Do stable, decentralized power structures only appear in female-dominated or matrilineal mammal societies?

This question came up during a conversation about baboon and vervet monkey social structures — specifically why vervets developed a matrilineal system while baboons went the other direction.

Following that thread, it seems like the mammals that come closest to having genuinely stable, decentralized power structures (rather than just "whoever wins the fight this week") tend to be either female-dominated or have strong female coalitions: bonobos, elephants, and to some extent vervets themselves.

The male-dominated examples I could think of either concentrate power heavily in a single individual (gorilla silverbacks), require constant violent maintenance to stay stable (baboons, chimps), or are only "peaceful" conditionally — like silverbacks, who are calm until a challenger shows up, at which point infanticide becomes common.

So the rough observation is: in mammals, genuinely stable and decentralized power seems to appear almost exclusively in female-led or female-coalition societies, and rarely if ever in male-dominated ones.

If this pattern holds, it raises an uncomfortable question about humans. Historically, most large-scale human societies have been male-dominated, and the pattern fits: power tends to concentrate, maintenance requires violence or the constant threat of it, and transitions are often catastrophic. The post-WWII liberal order was arguably an attempt to engineer decentralization through institutions rather than biology — and it's visibly under strain right now.

I'm not trying to make a political argument here. I'm genuinely uncertain whether this is a real biological pattern, an artifact of limited examples, or something that human institutional design can actually escape. Counterexamples and relevant literature welcome.