The man's man and the lady's man

[wellwisher]

This line of thinking came to me the other day. It was designed to be an open discussion to contrast male behavior, from the POV of their relationship and interaction with men or women. This could also be extrapolated to the woman's woman and the man's woman. I will leave the latter to be defined by women. The idea is to see is this has changed with time or does this reflect something that is timeless.

A man's man is typically a male with rugged individualism. He can go into the wilderness with minimal resources and tame the wild. He is smart and resourceful like Jame Bond in any situation. He is also a man of character who lives by a code. He can live outside the box and still bring home, game. He is a natural leader and he can bring out the best in other men, since he leads from the front and not the rear. He is not resource intensive, since he can live off the land, with minimal resources, instead of live off the shelf. In war, you want him on your side since he can help you survive.

The lady's man is different. He is more of an illusion since he does not have to deal with reality as much as fantasy. He ofter lacks character, but is more like a character from a movie. He is more resource intensive and likes to buy expensive and stylish things, to use as props to attract the ladies. He is more like a skilled actor, playing a role with his well rehearsed lines and aires of dignity, that he feeds to the ladies. He understands women and uses that knowledge to tell woman what they wish to hear, so they are free to him.

More things can be added to both the man's man and the lady's man. But this should be sufficient to see a contrast. What men see as ideal in other men is different from what they see is needed for men to deal successfully with women. Men feel a need to become more artificial to appeal to women. Men among men want things to be real, self reliant, with practical useful skills. Maybe others can add more detail. I would expect the woman's woman to be similar to the man's man, with the man's women similar to the lady's man. Maybe the women can make their own contrast for women, so we have all the data to compare.

 

[ChristineM]

I usually find the mans man type to lack character, they are putting on a macho performance to always be the best. Unfortunately for them there are so many other macho mens men performing to keep the top slot of leader.

Ive never met a mans man who is compassionate, who actually cares about the people he treads on to be top macho man.

As for ladies man, i think they fall into 2 categories, the genuine, who will care about what others think, be prepared to give a little (or a lot) to accommodate other people's feelings. And those who are out to snare a woman at any cost, again an actor, rarher like the mans man but without the character to be good at either play

 

[HonestJoe]

This line of thinking came to me the other day. It was designed to be an open discussion to contrast male behavior, from the POV of their relationship and interaction with men or women.

I'd suggest that the idea that any large and diverse grouping of individuals can be simply split in to two defined categories is ridiculous, and is almost always dangerously simplistic, dismissive and divisive.

Most (normal!) men interact with other men and women, often at the same time. Most men will have a range of characteristics that can fall in to either of your categories or are capable of easily switching between one and the other based on circumstances. Most men just worry about being good people.

I also couldn't help noticing these two statements in your descriptions ;

A man's man is... resourceful like Jame(s) Bond...

The lady's man is... more like a character from a movie.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This line of thinking came to me the other day. It was designed to be an open discussion to contrast male behavior, from the POV of their relationship and interaction with men or women. This could also be extrapolated to the woman's woman and the man's woman. I will leave the latter to be defined by women. The idea is to see is this has changed with time or does this reflect something that is timeless.

A man's man is typically a male with rugged individualism. He can go into the wilderness with minimal resources and tame the wild. He is smart and resourceful like Jame Bond in any situation. He is also a man of character who lives by a code. He can live outside the box and still bring home, game. He is a natural leader and he can bring out the best in other men, since he leads from the front and not the rear. He is not resource intensive, since he can live off the land, with minimal resources, instead of live off the shelf. In war, you want him on your side since he can help you survive.

The lady's man is different. He is more of an illusion since he does not have to deal with reality as much as fantasy. He ofter lacks character, but is more like a character from a movie. He is more resource intensive and likes to buy expensive and stylish things, to use as props to attract the ladies. He is more like a skilled actor, playing a role with his well rehearsed lines and aires of dignity, that he feeds to the ladies. He understands women and uses that knowledge to tell woman what they wish to hear, so they are free to him.

More things can be added to both the man's man and the lady's man. But this should be sufficient to see a contrast. What men see as ideal in other men is different from what they see is needed for men to deal successfully with women. Men feel a need to become more artificial to appeal to women. Men among men want things to be real, self reliant, with practical useful skills. Maybe others can add more detail. I would expect the woman's woman to be similar to the man's man, with the man's women similar to the lady's man. Maybe the women can make their own contrast for women, so we have all the data to compare.

