That's what, again, you don't understand. You are talking about success, while I am talking about victory. Success? What's success? In the end you are getting exactly the same as everyone else: You get old and ugly, and then, if you didn't kill yourself to not be old and ugly at least, you die a horrible and ugly death, and then move either into oblivion or into whatever horrible, dog eat dog metaphysical realm out there, where you are probably too weak to keep your own identity and instead are torn to shreds by the abyss.
Victory is destroying everything that opposes you. Success, meanwhile, is a value born of cultural context, as you must be judged socially to be considered successful. Therefore, success is devoid of meaning for someone in this path.
Reading Nietzsche much, I see not-BC. Identical interpretation of victory and conquest. I don't remember him ever separating the means of achieving that according to genders, but the male element you described mirrors his general idea. Dominance, conquest, fire, friction, conflict is all that form one's character. Incidentally, exactly that message stems from his most popular quote "What does not kill me, makes me stronger."
He also criticised Christianity for being the cult of weakness, promoting nothing but passiveness, self-loathing and idolatory whereas a human must strive to achieve new heights, must seek out new challenges, and above all must act
He was a great thinker in his age - certainly controversial and outspoken though, sadly, misunderstood. That his philosophy was pervated by the Nazi agenda (Nietzche himself derided them) didn't help his image either. Also, when it came to practice - you know, when concepts crash against life - he was not the greatest role-model (he never got married, and in the end he went nuts).
Myself, I am more moderated in my beliefs. While certainly there's much truth in what you are saying, I
try (life can be bi*ch, and the world of ideals sometimes has little to do with the reality we live in) to live according to one phrase good old William Blake came up with in his "Marriage of Heaven and Hell": "Without Contraries is no progression".
Full excerpt:
"Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion,
Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.
From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil.
Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing
from Energy. Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell."
Once you understand everything in the world is necessary, and your duty is to merely seek out the new challenges to benefit from experience, regardless of the consequnces. This 'philosophy' (too grand a word) promotes activity and movement, but not 'conquest' in the Nietzschean sense. Victory, although desirable, is not the requirement (it does not mean pussying out is condoned).
The key difference, I think, lies in a degree of 'respect' towards every new challange, idea and person as those 'contraries' you are exposed to are necessary to your 'progression'.
That's why sometimes the whole point of discussion is not to prove you are right, by merely see if that is so.