I heard of a survey that ranked the 50 largest cities as to which was the 'manliest'. They used some dubious criteria at best. That being said it often gives way to a good chuckle or two when reading these lists. I roll my eyes when a politician or civic leader then touts their town at being one of the best to live or work in based on these. Is yours a manly town or do you live in 'wussie-burg'? I don't remember the entire list but some of the top ten included St. Louis, Boston, Chicago and Detroit. Detroit? Come on. The only thing a city in flames means is they have more firemen.
Consider some of the criteria. How many trucks are sold in relation to cars, how many foreign cars sold, the percent of population that owns a gun, are there local sports teams, tracker pulls and the like. A city lost points if there were too many subscriptions to magazines such as 'Home and Garden' and that ilk. I wonder if Playboy subscriptions gave a 'rise' in the poll. I'm guessing San Fran didn't score well in that area. Too bad they didn't include all of the towns across this great country. If they did surely Dead Snake, Arkansas would truly be the manliest town with every citizen owning a gun, a truck and a dog and the local high school colors are camouflage.
The impetus of such studies always mystifies me. They are of no practical use and serve no purpose. It isn't even much for discussion. Perhaps you can get stimulus funding to do a study. That would be great for the economy. Given the time I could possibly come up with a set of criteria that would boost the bay cities up the scale.
Manly ways are not such juvenile things as trucks, sports and fishing. The measure of a true man is his dedication to his family, his work ethic and how well he treats others in life. Of course such lists do give rise to blogging and other such nonsense.