Across a wide spectrum of group living mammals, status has direct benefits on reproductive success. Historically, the majority of these studies focused on males, with repeated demonstrations of dominant males attracting more partners (Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 1991; Huck & Banks, 1982), and having increased access to fertile females (De Ruiter & Van Hooff, 1993; Dixon et al., 1994; Le Boeuf, 1974). While male dominance hierarchies are often more visible (via male-male aggression and stronger reproductive skew), there is a large literature in behavioral ecology illustrating similar relationships among females (for reviews see Fedigan, 1983; Majolo et al., 2012; Pusey, 2012). These studies are representative of a shift in the discipline that breaks down traditional dichotomies of competitive males and passive females and represents status as a critical feature in both sexes (Clutton-Brock & Huchard, 2013; Hrdy, 2000; Stockley & Bro-Jørgensen, 2011). A key sex difference, however, is how status leads to improved fitness (Fedigan, 1983). Reflecting basic principles of sexual selection, higher status among males tends to correlate with advantages in intrasexual competition, and subsequently greater mating success. Males may compete directly for females or for the resources that attract females (Robinson, 1982). For females, higher status is often associated with preferential access to resources, which can improve fecundity and offspring survival (Holekamp et al., 1996; Hurst, 1987; Murray et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2007). More dominant females in some species are also able to suppress the reproduction of lower-ranked conspecifics and outcompete subordinates for access to mates (Wasser & Barash, 1983). Relatedly, another consequence of the breakdown of the traditional sexual selection dichotomization is the increased attention to male choice (Edward & Chapman, 2011; Gwynne, 1991; Kokko & Monaghan, 2001), with empirical studies pointing to the role of status in female intrasexual competition for mates (Clutton-Brock et al., 2006; Szykman et al., 2001; Zumpe & Michael, 1989).

In the human literature, studies of status continue to be male-biased, with emphasis on the roles of both dominance and prestige in male-male competition (Cheng, 2020; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Redhead & von Rueden, 2021; von Rueden, 2014; von Rueden et al., 2011; von Rueden et al., 2019). A large literature within evolutionary anthropology, particularly from small-scale societies, has emphasized the role of male status across subsistence strategies, environments, and cultural repertoires (for a recent review see von Rueden & Jaeggi, 2016). Male status has been linked to a variety of attributes including physical size and strength (Blaker & van Vugt, 2014; von Rueden et al., 2008), income and wealth (Cronk, 1991), hunting ability (Gurven & von Rueden, 2006; Smith et al., 2003), social connectedness or position (von Rueden et al., 2008; von Rueden et al., 2018), education (von Rueden et al., 2018; von Stumm et al., 2010), and sense of humor (Giritlioglu & Chaudhary, 2022), among others. In turn, these traits, serving as proxies for status, have been linked to greater reproductive success (Cronk, 1991; Gurven & von Rueden, 2006; Hopcroft, 2006; Pawlowski et al., 2000; Smith, 2004; Turke & Betzig, 1985; von Rueden, 2014; von Rueden & Jaeggi, 2016).

In contrast, the predictors of women's status and their impact on women's reproductive success is largely underexplored, and women's status is often represented as secondary to men's. One reason for this is that women have historically been less visible in status-seeking roles. For example, cross-culturally, men are more likely than women to hold formal positions of leadership. In one comparison, 88% of societies prohibited women from holding formal political positions (Whyte, 1978). In addition, the gendered division of labor common in many societies often allowed men more frequent travel opportunities and greater access to high value resources, allowing them to diversify their social networks though resource exchange and cooperation and gain status (Pasternak et al., 1997). At the same time, women's greater emphasis on the domestic sphere, including childcare, can constrain opportunities to network, limiting their opportunities to gain status (Moore, 1990; Werner, 1984). For example, Tsimane men had 34% more cooperation partners than women had, including 305% more non-kin partners, which partially accounts for sex differences in leadership (von Rueden et al., 2018).

Others have highlighted sex differences in control over resources, ties with kin, and participation in warfare as explanations for status differentials between men and women (Garfield et al., 2019; Glowacki et al., 2020; Low, 1992; Reiter & Rapp, 1975; Smith et al., 2021; Yanca & Low, 2004). However, our understanding of women's status has also been hampered by the fact that most anthropological studies of status were historically conducted by male scientists, informed by male interlocutors, often presenting inaccurate or only partial accounts of women's roles (Fox et al., 2023; Post & Macfarlan, 2020; Reiter & Rapp, 1975; Weiner, 1976). As an example, in a sample of ethnographic texts from eHARAF, only 30 of 1212 texts across 59 non-industrial societies directly discuss female leadership (Garfield et al., 2020). As the number of women contributing ethnographic texts represented in cross-cultural databases increases, so too does the amount of female specific subject matter, although thus far, quantitative studies haven't shown increased reporting of female leadership (Garfield et al., 2020; Post & Macfarlan, 2020). However, the qualitative, ethnographic literature often contains rich description of the ways in which women's status can manifest across productive, reproductive, political and ritual domains (Kramer, 2023; Quinn, 1977).

