
I don’t really consider that misogynist or patriarchal. I don’t mind the first clause of your statement that much I guess or necessarily disagree but the second clause, I can’t say I agree, I find that to be almost nearly a biological fact for most people or a lot of people. At least in many instances. If you’re not attracted to someone at all I suppose it’s different possibly idk
That’s not the reason I believe that. So go head and downvote. My justification is that in nature we actively see either the girl or boy try and initiate more than a friendship because they developed feelings overtime or concealed them in the beginning. These events, not scenarios happen too often to dispute them
I think it’s fair, and tbf i’m coming from a queer and neurodivergent lens so my perspective on cross-sex friendships is prob different, but I still don’t think that it is as biologically hardwired as some say. There are other “biological” impulses people resist and control all the time (violence, stealing, etc), and the same is possible and accessible within cross-sex friendships. also thanks for your good faith
You might disagree and think the second claim to be true, but that doesn’t mean the claim itself isn’t gender essentialist. To say that men and women can’t be friends due to lust implies that you believe that all men are lustful, which is a gender essentialist extension of the fact that *some* men are lustful.