It would stand to reason that women would prefer the "man's man" type, I would think. The "woman's man" sounds like a playboy that manipulates women to get sex. That's not husband or father material.

 

[wellwisher]

My definitions for a man's man and lady's man come from the baby boomer generation. Culture was different back then compare to today. It is interesting to see what other generations think in terms of this break down of male extremes as a function of male-male and male-female dynamics. This break down may not be as clear cut today, due to the feminization of men. Men are less likely to push forward under adversity of marriage, but tend to leave to assume the party style of the lady's man.

When I was growing up, religion was more prominent in culture and behavior. The lady's man was not given the cultural freedoms they have today. The extreme lady's man was not common, but was more connected to the underground and the ways of the privileged. The sexual revolution would let the lady's man out of the closet. The contemporary gender fad has increased resources usage; costumes. While the players all want center stage to run their game. This is from the lady's man and not the man's man.

The man's man was religious back in my time. He would have a value system, he could also work hard, have to fight in war and would open new frontiers. Acquired wealth would bring other options, such as more conspicuous consumption and a range of underground behavior that was not yet allowed in full view; lady's man.

Back in my time, men and women were more segregated in the sense men led men; military, and women led other women. Parties of couples would break down into the women talking and gossiping to each other in the kitchen with the men drinking, watching sports and debating politics. This segregated interaction allowed men and women to fully develop their innate sex specific behaviors.

Today there is more copying of behavior, so the extremes are less common. Today, the lady's man is more prominent than the man's man, who was propagandized away as a caveman. The media is more composed of lady's men, who tell you what you want to hear, in terms of misinformation and your biases. It is not the same as the man's man reporter who you could count on to hold power to account.

 

[Estro Felino]

This movie is like a Bible as for men.
How to behave with your boyfriend.
Of course I have friends who act like Kim (Cameron Diaz) who accept their spouse the way he is...there are other friends (like Julia Roberts, Jules) who will not accept any commitment, unless they find perfection.

Back to the topic, I think men should be themselves. They should never change radically to be liked by a woman. Of course compromise is good...but just a little bit.

 

[JIMMY12345]

This line of thinking came to me the other day. It was designed to be an open discussion to contrast male behavior, from the POV of their relationship and interaction with men or women. This could also be extrapolated to the woman's woman and the man's woman. I will leave the latter to be defined by women. The idea is to see is this has changed with time or does this reflect something that is timeless.

A man's man is typically a male with rugged individualism. He can go into the wilderness with minimal resources and tame the wild. He is smart and resourceful like Jame Bond in any situation. He is also a man of character who lives by a code. He can live outside the box and still bring home, game. He is a natural leader and he can bring out the best in other men, since he leads from the front and not the rear. He is not resource intensive, since he can live off the land, with minimal resources, instead of live off the shelf. In war, you want him on your side since he can help you survive.

The lady's man is different. He is more of an illusion since he does not have to deal with reality as much as fantasy. He ofter lacks character, but is more like a character from a movie. He is more resource intensive and likes to buy expensive and stylish things, to use as props to attract the ladies. He is more like a skilled actor, playing a role with his well rehearsed lines and aires of dignity, that he feeds to the ladies. He understands women and uses that knowledge to tell woman what they wish to hear, so they are free to him.

More things can be added to both the man's man and the lady's man. But this should be sufficient to see a contrast. What men see as ideal in other men is different from what they see is needed for men to deal successfully with women. Men feel a need to become more artificial to appeal to women. Men among men want things to be real, self reliant, with practical useful skills. Maybe others can add more detail. I would expect the woman's woman to be similar to the man's man, with the man's women similar to the lady's man. Maybe the women can make their own contrast for women, so we have all the data to compare.

From experience I find women are logical and aim for the financially successful man. This strategy ensures that their children are warm and fed and happy. Also they can afford to have more children. Kindness and other similar attributes are a additional bonus.

 

[England my lionheart]

A man’s man Is pretty much “I’ll do what the **** I like”. A ladies man makes it happen.

 

[HonestJoe]

My definitions for a man's man and lady's man come from the baby boomer generation. Culture was different back then compare to today. It is interesting to see what other generations think in terms of this break down of male extremes as a function of male-male and male-female dynamics.

You're still looking at this too simplistically and stereotypically. There has never been a clear division of two types of men. People have always been individuals and while there are obviously all sorts of common traits and characteristics, no two people are going to share all the same ones.

Defining people on the basis of singular and over-simplified characteristics like this is meaningless at best and counterproductive at worst.