Loudly and often, women insist they don't like competition, and that
competition is an act of aggression. Ironically, however, competition as
aggression is inevitable in a society where men must compete for the attention
of women. Women encourage this. Every time they passively wait for men to take
the initiative, or reject nurturing men in deference to domineering men, they
sustain the dynamic of dominance. Ignoring this, pop-feminists contend
competition is the capitalization of aggression, and men do it to the detriment
Does this mean fighting for domination is the only way to compete? That
competition is solely a product of masculine socialization and something we can
do without? Masculine socialization has nothing to do with it. In one way or
another, all living things compete, because wanting creates competition. You
want to live, so you offer goods or services to others in exchange for the goods
and services you need to survive. The better the goods and services you offer,
the more you can get in exchange, and the better you will be able to live.
To live well, you make your "stuff" as good as possible relative to what
your "competition" offers. That is the essence of competition in a free market.
It respects the rights of others, and everybody wins because it works through
validation rather than domination.
Competition as validation is the process by which the efficacy of ideas,
knowledge, and products is validated by consumers. They choose what they value
most. To the extent our economy encourages winning through validation, it works.
Most women, however, encourage competition through domination by ignoring
cooperative, nurturing men to give their love and sex to domineering, "virile"
men. What's more, women compete, and they compete to win. This is especially
evident in women's response to the invention of the rubber condom.
Prior to the 1870's, prostitution in Europe was prevalent. Victorian
ladies' distaste for sex encouraged "an explosive increase in prostitution" that
caused "an epidemic spread of venereal disease, and a morbid taste for
masochism." Then, women began to compete sexually, and prostitution had to go.
They began to compete with prostitutes for their husbands' continuing attentions.
What changed? Men started using rubber condoms. This gave women the
option of enjoying sex without risking pregnancy, and that meant women now
viewed prostitutes as sexual competitors. Subsequently, they demanded laws
prohibiting prostitution, belying the myth that women don't compete. Women say
this is men's fault. That men have forced the necessity of sexual competition
upon women and that, left to themselves, women hearken to a more cooperative
agenda. But the facts do not support this contention. Even among themselves,
where male attention is not the objective, women still compete without
Women objectify themselves as sex objects. They also objectify others.
From childhood, women seek status through affiliation by objectifying one
another as status-objects. Girls get status by being friends with high-status
girls: the cheerleaders, the pretty ones, the ones who are popular with boys. As
adults, they objectify men as success objects. The means for impressing other
women. Effectively, they use men to tell one another, "Here is my man: with him,
I buy cars, clothes, entertainment, vacations, trips to the beauty parlor and,
if I'm so inclined, motherhood or early retirement." The consequences of this
are devastating. The consequences of turning women into sex objects include
rape; the consequences of turning men into success objects includes war.
Most women know most men see them as sex objects, and most women agree
this is bad. But when confronted with how they objectify men, they deny it,
pointing to surveys that prove they value a good sense of humor above money, and
sensitivity and kindness above power. But most men know they can be kind,
caring, loving and sensitive, and while these characteristics may earn them the
status of "just friends" with many women, their many women friends would never
consider having sex with them. Men know the more money, status, prestige and
power they have, the more willing most women will be to give them love and sex.
Most men have ,always known this, but few realize the connection between how
women objectify them, and female hostility toward men.
Women's increasing independence, combined with how they objectify men as
walking wallets, is the reason for much of their hostility toward men: The
monetary basis for their "love" for men is gone. What remains is the resentment
they feel toward most men for being unable to fulfill their need for "walking
wallets." When men realize this, how will they feel? Will they resent it? Will
male hostility toward women grow to match female hostility toward men? That
depends. In response to the feminist movement, many men gave up objectifying
women as sex objects to look to the deeper beauty that grows with time. Women
must do this, too. They must stop objectifying men and embrace the equality they
say they want. It's the only way to stem the tide of resentment men will
Generally, however, they compete within the context of relationship
goals and processes. Understanding this reveals the source of women's loathing
of male competitiveness. Projecting their own agenda onto men, they attack in
men what they most despise in themselves. Spite, malice, rancor and hostility
characterize competition within the context of relationship goals and processes.
This is unsavory, to say the least. Inasmuch as men commonly compete within the
context of production goals and processes, most will probably agree with women
that female competitiveness in relationships is something the world can do