Verified by 
"Men are all the same. They only want one thing!" This was one of the mantras I heard in my youth. Maybe it is true, but according to Cosmo (April 1999), which I found in my files recently, maybe it is not; this may be a relief to all of us, or not.
I found their research on manology in my files the other day, written up like Roger Tory Peterson's "A Field Guide to the Birds," including distinguishing characteristics, natural habitats, his good side, his bad side, sex style, trap-him tactics, even maintenance. Okay, so Peterson did not mention sex styles or trap-him tactics, and does mention voice and range (which would have been useful, but the principal of clarifying differences between sub-species is still important). Cosmo specifies only six types of guys: Starving Artist, Generic Guy, New Age Dude, Sporty Stud, Mr. All Business and Eternal Frat Boy (color photos of each included to help readers identify them). Clearly men are not all the same if there are six types, and it seems likely that they might want different things: the Starving Artist wants food, the Stud wants sex, Mr. All Business wants money, the Dude wants admiration, and the Frat Boy wants beer. No doubt experienced readers of PT will be able to identify themselves or men they know with the help of the six pages of analysis from Cosmo. By their desires and plumage are they known.
But there are problems with the Cosmo taxonomy: All the species shown are young and white, they are way too immature and vanilla, and there are only six? Man watchers of the world unite: wear binoculars.
Plato was the first to attempt a taxonomy of men in the "Republic." But he only noted three types: men ruled respectively by the head, the heart, or the belly-genitals. The heart: Symbol of courage in his day, as later with Richard the Lionheart. The belly-genitals: Below nature's dividing line of the waist and navel, seeking variously truth and wisdom, honor and glory or sensory gratification and financial gain, and therefore respectively fit to rule, to fight or to work-gorge-drink-screw. He proposed a neat three-class meritocracy (apart from the slaves) integrating biology, psychology, and social structure. (Excellent in theory, but totally wrong in practice: Today's social structure is reversed with the teachers at the bottom, the military screwed by the politicians, and Wall Street on top of the pile).
The definitive work on males since Plato is surely the Livingston "Field Guide to North American Males" (Jones and Trump, 1984). It opens with a classic epigram: "The proper study of mankind is males." Personally I prefer to study, but I digress. The male-watchers distinguish between six species and numerous sub-species, by nine separate criteria (description, plumage, song, habits, courtship patterns, and so on; all with photographs to assist identification, for a grand total of 43, with a useful Species Checklist at the end).
Remarkably, four of the six species echo Plato:
1) The Cranial Males: "More interested in mental muscle and creativity, this small family has drastically decreased since the advent of television, pro-football and canned beer."
- Song: "I really think." Often misconstrued due to their accents as "I rarely think."
- Plumage: Suits.
2) Flocking Males: Who prefer the company of other males, as in the military, hardware stores, gas stations, on the road, bars, lotsa places, but not banks or law offices.
- Song: "A loud, resonant "MY," as in MY beer, MY girl, MY wheels, MY team, MY country."
The banks and law offices are for Type 3a): Greenbacks: Committed to financial gain.
- Song: "I'll get back to you."
Type 3b) Are the Pectorals: Body is all;
- Song: It's all about muscle groups.
The other two types, which have emerged since Plato, are the Urban Exotica (amazing plumage, like the Norwegian Blue) and the Suburban Exotica (boring). The observations are acute, particularly with regard to the sub-species, including the Old Coot (H. codger), the All American Kid (H. pingpong), the Jewish American Prince (H. messianus), The Corporate Cutthroat (H. machiavelli) and the Nerd (H. zit), among so many others.
Parenthetically we might note that even these astute observers failed to spot such types as:
The Dirty Old Man (H. senex malus)
The Deadbeat Dad (H. pater mortis)
The Crook (H. nixon or H. madoff, depending on the type of crime, political or economic).
They are problematic and may be found in jail, or not.
Then too there are others: The Twit, as recorded by the distinguished M. Python, the Marlborough Man, and the popular Old Spice Guy, who does not smoke, smells great and can ride a horse backwards: a useful skill in post-modernity (Latin terms are not available); and not to forget the Idiot, immortalized often after his death, by the Darwin Awards: H. stultus.
We might note in passing that the classic taxonomy of the species Homo sapiens by Linnaeus in 1758 is not mentioned by Cosmo, Plato or Livingston - or anyone else, so far as I can determine. I cannot imagine why.
Six types (Cosmo) plus three (Plato) plus 43 (Livingston, less three for the overlap with Plato) plus my seven more, excluding sapiens: the taxonomy is building: 56 so far.
Then Stephanie Brush published her New York Times best-seller "Men: An Owner's Manual" (1984). You see the problem, don't you? We cannot imagine a book entitled "Women: An Owner's Manual." Ridiculous. But men as Dogs? Cars? Slaves? Property, basically, and women as bourgeois capitalists? Moving right along: The problematic premise here is that they are all the same. This is not terribly useful taxonomically: One size fits all, so to speak. Stephanie is more proprietorial than scientific. So with humour, wisdom and years of experience, Stephanie offers: "A comprehensive guide to having a man underfoot." Not much use there, I would have thought, unless you need a podiatrist or you're walking on cobblestones in high heels, but what Stephanie wants... She does allow that there are huge generational differences between men, and between men of different cultures and nationalities, but her insights here are subordinate to her principal concern, that men are an alien race and in that respect, they are all the same, but not especially sapiens. She advises on how to cope with his ex-girlfriends, and how to control the situation when he meets your exes; conversation, dressing him, infidelity (his, not hers), sleeping together, and all the nitty-gritty of the responsibilities of ownership. It is an invaluable instruction manual, and men will need it too, for self-defence. Know thy friend.
The next major development in manology was Susan Thomas' "Manhandling: How to handle any man, any time" (1994). This handling theme is more promising than having them underfoot: from feet to hands is a vertical elevation, more upscale and upmarket. But where Livingston's framework is ornithology and Brush adopts a capitalist perspective, Thomas is more DSM-IV. She lists 18 types from Mr. Animal Attraction ("How to handle the lust") to Mr. Take Two ("How to break into his mind and make him take notice, even with your clothes on"). Again, brilliant analysis and advice: a mini portrait, a woman's case study as an example, and her suggestions (often: RUN!). In psychiatric terms, she tries to explain how to handle the narcissist, the control freak, the jealous type, the Boy Scout, the womanizer, the sensitive type, the sissy, the nerd and more. This is all very useful and complementary to the other two perspectives. These 18 types are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as is implied by ornithology, but one personality type is probably dominant and, in the absence of soul-mates (who change anyway), careful handling (and Brush would add footwork) is recommended.
So, as well as the usual and well-known dichotomies of good guys and bad boys; gays and straights; losers or climbers; hotties or cold fish or simply cool (a thermal trichotomy); and alpha males or omegas, (or alpha TO omega) (another 11) we actually have a fairly sophisticated taxonomy of the male. I lost count after 56+18 +11+= 85+. Now if we could only do the same for the female. Womanology anyone?
