I think that women dress up in suits in order to look more business-like, more manlike, with the belief that they will earn more money. This only seems to happen in the "professional" business/governmental roles. If you watch the Oscars or the Golden Globes, it is clear that women still dress femininely.

As for the guy thing? No clue.

I should have said this earlier: Welcome! Please, feel free to register. You don't have to be anonymous all the time! We would love to have you join our community.

Back to the topic:

Keep in mind that whatever images you see of Jesus, the apostles, or any Biblical figure are purely the thoughts and imaginations of the artists. They have no clue what Jesus truly looked like.*

Masculinity is a very interesting concept. I think most of it is culturally related: different people groups around the world have different ideas of what a man should do, wear, or be as a person. Some peoples have official rituals that a male must do before he can be considered a "man", whether that be killing a beast bare-handed, or just having basically a large party/"ordination".

Masculinity can go a little overboard sometimes, when young males try to look overly manly, or "macho", doing things that are usually stupid in order to impress girls or to make a status statement, "proving their superiority" over other males.

But regarding make-up/glamour: I have no clue whatsoever. I do not know how those traditions became female oriented – they just are.

Hope that was of some help.

Foy

*On a side note, we can deduce some things. For instance, he was a poor carpenter in a world without power tools. In order to get wood, he would have had to find a tree, cut it down by hand, plane it by hand, chop it up, and move it to his shop. Due to these facts alone, we can deduce that he must have been very muscular. That concept doesn't clash with the Biblical description of Jesus being ordinary, and him not standing out. He lived in a poor world, where virtually everyone did physical labor. Everyone must have been muscular, or at least ruggedly strong. Again, this is not fact, but basic deduction.