You’re 100% correct.

“The power of these female coalitions is one of the main mechanisms that reverses the power dynamics between the sexes within bonobo groups,” Surbeck added via email. When female bonobos form aggressive alliances to exert social control over males, they demonstrate that power can be derived not from physical strength, but also from social support.

This is where the attack by the five females on Hugo begins to make sense. According to primatologists monitoring this community, a couple of days earlier, Hugo had acted aggressively toward the infant of the youngest attacker, Bella (15 years old). Infanticide is a common male strategy in many species to ensure reproductive success: a male fathers offspring once the female is no longer caring for the children she had with others.

“Bonobo females, however, have managed to reverse this trend, which chimpanzees do, thanks to an unusual cooperation between them,” explains Pashchevskaya, “and they even attack males who misbehave with their young.”

“Extreme violence would be better explained as a response to the extreme threat: infanticide,” summarizes the lead author of the case now detailed in Current Biology.

There’s a full-court press to discredit empathy as an ethos. So much so that even casual blogs and news outlets that don’t even have a horse in the race will still entertain the topic because it gets them the clicks.

The others aren’t crazy violent either…

Silverbacks don’t select leaders based on aggression, the tribe picks based on compassion then sheer strength/aggression.

Chimps aren’t bloodthirsty murderers either. Most of their violence is one group against another.

Like, you’ve missed the entire point of this:

That all primates are more similar than common perception.

I would love to see an article about bobobos titled “So Much For the Tolerant Left!”