Loudly and often, women insist they don’t like competition, and thatcompetition is an act of aggression. Ironically, however, competition asaggression is inevitable in a society where men must compete for the attentionof women. Women encourage this. Every time they passively wait for men to takethe initiative, or reject nurturing men in deference to domineering men, theysustain the dynamic of dominance. Ignoring this, pop-feminists contendcompetition is the capitalization of aggression, and men do it to the detrimentof all.
Does this mean fighting for domination is the only way to compete? Thatcompetition is solely a product of masculine socialization and something we cando without? Masculine socialization has nothing to do with it. In one way oranother, all living things compete, because wanting creates competition. Youwant to live, so you offer goods or services to others in exchange for the goodsand 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 whatyour “competition” offers. That is the essence of competition in a free market.
It respects the rights of others, and everybody wins because it works throughvalidation 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 valuemost. To the extent our economy encourages winning through validation, it works.
Most women, however, encourage competition through domination by ignoringcooperative, nurturing men to give their love and sex to domineering, “virile”men. What’s more, women compete, and they compete to win. This is especiallyevident in women’s response to the invention of the rubber condom.
Prior to the 1870’s, prostitution in Europe was prevalent. Victorianladies’ distaste for sex encouraged “an explosive increase in prostitution” thatcaused “an epidemic spread of venereal disease, and a morbid taste formasochism.” 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 theoption of enjoying sex without risking pregnancy, and that meant women nowviewed prostitutes as sexual competitors. Subsequently, they demanded lawsprohibiting prostitution, belying the myth that women don’t compete. Women saythis is men’s fault. That men have forced the necessity of sexual competitionupon women and that, left to themselves, women hearken to a more cooperativeagenda. But the facts do not support this contention. Even among themselves,where male attention is not the objective, women still compete withoutcompunction.
Women objectify themselves as sex objects. They also objectify others.
From childhood, women seek status through affiliation by objectifying oneanother as status-objects. Girls get status by being friends with high-statusgirls: the cheerleaders, the pretty ones, the ones who are popular with boys. Asadults, they objectify men as success objects. The means for impressing otherwomen. 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 thisare devastating. The consequences of turning women into sex objects includerape; the consequences of turning men into success objects includes war.
Most women know most men see them as sex objects, and most women agreethis 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, andsensitivity and kindness above power. But most men know they can be kind,caring, loving and sensitive, and while these characteristics may earn them thestatus of “just friends” with many women, their many women friends would neverconsider having sex with them. Men know the more money, status, prestige andpower 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 howwomen objectify them, and female hostility toward men.
Women’s increasing independence, combined with how they objectify men aswalking wallets, is the reason for much of their hostility toward men: Themonetary basis for their “love” for men is gone. What remains is the resentmentthey feel toward most men for being unable to fulfill their need for “walkingwallets.” When men realize this, how will they feel? Will they resent it? Willmale hostility toward women grow to match female hostility toward men? Thatdepends. In response to the feminist movement, many men gave up objectifyingwomen as sex objects to look to the deeper beauty that grows with time. Womenmust do this, too. They must stop objectifying men and embrace the equality theysay they want. It’s the only way to stem the tide of resentment men willotherwise feel.
Generally, however, they compete within the context of relationshipgoals and processes. Understanding this reveals the source of women’s loathingof male competitiveness. Projecting their own agenda onto men, they attack inmen what they most despise in themselves. Spite, malice, rancor and hostilitycharacterize competition within the context of relationship goals and processes.
This is unsavory, to say the least. Inasmuch as men commonly compete within thecontext of production goals and processes, most will probably agree with womenthat female competitiveness in relationships is something the world can dowithout. Category: Philosophy
