I have to admit that I find (some of) this thread somewhat insulting. It's all very well for people to talk about their personal experiences, but I don't think one can speak for others, which is what people are doing by saying that men and women are different in set ways, and that women are by nature a certain way.
Maybe one can generalise, but I don't like people saying "women are like <this>" when that doesn't apply to me - or some women I know. One can speak of one's experiences with women and men, but not say "women are <whatever>".
Although the "How to be a man" blog entry sort of repulsed me (meaning also that I did not identify), and I found it kind of ugly, despite being a woman I also get along better in groups of men than women. Steve's comment "I thought they spent too much time talking about their feelings and not enough time figuring out what to do and holding each other accountable for action." about the women's master mind group would apply for me too. Going to lunch with a group of women is a disaster for me and really hugely boring, whereas going to lunch or the pub with a group of all men, or men plus women similar to myself, is a social success and a pleasant experience. However, obviously, being female I've never experienced an all-male group, since if I'm there it's no longer all male.
Anyway, my point is, don't say "women are like <this>" because there are going to be a lot of women who are not.
I will be very interested to see if I have any kind of identification with the "how to be a woman" offerings. I think our idea of gender is either too limited - we should have more genders - or too specific - we should have greater "fuzziness". Or maybe re-examine the whole gender thing and make it personality rather than genital based. Or something. I get confused as to what exactly "gender" means I think.