. like, it would almost seem you would have to purposefully cultivate that kind of environment, which is a little concerning for the person who has done so… like what have you been through that would make you want to take steps to AVOID the opposite gender? or, as bad, is there some narrow worldview that you so pathologically adhere to that you surrounded yourself in totality with like-minded people that can echo your thoughts? or maybe i’m reading too much into this.
I’m inclined to agree- with an asterisk that certain cultures tend to be much more restrictive in relationships between the genders- but usually at the least there might be family like a father or brother who is male…. If there are no brothers and the father isn’t in the home then maybe…? Certain religious groups are pretty restrictive about this- some fundamentalist or radicalist Christians for example tend to segregate the male and female groups both in worship as well as in social circles, but most only restrict those of different genders from being some together- in group settings it’s usually allowed. It does seem hard to imagine a scenario where a person knows NO ONE of another gender…
… though I COULD see scenarios such as where one perhaps went to an all girls high school and college then moved to a new city or something like that…? Maybe joined a convent… militant feminist lesbians..? More likely I think it’s a case where “know” is the key. As it may be meant closer to: “know (well enough).”
So like- surely she has encountered men and may work with men or have male family or even a contact or two in the phone who are male-
But she doesn’t “know them” or “know a large enough sample of men to judge if those men are a good representation of most men..” and it’s easier and sounds more interesting to say she doesn’t know any men…
I find the scenario of knowing no men well enough the one which best matches what is written (as she could mean know in the sense to KNOW as opposed as to be aware of), and those scenarios are much easier and more plausible to ponder. It can be as simple as she does not nor has ever particularly cared to spend time with men for the sake of it, or doesn’t not pay attention. I had a partner like this whom was very career oriented. She couldn’t pick a present out for me to save her life. When it came to picking places for celebratory meals I may like such as birthdays- she could only either pick places she would like, or generic places most people wouldn’t hate.
She was a wonderful person in many regards but her focus was largely on herself and her career, and she liked having a second income/set of hands and a warm bed- that was her idea of what she wanted from relationships. But after 6 years she “knew me” better than a stranger but not as well as most people could in a year or so…
.. paying attention. She knew very little of “men” in general and didn’t care to- she’d simply say that she wasn’t going to waste effort to coddle or pander when it came to things that concerned general “needs” or preferences that many men share in communications and such. So I certainly can attest there are people out there who don’t “know” others or even sort of broad gender stereotypes even when they live their lives around those individuals because they simply do not care to. That seems more realistic/understandable based on my own experiences anyway.
Being able to afford a home wherever they live while working a 40 hour work week at a single job that doesn’t require a degree or years of specialist training and having some assurance of security for retirement or injury after a lifetime of work and contributing to the system?
Or…. I dunnoh…
Throwing big rocks maybe is good too.
Ooh, fire! Just fire in general, or any parts of fire: wood, cutting wood, splitting firewood, charcoal, smoking meat adjacent to fire.. cooking meat upon fire... fire fighting, fire making... fire...
Lol. I won’t not pick the statistic- I’ll just say that it’s highly debatable and most surveys rely on self reported data, which means we could at best hope to know the number of men who openly identify as gay, asexual, etc. that also doesn’t include groups like pedophiles whom may or may not have a like for women in addition to their proclivity for females that are not necessarily classified as women.
Then we have to factor in that among heterosexual men there are quite a few that don’t like women- tolerate or even openly disdain might be more apt in many cases. Phrasing as the number of men who like the female form slightly reduces the complications of the proposition- but to party05’s point- no matter what we name it’s dubious ALL men will like it, but “women” due to factors listed plus some more, probably have enough statistical outliers to not be used as a generalization of universal likes for men.
Not to mention the issues of all the history and emotion tied to the exclusionary nature of the criteria. While you MAY find someone who would be hurt or offended or have another concept pull at deep rooted traumas and issues with a suggestion like “dropping big rocks,” the depth and reach of those with deep and fundamental passions and investment in the related issues to dropping stones in water is likely statistically insignificant compared to issues of acceptance, inclusion, or recognition by society which surround issues of sexual orientation.
Assuming that "universally" is being defined as something less than an absolute 100% majority, I stand by it. Statistically speaking, you like red, I like blue. I like the smell of fireworks, you don't. However, we both have/want 'girlfriends', be that a wife or a passing lover. (Assuming we are both 'average' males, as is the subject of the post) To be literal when talking about "universal" desireability is a bit absurd. There is always a 0.1%. You like throwing stones? Well, I identify as a bird, and take offense to your careless disregard for my family's wellbeing. =D
As stated above- nothing* is 100%- so as also stated previously, we can’t speak in absolutes in that sense. The point was that we aren’t talking about .1% or even 1%, if your office has 100 people and 10 are allergic to nuts- that 10% would be enough for most people to not get an office cake with nuts in it. If your office had 1000 people and 1 was allergic to nuts- that might be a different story.
