I watched a woman deliberately undermine another woman’s self-esteem.
It wasn’t about sexual competition. Wasn’t about stealing a partner. It was subtler than that. Criticisms framed as concern. Comments about appearance disguised as observations. Questions about competence disguised as curiosity. The destruction was psychological. And it was devastatingly effective.
What struck me was that it was coming from another woman. The cruelty had an intimacy that male cruelty didn’t. It knew exactly where to cut because it understood the female experience.
The research on female competition shows something that challenges the narrative of sisterhood. Women are intensely competitive with each other. And the competition is often hidden. Strategic. Psychological rather than physical.
While male competition is often direct, female competition is often relational. Men fight. Women undermine.
The evolutionary logic is straightforward. Women have a limited reproductive capacity. A woman can only be pregnant with one child at a time. She can only produce a certain number of offspring in her lifetime. This creates intense competition for resources and mates.
The woman who can attract the highest quality mate increases her reproductive fitness. The woman who can secure resources increases her offspring’s survival. And the competition for these things is fierce.
But because women typically can’t physically overpower each other, the competition became psychological. Became about controlling resources through social dynamics. Became about damaging reputations. Became about alliance building and exclusion.
I watched a group of women socially ostracize another woman. The justification was that she’d violated social norms. The actual reason was that she was competition. She was attractive. She was getting male attention. She had to be neutralized.
The cruelty was surgical. Not one direct attack but a thousand small ones. Exclusion from events. Subtle insults. Alliances formed against her. The message was clear: we don’t want you here.
The woman being attacked didn’t stand a chance. She was being competed against by a coalition. The research on female competition shows that women are more likely to compete in groups. To form alliances. To use social power against competitors.
It’s brutal. It’s effective. And it’s completely overlooked in discussions of female empowerment.
The narrative we tell is that women should support women. That female solidarity is beautiful. That women are naturally cooperative. The reality is that women are cooperative toward allies and ruthless toward competitors.
The research shows that the attacks on female competitors often focus on sexuality and appearance. Questions about a woman’s sexual behavior. Comments about her body. Implications that she’s trying too hard. That she’s being artificial. That she doesn’t fit.
This is strategic because it targets what women care about in the mate market. A woman’s sexual reputation impacts her ability to attract quality mates. Comments about her appearance undermine her confidence in her desirability. The attacks hit directly where they hurt.
I watched a friend’s confidence completely unravel after an extended campaign of these attacks from other women. She started doubting her attractiveness. Started questioning her worth. Started believing the narrative that had been constructed about her.
What was most disturbing was that many of the attackers probably didn’t see themselves as cruel. They probably saw themselves as honest. As speaking truth. As protecting their own interests.
But underneath, it was pure competition. It was the evolutionary drive to reduce competition in the mate market.
The research also shows that women use mate choice as a weapon. Talking about a rival’s relationship. Criticizing her partner. Suggesting she could do better. This destabilizes the relationship and removes her from the competition temporarily.
Women use appearance commentary. Suggesting a rival looks tired. Asking if she’s gained weight. These comments undermine confidence in exactly the domain where female competition happens.
Women use inclusion and exclusion as weapons. Creating social groups and keeping rivals out. Making sure the rival hears about social events she wasn’t invited to. Making sure she’s aware that she’s not part of the alliance.
This is intrasexual competition. Female against female. And it’s brutal.
The problem is that we’re not supposed to talk about this. The narrative of female solidarity is important. So we deny the competition. We shame women for acknowledging it. We create pressure to be nice to each other while underneath, the competition rages.
The women I know best are simultaneously supportive and competitive. They genuinely care about each other’s wellbeing. And they’re strategically undermining each other in subtle ways.
Both things are true. And we don’t have language for it.
The research on this shows that acknowledging the competition doesn’t make women worse. It makes them more aware. More able to manage their own competitive impulses. More able to recognize when they’re being targeted.
But the cultural pressure to deny it is immense.
I think about the women who are confident enough to not engage in this competition. Who are secure enough in their own value to not need to diminish others. These women are rare. And they’re often excluded. Seen as naive. Or as threats in a different way.
Because a woman who’s not competing challenges the entire system. She’s refusing to play the game. And that’s threatening in a way that aggressive competition isn’t.
The research also shows that male competition is becoming more female-like as societies become more egalitarian. Men are increasingly using social and psychological weapons instead of physical ones. The competition is becoming more subtle. More relational.
We’re all becoming more like women in how we compete. Strategic. Hidden. Psychological.
And we’re all struggling with the ethics of it. Because the competition is necessary but the cruelty feels wrong.
Citation:
Campbell, A. (2004). Female competition: Causes, constraints, content, and contexts. Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 16-26.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 491-503.
Bleske-Rechek, A., & Lighthall, N. R. (2010). Cognitive fits in relationships: Does thinking style predict romantic appeal? Personal Relationships, 17(4), 615-628.
Vaillancourt, T., & Sharma, A. (2011). Intolerance of sexy peers: Intrasexual competition among adolescent girls. Aggressive Behavior, 37(4), 569-577.