These lists are small. They are by no means an attempt to distinguish the two sexes into exhaustive comparative lists.
These are idealised types, and thus are non existent in reality. The lists are only useful a guides. On the whole, men are more manly than women, and women more womanly than men. There are men with a 50-50 mix, as there are women with a 50-50 mix. However, as the male type aims to have distinction between things (i.e. black and white, as is common in the erroneously named condition Autism  with men who suffer from colour blindness - an ability to distinguish colours into monochrome), his character will appear to be more distinct, more contrasting to other other people, be they female or male, though especially to other women. Thus a man can, can, have more overt feminine character than most women, for example, homosexual men are well known for engaging in 'catty' remarks, sarcasm and juvenile jokes (just think of Graham Norton) which are female traits.
It must be made perfectly clear that existence is both absolute and relative. Absolute in it's own right, and relative to drawn comparison only (so that it can identify itself and others). Everything exists in its own right, by its own right, and justifies itself by its own existence. I understand the sensitivities of women when they feel they are being judged, labelled, compared, stereotyped etc because it is effectively a denial of their own unique existence; which in an inalienable right of 'all' things. Although, that is not to say that all instances when a women says "stop comparing me!" that she simply isn't using the statement to deflect attention away from here, in order to avoid further scrutiny (say e.g. if she's trying to lie about something). I also understand that women are more sensitive in this regards, because they have less developed faculties than men, thus, as the present universe stands, they will not reach the dizzying heights of excellence, nor the lowest pits of depravity. Which means that they are more sensitive to criticism of 'their' efforts, of 'their' qualities, because each single effort that they make is, relatively speaking, more valuable than a mans. A parallel could be drawn to the number of egg cells a woman has at birth (around 400,000), compared to the number of sperm cells that a man produces every day (around 20,000,000). Though these are only examples to provide contrast in one instance, a genetic one, and should not be taken as the proportionate capabilities of men relative to women, or women relative to men.
Such sensitivity may also be part of the reason for the hatred of men by certain women, who are commonly feminists. Because they may have ambitions, desires to excel, but are always judging themselves relative to men, the consequence of which is that their efforts will never be better than the best men. Which results in the woman feeling that she can never express her own personal character, uniqueness, thus is effectively denying her existence. This would be remedied by telling said women that they need not compare themselves to men, either collectively or individually, that they exist in their own right and thus their will/intention/character is not being denied. Everything exists in its own right.
Believe in absolutes.
Remember that manly and womanly characters also apply to groups of people as well as individuals, for example one group of friends relative to another, one tribe relative to another, one nation relative to another, one country relative to another, one culture relative to another.
What one gender wants from someone/something else, i.e. from another being outside of themselves.
(On the phallus) (Of the vagina)
A Challenge A Free Ride
(To test them) (To provide security)
(To move in to) (To control them)
(To distinguish things) (To see similarities)
(Alien things) (Familiar things)
(Of personal experiences) (Of interpersonal interaction)
(Hour glass figure) (Square jaw and shoulders)
(Of laws, moral or physical) (Of opinions, personal or cultural)
What each gender is; what their character is:
(Of new ideas & things) (Of existing ideas & things)
(Moving in body & mind) (Static in body & mind)
(All is one, all is free/unbound) (It's either this or that, and there's nothing else)
(Drive, motion) (Store, repository)
(Sexual and mental creativity) (Sexual and mental creativity)
[If I carry on the lists any longer I think I'll go mad. - ed]
'A' and 'Not-A' combine to make ' '.
What happens when you divide ' '?
You get 'A' and 'Not-A'.
How can you divide ' ' and get something from it?
Answer: Because ' ' is equal to pure chaos, which is ' ' (aka nothing) and something both together. (See my entry 'Supposition on Pure Chaos as Both Existence and Non-Existence': http://lutherburgsvik.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/supposition-on-pure-chaos-as-both.html). Which means that existence is chaos, that has been formed into being by pure willpower (active choice), of which, all things (from the lithosphere upwards) are and/or contain.
 Autism is erroneously named. (See my entry on it here: http://lutherburgsvik.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/autism.html). Those who have the condition do not consider themselves, nor do they consider others, they only do, only are. They are like a beam of light flying through the galaxy without a thought for anything or anyone, not even itself, only ever looking forward, only on its single trajectory. The beam is so intently focused on being whatever it is, going wherever it is going, that it cannot perceive anything at all, anything outside of its trajectory. It is, at its purest state, oblivious to everything. This is why those with Autism suffer from learning difficulties, which are actually abilities to discern/contrast two or more things in the surrounding environment. It also explains why they suffer from colour blindness as well. If you imagine yourself standing on a straight road (say an American freeway in the midwest), wearing blinkers, focusing on the white line in the middle of the road as you walk along it, you will have difficulty seeing or understanding anything outside of your line of sight. And that which you do see is going to contrast heavily with everything else, because you see fewer things, thus that which you do see will be more distinct/unique compared to other things.
I would speculate that those who founded or wrote for belief systems that are based on a highly dualistic basis, may, may, have had a higher degree of this condition than those who founded or wrote for other belief systems. This is because of the single mindedness of the person, which means that the contrasts that they perceive are greater than for other people, who would be more inclined to found or write for relativistic or polytheistic belief systems. They would also contain other attributes that are associated with those who have Autism, such as highly developed (excellent) doctrines (a result of single mindedness), and a high degree of mathematical or logical doctrine (a result of their desire to understand the cosmos).
Do not make the mistake of considering that because a particular personality type founded a religion that means that it can be dismissed as wanting in logic or truth. Indeed it because such people abide in the desire/love of truth, that they wish to understand it as fully as they can, and make it known to the wider world.
If you want to call it anything, call it 'Acute Single Mindedness', because that is what it is, total utter single mindedness, along one trajectory.