Male aggression is primary and explains competition, not vice versa.

Evidence

It cannot be explained by competition, since there are about the same number of females as males; it is rather competition that is explained by this combative will. It is as if before procreating, the male, claiming as his very own the act that perpetuates the species, confirms the reality of his individuality in his fight against his fellow creatures. — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 95

Categorization

• XREF: Reverses the standard Darwinian/evolutionary account (competition drives aggression); connects to Beauvoir’s existentialist framing of the individual versus the species. — connects to: Male race bias peaks where aggression and dominance motives combine — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1266; Male intrasexual competition extrapolates to explain men’s role in intergroup conflict — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1210; Evolutionary parental investment differences explain men’s competitive and aggressive intergroup behavior — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1270

Broader Connections

• Male race bias peaks where aggression and dominance motives combine #expands (0.82) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1266
• Male intrasexual competition extrapolates to explain men’s role in intergroup conflict #expands (0.80) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1210
• Evolutionary parental investment differences explain men’s competitive and aggressive intergroup behavior #corroborates (0.78) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1270