Let me see if I have this straight: selection processes have favored those with the ability to provide for their offspring because it ensures the survival of their lineage. Consequently women tend to consider competitive men who have high wealth and status more attractive, therefore it is the fault of women that men are so competitive?
In your reasoning, men do not have the agency to choose not to be competitive, women do have the agency to choose who they are attracted to, and natural selection pressures are blameless. That's a pretty arbitrary place to draw the line don't you think?
This is where you begin to introduce your own ideas rather than talk about mine. I didn't use that word and certainly didn't imply that anybody is at fault here. Sometimes things are just true. It doesn't mean anybody is to blame or that anybody is "better" than anybody else.
Why have they singled out women here if not to place blame? Women are a product of selection pressures just as much as men are. Moreover, it isn't like women are not on the same hamster wheel as everyone else.
I disagree with anyone who wants to pin the blame on current individuals or groups for things which were caused by evolution. Check the comment I was replying to here.
Two reasons.
First, women are hypergamous and will always be looking for the best mate possible. When men become complacent, they lose their women. The battle isn't over when the first mate is attracted, it has only just begun.
Second, men are polygamous. Men still want to be attractive to other women as well as their own. There is essentially no limit to how many women a man can mate with.
These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise.