Other than murdering all her cubs so she'll come into season sooner, you mean.
You also missed that chimpanzee females mate with multiple males and that the strongest is rarely the leader. Within the tribe, chimps prefer the male who makes the most network connections. The guy who has the most friends, in other words. Maybe that's what you meant by "politics", but politics isn't that accurate a descriptiom. Further female chimps will band together and beat down or kill a male who harasses them, without censure or punishment by the troupe. Female status is not dependent upon male attention or validation. Females take care of themselves. What they don't seem to do, is go to war. Chimpanzees are not an example of dominance hierarchy. They're what's fusion fission.
A basic definition of dominance hierarchy is:
A dominance hierarchy describes situations in which animals are physically or chemically dominant over other animals in their social group.
I counter your lion argument with the observation that it is the the top male that drives the underling males into the wilderness to die, not the females. Ergo, that act is the defining dominance display.
That said, pride are loose temporary fusions fissions as well.. They're more matriarchal in another way, but all the females are related so there's very little vying for status amongst them. It seems the hierarchy of dominance is only amongst the males. It seems like lion thunderdome. Two lions enter. One lion leaves.
The point being that prides aren't typically big enough to really develop a well defined dominance hierarchy. You need more numbers for that, yet there's still some of that behavior. But the males are notoriously useless to the provision of the pride.
If you want to consider animals that have a dominance hierarchy, you're looking at chickens and several other birds, baboons, and wolves.
And humans. But in humans, we know we haven't always been that and we also know that one of our most successful adaptive strategies is to imitate other species in various ways.
It seems logical that given a big enough stressor, humans could and would have adapted their organizational structure to compensate for whatever difficulties were causing the population to be stressed.
The current alpha ideology being adopted by so many men is an example of that easy imitation. Dudes are adoptinf that craziness left, right, and sideways thinking it will restore their manhood and purpose in life. Although, interestingly, the ideology most closely describes stressed, overcrowded, captive wolf behavior, like a prison population, than it does healthy wolf behavior and hierachies in the wild where there's a whole lot more delegation and less fighting and posturing.
And that's the problem with dominance hierarchies. They're only stable when conditions are good. When social, political, or economic conditions become unstable so do the males. That's always a question of when, not if. Femicides or mass rapes are not uncommon when this happens, either as part of war or as a campaign against women.
What is clear is that men will turn on women when stressed enough to return to a sense of stability.