To your point on the average male- it os probably fair to say the average “man” ie: generally a male of age of sexual maturity at the least- likes women. That is a fair point, but “universal” tends to imply near total, not strong majority or average. The word “average” is generally used where an “average” is sought.
To illustrate the difference- of all humans on earth the average annual income is around $10-18k USD depending on the source you use. Most people on earth earn less than a US minimum wage job by percentage. Is that your experience? Or mine? It’s not the experience of almost anyone I know or meet regularly. It’s not even something most Americans or such can relate to first hand- so such experiences wouldn’t be “universal” as opposed to something like “love,” which not EVERYONE will know- as we discussed earlier- but is fairly universal to the human experience. Your odds of meeting a person at random who has never known love are very slim.
To the last points- I assure you, I cast no stones, nor would I use such a thoughtless phrase with one such as yourself who identifies as a bird. I will do my best to respect your self identity though I have little experience with people who identify as birds so I apologize for any missteps and ask your patience and guidance. I can understand your sensitivity to what you perceive as “throwing stones” as it must have been difficult at times and people may have picked on or disrespected you for your identity. If I triggered any trauma I do apologize for that. My goal was merely to engage in discussion and not offend or insult.
I think it's just hard to generalize so many people. Naming stereotypical "manly" things like cars, football, hunting... many men hate these because they were pressured into them as kids, and many women like them. I don't know if there even is anything that all men enjoy that isn't just a thing that all people enjoy, like tasty food or warm hugs. And some people even have negative emotions associated with those, like people with eating disorders or neurodivergent people who don't like human touch.
A version of a comment I made in another chain here is that it’s nuanced for sure. As much as we can use absolutes, almost nothing is universal- some people are allergic to water, what are fairly common experiences or standards of living to probably most people on this site are statistically not something the majority of people on earth have in common etc. so “universal” seldom means “all encompassing” but more… very close too. So sports for example are pretty much culturally universal- around the globe and through history the sports may change or the rules etc- but human societies have tended to like sports. I would say that saying sports are a universal male interest becomes more tricky. It’s sort of about HOW MANY exceptions there are. .1%, 1%,10% etc. if we have some exception where some one or small fraction of a percent would disagree it may be “universal” but if we have some larger statistically relevant percent- it maybe isn’t universal anymore.
There is also a fork where we have to decide where to split the pie. Grammar vs. logic so to speak. So- let’s just say for arguments sake we agree with the statement “curiosity is a universal human trait.” if it applies to ALL humans- it applies to men. So then we could say that “curiosity is a universal male trait.”
But when we ask for universal male traits- we are specifying that we probably want traits which are fairly uniquely universal to men.
Now where we split the pie further is when we look at what is universal and what is archetypical or stereotypical. We can’t conflate the two. In Fantasy novels a Male protagonist from humble beginnings with a grand destiny by north right is archetypical or stereotypical for the genre- but it isn’t universal.
So like- surely she has encountered men and may work with men or have male family or even a contact or two in the phone who are male-
But she doesn’t “know them” or “know a large enough sample of men to judge if those men are a good representation of most men..” and it’s easier and sounds more interesting to say she doesn’t know any men…
She was a wonderful person in many regards but her focus was largely on herself and her career, and she liked having a second income/set of hands and a warm bed- that was her idea of what she wanted from relationships. But after 6 years she “knew me” better than a stranger but not as well as most people could in a year or so…
Or…. I dunnoh…
Throwing big rocks maybe is good too.
Then we have to factor in that among heterosexual men there are quite a few that don’t like women- tolerate or even openly disdain might be more apt in many cases. Phrasing as the number of men who like the female form slightly reduces the complications of the proposition- but to party05’s point- no matter what we name it’s dubious ALL men will like it, but “women” due to factors listed plus some more, probably have enough statistical outliers to not be used as a generalization of universal likes for men.
To your point on the average male- it os probably fair to say the average “man” ie: generally a male of age of sexual maturity at the least- likes women. That is a fair point, but “universal” tends to imply near total, not strong majority or average. The word “average” is generally used where an “average” is sought.
But when we ask for universal male traits- we are specifying that we probably want traits which are fairly uniquely universal to men.
Now where we split the pie further is when we look at what is universal and what is archetypical or stereotypical. We can’t conflate the two. In Fantasy novels a Male protagonist from humble beginnings with a grand destiny by north right is archetypical or stereotypical for the genre- but it isn’t universal.