Two evenings ago I pointed out to my men's group on its last evening the problem with its defining of certain things. I pointed out that the term hypermasculinity as the term for male avoidance or faking masculinity was not accurate. As well as that aggression should not be defined by some sort of extreme masculinity.
I pointed out; if anything a hypermasculine man based on traditional roles would be hyper-protecting and providing of those around him. Not dominating of others or extremely aggressive against innocent people around them. That they should simply say violent and aggressive, or abusive and domineering if that is what they mean not putting into a form of masculinity.
I pointed out that women are also aggressive and violent; even domineering over others. Should we I asked call these acts hyperfeminine of these women? Or should we I pointed out; if hypermasculine means acting out or faking masculinity call women that are ultra-feminine be called hyperfeminine?
How is one supposed to know if masculine traits are being faked or it is just the man is like this? Unless they come out and say they are faking it. Even in that case it is the opposite of being hypermasculine, which would be called Hypomasculine and masking the fact. Let us just call that being a phony or hell, "masking."
The truth is the very definition and terminology as it was being used in the documentation of the group does not come from a reasoned and scientific source. Instead it was first used academically and in literature in 1994 by Ashis Nandy. It was used from the very beginning from a radical feminist worldview which ignored all conquering Queens in the past for the idea colonialism was interlocked with gender.
Specifically it came out of a warped view of an Indian psychologist. It was from its formation with this sort of definition a demonizing of men and males in general associating masculinity with all the horrors of the passed and the future. It is of a gender studies origin and always was a radical-feminist term.
I refused to use invalid terms for invalid ideas and ridiculous demonizing feminist terminology for various ways of being a man in this world. I refuse to do so in the future as well. Men and their various ways of being; the various shades of masculinity are not something to be demonized. I cannot abide by demonizing masculine men anymore than abiding people demonizing feminine men as cucks by Ethonationalists and douchebags online.
Aggression has a word aggression. Faking things has a term faking it or masking. There is no reason to conceptualize these things as hypermasculine; they show up in all humans in different contexts and are human traits not just masculine ones on hyper drive.
Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational
