In its positive discipline， by prescription and by selective elimination， the leisure-class scheme favors the all-pervading and all-dominating primacy of the canons of waste and invidious comparison at every conjuncture of life. But in its negative effects the tendency of the leisure-class discipline is not so unequivocally true to the fundamental canons of the scheme. In its regulation of human activity for the purpose of pecuniary decency the leisure-class canon insists on withdrawal from the industrial process. That is to say， it inhibits activity in the directions in which the impecunious members of the community habitually put forth their efforts. Especially in the case of women， and more particularly as regards the upper-class and upper-middle-class women of advanced industrial communities， this inhibition goes so far as to insist on withdrawal even from the emulative process of accumulation by the quasi-predator methods of the pecuniary occupations.
The pecuniary or the leisure-class culture， which set out as an emulative variant of the impulse of workmanship， is in its latest development beginning to neutralize its own ground， by eliminating the habit of invidious comparison in respect of efficiency， or even of pecuniary standing. On the other hand， the fact that members of the leisure class， both men and women， are to some extent exempt from the necessity of finding a livelihood in a competitive struggle with their fellows， makes it possible for members of this class not only to survive， but even， within bounds， to follow their bent in case they are not gifted with the aptitudes which make for success in the competitive struggle.
That is to say， in the latest and fullest development of the institution， the livelihood of members of this class does not depend on the possession and the unremitting exercise of those aptitudes are therefore greater in the higher grades of the leisure class than in the general average of a population living under the competitive system.