Since I've been speaking so loosely about domination, perhaps now is the time to qualify it.
Dominance correlates with the confidence that one's way is the way, though of course it can mean many more things, so for the sake of this brief discussion let's just assume this simple conception of it.
One yields to whomever demonstrates the knowledge or the know-how to do something well, because their character inclines them to be adept at a given thing, or they have done the work to become adept. No one can become good at everything at once. I bow to the good cook, or the good carpenter, or the knowledgeable legal activist, or the good artist, or whoever does something better than I - though we have to be careful here, as this perception is socially constructed.
One yields to whomever one respects then.
Problems arise when the dominant grow intoxicated with this domination - as it is a pleasurable feeling socially to be regarded in this way - and extend dominance to greater and greater regions, while refusing to cede or dissolve their dominance when necessary. It especially smarts when one must yield to someone who has no idea what they are doing or is doing something actively wrong, and even the notion of doing something right is socially conceived.
Ideally everyone should have the opportunity to become dominant in something they can contribute with, and yield to and receive from others doing the same.
Dominance tends to become toxic when it is expanded and sustained, or when it generally becomes inflexible, whether for social spoils, resources, or whatever else.
