Vogue

The Hidden Currency of Reproductive Rivalry Within the study of evolutionary psychology, few topics are as sensitive or as profoundly influential as female intrasexual competition. Dr. Dani Sulikowski, a researcher specializing in human behavioral evolution, argues that this competition is not merely about social friction or personal jealousy. Instead, it represents a foundational organizing principle of female social behavior. While male competition is often characterized by overt physical displays or direct resource accumulation, female competition frequently operates through more subtle, psychological, and indirect mechanisms. The goal, however, remains the same: maximizing relative reproductive success. Reproductive success in an evolutionary context is not an absolute measure. It is a game of ratios. To "win," an individual does not necessarily need to have the maximum number of children possible; they simply need to reproduce at a higher rate than the average of their population. This creates two distinct paths to victory: accelerating one's own reproductive output or slowing down the output of rivals. Sulikowski notes that while men primarily focus on the "gas pedal"—maximizing their own mating opportunities—women are biologically incentivized to use both the gas and the "brake pedal." Because female reproductive capacity is strictly capped by biology, inhibiting a rival's success is an extremely effective way to gain a relative advantage. Indirect Aggression and the Social Brake Pedal Female competition often manifests as relational aggression. This includes social exclusion, rumor-mongering, and the manipulation of reputations. These behaviors serve a specific evolutionary purpose: they lower the perceived mate value of rivals or isolate them from resource-providing networks. For example, a woman might use "bless her heart" rhetoric to subtly undermine a peer's reputation for fidelity, thereby signaling to potential mates that the rival is a high-risk investment. This "game within the game" allows women to suppress the reproductive potential of others without resorting to physical violence, which carries a higher risk of injury or death—a cost that evolutionarily valuable female bodies are less able to bear. Dani Sulikowski explains that this aggression is frequently triggered by signals of sexual availability and attractiveness. In social settings, an attractive woman who dresses in a way that highlights her fertility is often viewed by other women not just as a person, but as an aggressive signaler. The response from the group is often a form of counter-aggression designed to make the rival more hesitant, lower her self-perception, or push her out of the social circle. This explains why many women instinctively "dress down" when entering new female-dominated environments; they are attempting to avoid triggering the group's competitive defense mechanisms. The Paradox of Reproductively Inhibiting Advice One of the most startling findings in Sulikowski's research is the discrepancy between the advice women give to others and the choices they make for themselves. In laboratory studies, women consistently offer more reproductively inhibiting advice to hypothetical peers than they would follow themselves. They are more likely to encourage other women to delay motherhood for their careers, to prioritize independence over commitment, or to leave relationships at the first sign of friction. Yet, when asked about their own lives, these same women often prioritize early family formation and long-term stability. This dynamic creates a social environment where anti-natal and anti-commitment ideologies can spread as a form of manipulative signaling. If a woman can convince her rivals that "having a boyfriend is cringe" or that motherhood is a form of oppression, she effectively clears the mating market of competition. For this strategy to work, there must be "losers" who actually believe and embody the ideology. The most extreme modern example of this is the celebration of permanent sterilization among young women on social media. While older, post-reproductive women may cheer these decisions as "liberating," the younger women are effectively removing themselves from the evolutionary game, handing a massive relative victory to those who choose to reproduce. Feminization and the Deconstruction of Institutions Sulikowski extends her analysis to the modern workplace, suggesting that the "great feminization" of institutions is not a random social shift but a manifestation of these competitive drives. As women reach a critical mass in professional environments—often well before reaching 50%—the social dynamics of the workplace begin to shift toward female-typical competitive modes. This often involves a flattening of meritocracies and a de-prioritization of raw productivity in favor of social harmony and relational management. From an evolutionary perspective, this can be interpreted as a strategy to hasten the end of a civilization's current cycle. Sulikowski argues that throughout history, as civilizations reach high levels of affluence and safety, elite women shift their energy from direct reproduction to the manipulative suppression of rivals. When birth rates fall below replacement level, the society enters a genetic bottleneck. Those who manage to successfully reproduce during this collapse become the founder population of the next civilization. By dismantling the productivity-focused institutions of the current society, competitive actors may be unconsciously clearing the path for their own lineage to dominate the subsequent era. The Masculinity Crisis as Collateral Damage Modern gender politics and the branding of traditional masculine traits as "toxic" can also be viewed through the lens of intrasexual competition. By labeling traits like social dominance, physical strength, and protective aggression as red flags, competitive social movements effectively disrupt female mate choice. If women can be convinced to reject high-quality, protective men in favor of more "docile" partners, their long-term reproductive stability is often compromised. These women end up in less satisfying, less stable relationships that are less likely to produce large, successful families. This shift has a devastating effect on men, who find themselves in a "no-win" scenario. If they act with traditional gumption and approach women, they risk being labeled predatory or sexist. If they retreat, they are criticized for not being "up to standard" or for checking out of the dating market. This environment of heightened fear and ambiguous rules leads to a "musical chairs" scenario where fewer and fewer people are able to find a seat. Dani Sulikowski warns that while this hostility to reproduction hurts almost everyone, it hurts the social elite the least, allowing them to maintain their relative standing as the broader population's birth rates crater. Evolutionary Cycles and the Future of Society Contrary to the popular "evolutionary mismatch" theory, which suggests our brains are simply malfunctioning in a world of smartphones and the pill, Sulikowski believes our current behavior is a feature, not a bug. She posits that human societies naturally go through these cycles of expansion, affluence, competitive reproductive suppression, and eventual collapse. The world we have built—including the internet and the modern workforce—is an extension of our evolved phenotype. It is the environment our biology created to play out these high-stakes games. Understanding these drives is the first step toward navigating them. The mental health crisis among women and the widespread loneliness among men are the proximate results of a social environment that has become hostile to its own continuation. By recognizing that "liberation" can sometimes be a masked competitive strategy, individuals can begin to make choices based on their own long-term well-being rather than following social memes that lead to reproductive dead ends. Growth, as Sulikowski's work suggests, requires the courage to step outside the cycle and reclaim intentionality in our most fundamental human connections.