Why Men and Women Can Be Friends -- The Fallacies
Updated: Sep 24
It is often believed that men and women can never be friends due to the "fact" of either sexual or romantic tension between the two, or both. However, by believing this, you technically commit what is known as the generalization fallacy, which is a very common fallacy even outside of philosophy.
It's very easy to commit this fallacy because of our confidence with the subject we're talking about.
Racism, sexism and stigma of any kind, always feature the generalization topic in one way or another, and that's one of the reasons that nowadays, racism and sexism are considered as immoral and outdated.
Of course, men and women are biologically different, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same rights just because of their biological distinctions.
The belief that men and women can never be friends is therefore a generalization because there could, in theory, be exceptions, AKA, cases where male and female adults are friends regardless of the fact that they can be more than friends.
I've been friends with the a lady since 2013, a friendship which she initiated when we were in high school. I am unaware if she had ever any romantic feelings towards me, and I only asked her once if she is interested, but she declined because she already had a boyfriend at the time.
However, my suggestion never harmed our connection, and I only asked her because I wanted to know by experience how it's like to be in a relationship.
Our friendship went into a long break after she graduated high school before me. After a couple of years, she offered to renew our connection and I of course agreed, and we continued to be friends to this day.
I don't really have any romantic interest in her as I don't really want a girlfriend in general; I would accept such offer just to know how it's like to be a boyfriend. If I'll never get the chance of experiencing mutual love, I wouldn't really mind.
What you all need to know is, that not all people are sexual beings. That by itself is a very large generalization, because some people, like me, are asexual, and thus, have no desire in intimacy.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily say that asexual people are not interested in romance, but some asexuals like me are also armonatic, AKA, people who have no desire for romance. I find it shameful that the term "aromantic" is considered a typo by my computer, along with "asexuals", but "homosexuals" and "lesbians" are not.
Indeed, the case against man-women friendships is the fact that many people are indeed sexual and romantic beings. If you've watched "The Office", there are these two characters, Jim and Pam, who are coworkers, and throughout the show there's been a lot of tension between them, despite Pam having a boyfriend who also works at the same company (but in a different department).
In one episode, Pam and her boyfriend, whose name I forgot, got engaged and celebrated by throwing in a big party. However, it was there when Jim told Pam that he loves her, something which caused a major crisis in Pam and the other worker's relationship.
One day, the boyfriend, now ex-boyfriend, came to Jim's department for revenge by beating him up. However, Jim was saved by another co-worker, and the revenge-seeker was taken away by security.
I'm not sure how that show has ended, since I didn't watch it all. However, Jim and Pam's relationship is, of course, nothing but an anecdotal case as to why men and women can't be friends, which, of course, isn't always true.
It is also a fallacy to use anecdotes because they are specific and not general; in other words, anecdotes are logically fallacious as there could be other anecdotes which could prove the exact opposite premise.