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 of all.
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'...