Historically, the idea of male social dominance in mammals was largely accepted, perhaps a reflection of the male researchers who built early frameworks. But the adage about happy wives might be more than metaphor, as a recent study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) suggests.
Using 253 published studies involving all lineages of Primates, the research identified the frequency and winners of intra versus intersexual confrontations in assessing evidence for five possible explanations for the “evolutionary origins and maintenance of sex biases in dominance.”
- Reproductive Control Hypothesis: an evolutionary “arms race” over reproductive control. Females gain dominance by controlling mating access through strategies like concealed fertility and brief sexual receptivity. Males must negotiate access to sex instead of using coercion.
- Female Competition Hypothesis: Intense rivalry among females, including evictions and suppression of others’ reproduction, fosters dominance over males.
- Offspring Safety Hypothesis: Females avoid risky contests when caring for vulnerable young. Where contests are unavoidable, females readily submit, as it is more costly to lose an offspring than a contest. Female dominance is more likely when offspring are safer or care is shared.
- Female Bonding Hypothesis: Strong alliances among related females, especially when they stay closer to home, in the same group, help overpower incoming males.
- Self-Organization Hypothesis: Dominance is a feature of the ratio of males to females. In male-heavy groups, frequent male losses in fights lower their status, indirectly raising female dominance through group dynamics.
Dominance Is Contextual
Intersex contests, defined as “Any agonistic interaction involving aggressive and/or submissive acts or signals,” were frequent, involving 47% of all events. Moreover, as the researcher writes,
“Male dominance over females was far from ubiquitous, and intersexual dominance varied along a continuum.”
While in 70% of species, males and females may both win, females were dominant in 13% of species, and males dominant in 17%. Great apes and “old world” monkeys were strictly male dominant, while a subgroup including lemurs, lorises, and bushbabies was strictly female dominant. New world monkeys had no or limited dominance bias.
Female Power
“Our results primarily support two hypotheses, namely that i) when one sex exerts clear reproductive control it also socially dominates the other, and ii) females have a competitive advantage over males in species where female–female competition is intense.”
That conclusion was based on several findings, including the observation that strict male dominance is rarely observed in monogamous species, whereas female dominance is most common in monogamous relationships. An interesting similarity in body size, adult sex ratios, and the ability of females to control reproduction by escaping coercion, such as in arboreal species that can flee or have short periods of sexual receptivity, reducing male access, all demonstrate female dominance. Researchers suggest that in species with intense competition among females, as evidenced by the suppression or eviction of rivals, female-based dominance is favored.
Female dominance is most prevalent in mating systems that limit male monopolization, monogamy, and polyandry, where a wife has multiple husbands, and in environments enhancing female agency, where females may escape or are only briefly sexually receptive. Physical parity and a balanced gender ratio also play a role.
Lessons for the rest of us
Rather than conforming to a single, male-dominant model, primate societies display a rich tapestry of power arrangements shaped by who controls reproduction, the intensity of same-sex competition, ecological hardship, and physical parity. These patterns challenge long-held assumptions about biological inevitability and offer compelling evolutionary parallels to human dynamics.
The findings uncomfortably resonate with some modern human social phenomena. Just as female primates in male-dominated environments may submit or retreat to protect their young, so too do many women in abusive relationships tolerate coercive control as a survival strategy, mirroring the Offspring Safety Hypothesis. The research also casts light on the psychology of male entitlement and dominance loss; in species where males are denied reproductive control, their social power declines, echoing human reactions among some disenfranchised men, including the rise of incel subcultures and intimate partner violence, where loss of perceived sexual access can trigger hostility and aggression.
By exploring how gendered power emerges, shifts, and breaks down in our closest evolutionary cousins, this study may hold a mirror up to us. In examining the roots of gendered power in our evolutionary cousins, this study prompts us to reconsider whether dominance and submission in our species are as biologically fixed as previously thought. Might we, by understanding our evolutionary past, create space for a more equitable social future?
Source: The Evolution Of Male–Female Dominance Relations In Primate Societies PNAS DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2500405122
Chuck Dinerstein, MD, MBA
Director of Medicine
Dr. Charles Dinerstein, M.D., MBA, FACS is Director of Medicine at the American Council on Science and Health. He has over 25 years of experience as a vascular surgeon.
