Jtdcftul

Following my last question asked regarding oviparous humanoids, is there a way for evolution to 'regard' females as the more dominant gender without going down that road, forming a heavily matriarchal society in the near-modern day? Many thoughts I have had are inspired by female-dominated species in our own existence. Lionesses going out to hunt, while the males stay to look after the cubs. Female hyenas appearing more aggressive and often take leading roles. And lastly, male seahorses facing the chore of childbirth. Other hypothesis I have devised have had the females fighting over a male breeding pool in the species earlier times of existence, feeding in the last aspects I have described.

Basically, to sum up the questions:

• Could a humanoid species have this existence where the males are reduced to roles of childcare, leaving the females to appear more 'dominant' and aggressive physically and heavily psychologically, without going the base route of a fully oviparous species? This could be an aspect common to the world with a few species.




• Perhaps to support this, could there be a system of reproduction where the males have a sort of pouch where the female leaves their young to develop fruitfully, emulating a similar system to seahorses with a more marsupial vibe? This could leave the female with more free time to procure food through hunting and gathering in their more prehistoric periods.

The the evolutionary phenomenon you're inquiring about is called sexual dimorphism.

The short answer is yes, and nature is full of examples (I'm looking at you, mantises!).

Any number of evolutionary factors might explain the development of sexually dimorphic traits in a primate species wherein females are larger, more muscular, more aggressive, more intelligent, etc., than males. We know of many instances of species today where males perform more child care related activities. For example, male seahorses incubate the female's eggs.

But that is a separate notion from a concept of "dominance," which, depending on your definition, might involve physical strength, behavior, mental disposition, etc.

Since you're asking about primates/humanoids, then, if this is an intelligent species, I would only caution you not to blur biology with culture. In other words, if your intention is to show how the biological factors interact with sociocultural ones in an intelligent society, then you should bear in mind that culture is not inherently tied to biology.

Regardless, whether we're speaking evolutionarily or socioculturally, you can invent almost any history you want for this species. For example,

• maybe females are physically inferior, but the males are cognitively predisposed to defer to them or be far less aggressive (biological), or




• perhaps these are intelligent, instinctively sexually cannibalistic humanoids, however, the males have more advanced problem solving skills, and rise up to overthrow their female oppressors because getting eaten is a real downer (biological and sociocultural).

My point is that a) anything you can invent is theoretically possible, and b) if you need ideas, there's plenty of examples out there. But the basic answer to your question is yes, such an evolutionary tract is possible.

There are many potential explanations for any facet of how your species has evolved the particular traits you're looking for. Just keep in mind that a species with larger/stronger/etc. females doesn't automatically lend itself to an overall "female dominance" and vice versa.

Your females are much larger than the males.

They are twice the size of the males, females averaging 8 feet and 600-700 lbs. The physiologic reserves of these very large bodies make carrying a human-type pregnancy (or even twins) much less of a stress on the females of your humanoids. A tiny baby lashed across her body to her breast does not slow her down at all.

These large females do carry out the hunting of large prey because the large physical size of the females make them more formidable; also the huntress intends to eat most of what she kills, bringing back the remnants for the males at home. Female children put on a growth spurt early, before they are reproductively mature and are thus valuable allies and hunting partners for their mothers.

The considerably smaller males hunt small prey, forage, and do much of the child care for the weaned young. One female will have several males or "brother grooms" to spread around child care duties and improve the survival rate of offspring.

In a reproductive system where males fight each other, males are selected for size and strength and fighting prowess. Most mammals with this system have the males live separately from the females, possibly except for the alpha daddy but even he might stay away. Having a population of large males in the same society as the females and young puts extra food pressure on the female and young because the males eat so much - bad for the kids and hungry pregnant women. But that is our system, which we had to do because human males in groups are the original weapon of mass destruction, and if your opponents have that you must as well.

In a system where males do not fight each other, it makes sense for them to be smaller - this is the case for birds and fish and insects and snakes. They do not need to be as big because their bodies do not have to support the demands of producing offspring, just sperm. Having small, intelligent, creative, nonaggressive males to glue society together makes sense. The physically demanding work of carrying pregnancies, lactating and feeding babies, and overcoming large prey can be the job of the females.