Many men are very self-conscious about conforming to the definition of "masculinity." Deep down many people know this, which would explain why many people have self-serving definitions of masculinity. E.g. many people say, "A real man would ..... <insert whatever behaviour they want to encourage>."

Many in society believe that masculinity involves aggression, which means e.g. a man would need to be able to be angry at others. However, another behaviour or trait that is considered masculine is lack of aggression towards the man's partner whether it be a girlfriend or wife. A man is expected to have aggression and the ability to exploit and oppress others, but he is also expected to have the opposite behaviour with his wife i.e. not exploit her, not oppress her, not show any aggression towards her.

Is this a self-serving definition? This idea that a truly masculine man must display extreme anger and aggression at others but not his wife would definitely serve the wife or partner of a man, so it is something that many women, especially conservative women, would promote and try to manipulate men to believe.

Another interesting question is if a woman selects men who display aggression thinking that he will use that aggression to protect her, is this a risky strategy because if she selects men who are highly aggressive expecting him to use that aggression on others, what if he uses that aggression on her?

​