One of the richest areas of study on women's status comes from the literature on matriliny. Descent type has long been thought to play a role in gender egalitarianism and female autonomy, where matrilineal and double descent systems grant women more power in domestic and public spheres (Scelza et al., 2019; Schneider & Gough, 1961). In cross-cultural samples, evidence suggests that women in matrilineal societies are more likely to hold formal political positions than women in patrilineal populations (Low, 1992). Inheritance type has also been shown to impact sex differences in assessments of risk and competitiveness, which can influence tolerance for competition and risk associated with leadership responsibilities (Lee Cunningham et al., 2023; Marinova et al., 2013; van Kleef et al., 2021). Cross cultural comparisons of risk highlight a smaller sex difference in risk aversion in matrilineal communities compared to patriarchal ones (Gong & Yang, 2012). Similarly, prior to schooling, matrilineal girls are less risk adverse than boys, but this reverses after attending school with boys from more patriarchal groups as children from matrilineal communities appear to adopt outgroup gender norms (Liu & Zuo, 2019). Similar results are seen in studies of competition, where matrilineal women have stronger preferences for competition, while the opposite is true for men in more patriarchal societies (Gneezy et al., 2009). Unlike girls in patriarchal groups, girls from economically similar matrilineal groups show no decline in competitiveness at puberty (Andersen et al., 2013). These studies indicate that sex differences in competition are likely the result of cultural norms and local incentive structures rather than biology (Cassar & Zhang, 2022), and those norms and incentives may be fundamentally different in matrilineal populations. These features may contribute to women's greater power, status, and leadership in matrilineal populations.

More broadly, matrilineal/matrilocal societies are associated with increased autonomy and decision making power for women, greater social network connectivity and less restrictive norms related to mobility and sexuality (Biery, 1971; Mattison et al., 2021; Yanca & Low, 2004). One recent study showed that women in matrilineal societies have lower incidence of intimate partner violence, more say in household decision-making, and have smaller gender gaps in the education of children relative to patrilineal populations (Lowes, 2022). Another study, comparing matrilineal and patrilineal Mosuo communities showed that women in matrilineal communities had less son-biased fertility preferences and better markers of cardiovascular health (Mattison et al., 2016; Reynolds et al., 2020). While these studies did not measure status directly, they indicate that communities where women have greater autonomy and power are also ones where women's health and well-being is improved.

There are multiple plausible pathways for women to leverage their status to increase reproductive success. Unlike men, women don't typically utilize status to increase their number of marital or sexual partners. Instead, women may brandish clout to increase their number of alloparenting partners, child health, child survival, and children's social and reproductive success (Alami et al., 2020; Kramer, 2023; Low, 1992; Lowes, 2022). One way to utilize status is by influencing others to engage in collective labor. This should be particularly important where cooperative labor is necessary for subsistence, so that individuals with greater access to pools of labor increase household level returns, and thus calories to children. In Ecuadorian forager horticulturalists, women's status (and to a lesser extent – men's status) predicted access to labor pools which were necessary for building, garden work, and the fabrication of canoes (Bowser & Patton, 2010). Status also predicted garden richness, as women in this community increase garden diversity by sharing plant propagules with others. In turn, greater garden diversity and recruitment for collective labor may increase household level subsistence returns which can be utilized to bolster offspring nutrition. High status women may also gain advantages in intrahousehold decisions over resource allocations, which they can divert to benefit children's health. Extensive evidence suggests that when women gain more control of household income it is preferentially used to benefit their children (Handa, 1996; Lundberg et al., 1997). In Brazil, income controlled by mothers as compared to fathers resulted in a 20 fold increase in child survival (Thomas, 1990). Among Tsimane forager-horticulturalists, husbands and wives are often in conflict over labor and spending decisions (Stieglitz et al., 2011), but women with higher status are able to exert more control over household level decision making and men's engagement in wage labor (Alami et al., 2020). In turn, children of high-status women had better anthropometric outcomes and were less likely to be diagnosed with anemia, gastrointestinal or respiratory infections. Cultural norms related to women's autonomy in decision making vary, but these results suggest that when women gain social power relative to their husbands, they can redirect household resources to increase reproductive success through investments in their children.

While the benefits of high status for women have been clearly shown in a number of societies, we know less about how women gain status in the first place. In industrialized contexts there is significant research on women's leadership, which highlights gendered differences in leadership styles and contexts (Appelbaum et al., 2003; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Van Vugt & Spisak, 2008). Only a few studies have been done in non-industrialized, small scale, and politically acephalous populations like the ones where we conduct our research. Age may play some role in women's ability to attain status. Older and post-menopausal women are more likely to be freed from the demands of childcare and may be able to exert influence over younger women and other family members (Brown et al., 1982). Other predictors of status like subsistence productivity, prosocial personality traits or social connectedness, which have been demonstrated in men, have also been shown to be important to women's status (Bowser & Patton, 2010; Garfield & Hagen, 2020; von Rueden, Alami, Kaplan and Gurven, 2018, von Rueden, Gurven and Kaplan, 2008). Alternatively, it may be that the predictors of women's status differ from those of men's, just as mate preferences differ between the sexes (Buss, 1989; Vandermassen, 2008).

In this study we aim to address several of the gaps in the current literature on women's status by using multi-modal data from a longitudinal study of Himba pastoralists. We note that interpretations of status and methods of measuring status are numerous, and are often conflated with domains that may result in status, or may be the product of status. For example, socio-economic position and resource access can lead to influence over others, but leveraging influence can also result in increased socio-economic position (von Rueden & Jaeggi, 2016). Likewise, personality traits, individual expertise in relevant domains, and other performance characteristics can either lead to or magnify status. In this study, we don't intend to disentangle this complexity, but instead we seek to better understand the role of status in women in this community. First, we use these data to ascertain predictors of both men's and women's status, and look for sex differences in the predictive value of various traits. We then look at how status affect's desirability as a romantic partner for both men and women, as well as the degree to which status is correlated among spouses. Finally, we investigate the impacts of mother's and father's status on the health of their children.