Is it not possible to connect masculinity with aggression rather than dominance? It seems more plausible to me that the issue here is biological rather than (or at least as well as) cultural. Higher levels of testosterone are going to lead to higher levels of aggression. If you'd like to convince me further in that realm, we'll start to go off topic, which I don't have an issue with, but let's keep feminism in a separate category at least and we can pursue it if you deem necessary.

My point was that animals don't think over what's logical and what's not. That just isn't what determines their actions. The need that humans want to fulfill is the feeling of wanting to kill an animal and to let aggression out (according to the random theory I made up which, to me, seems plausible), not to perform an ecologically useful function. And the reason animals do that is because it could not have turned out otherwise; that's just how evolution works.

And two animals killing each other doesn't fulfill a need for the species. It fulfills a need for an individual that's a part of that species. It is absolutely unnecessary for the two animals to kill each other, but it could not happen otherwise because the animals with the genes that do want to kill the competitor will propagate through the population.

It really is logical for humans to want to kill, just as it is logical for animals to want to kill. That is, in the field of biology. In ethics, sure, it's different. But I don't see the point in comparing our ethical code with animals', because they don't really give a shit about ethics and they don't understand how ecology works.

Is what you're arguing for the protection of the ecosystem? Because I'm down with that. Hunting in moderation is definitely a middle ground we can be on.