That men in such an example could be said

In the second example the roles associated with men are those typically held by men in late-seventeenth/early-eighteenth-century society.It is deeply unlikely, given the context, that men in such an example could be said to easily encompass females.The third example is longer, as it is an example of how a discussion which is specific to a single,abstract, male can be generalised to cover all men, i.e.males.While it is possible that men could apply to all people in this example,I think the natural reading of it is as part of a referential chain: man—him—he—men—they—they.

The later, gender-neutral part of the chain inherits the meaning ‘male’ over ‘person’ from the gender-marked pronouns higher up the chain.While it could still be argued that the pronouns in this case are generic, i.e. not gender specific,weighing against this would be an argument similar to that made for example two—the role being described in the text is one typical of males, not females, in the period in which the texts were written.Yet,further evidence can be gathered for an interpretation that men refers to male in the third example if we consider the fourth example.