My xH became obsessed with "manliness" (his word) at the beginning of his crisis (and it seems to continue). I have a hard time defining it. I always considered the xH a "renaissance man" because he'd acquired skills in many different areas, and never had any problem discussing his feelings. He seemed to be at many times in our life together confident of his individuality (ie didn't have to fit in with a stereotype or any particular set of expectations) and even took joy in challenging people's expectations of what he should or shouldn't be doing. He never seemed apt to lose his punk ethos. Some of the manlier things he always did include military service, martial arts, outdoorsman stuff, woodworking, etc. Could throw back beers and play dirty rock with the best of 'em. But he also sewed (machine and hand), cooked, practiced meditation and yoga, gardened, read Dorothy Parker and prized his fancy watch collection. His friends were liberal, conservative, every color of the rainbow and every sexual and gender identity.
So when he took on more traditional masks of masculinity (lumberjack clothes, facial hair, action films, bourbon guzzling, shooting, hunting, gathering
etc) and claimed I "emasculated" him by working and not being an "at your service" wife instead of the partner he'd always had, it was easy to lump it all into more of his "Mr. Hyde" persona. I certainly didn't get it, and yes, I preferred the other guy - though I don't think that was a man I made him be. He didn't stop his emoting and even became more of a chatty hen with OW and her girlfriends (would come home from some of their reenactment events talking about various gyno issues all the women had and how sad they were - how does THAT translate to "manly"?), so these accoutrements really were just costume, I think. He just didn't want to appear to be weak, but he still desperately wanted attention. I did eventually call him the "p word" - on the night he admitted he and OW were in a PA. Because frankly, no matter how a man appears, his actions define him. And I was raw and disgusted but those cowardly actions when I'd had to be so strong and carry him.
So would I want a man to not be "manly" because of this? I don't have an answer for that. I am attracted to men who are comfortable with themselves and don't give a damn what other people think. That's manly to me. But that doesn't mean I would want someone to clash with all the time. This is why I don't really define myself as a stander anymore. To take back my xH because he's my xH and not because we are a good match could be very bad. Things in common, strong sense of self, someone who won't bring me the drama my xH has. I don't want someone I either have to support financially, or who I would have to depend on. Independence all the way there. I have no clue how that would apply to basic gender roles. For some guys, that really is an issue I guess, and for most women, it's likely not what they want, either.