What biological trait could make a humanoid species more likely to be matriarchal, but keep reproductive...











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












The original idea was a race of matriarchal desert nomads, but most desert nomad societies I could find as inspiration were strongly patriarchal.



I can change this aspect if I don't find a way to make it plausible, but I'd rather not since it's already incorporated in the worldbuilding. It doesn't need to be absolute -- I just need a plausible explanation for at least 70% of this species' societies being matriarchal.



I would also appreciate some environmental factors which would favor matriarchy.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Right now on Earth there are matriarchal societies of humans, and they are quite "reproductively compatible" with the patriarchal societies around them. Are you thinking instead of polyandrous (one female, multiple male) societies?
    – RonJohn
    6 hours ago















up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












The original idea was a race of matriarchal desert nomads, but most desert nomad societies I could find as inspiration were strongly patriarchal.



I can change this aspect if I don't find a way to make it plausible, but I'd rather not since it's already incorporated in the worldbuilding. It doesn't need to be absolute -- I just need a plausible explanation for at least 70% of this species' societies being matriarchal.



I would also appreciate some environmental factors which would favor matriarchy.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Right now on Earth there are matriarchal societies of humans, and they are quite "reproductively compatible" with the patriarchal societies around them. Are you thinking instead of polyandrous (one female, multiple male) societies?
    – RonJohn
    6 hours ago













up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1






1





The original idea was a race of matriarchal desert nomads, but most desert nomad societies I could find as inspiration were strongly patriarchal.



I can change this aspect if I don't find a way to make it plausible, but I'd rather not since it's already incorporated in the worldbuilding. It doesn't need to be absolute -- I just need a plausible explanation for at least 70% of this species' societies being matriarchal.



I would also appreciate some environmental factors which would favor matriarchy.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











The original idea was a race of matriarchal desert nomads, but most desert nomad societies I could find as inspiration were strongly patriarchal.



I can change this aspect if I don't find a way to make it plausible, but I'd rather not since it's already incorporated in the worldbuilding. It doesn't need to be absolute -- I just need a plausible explanation for at least 70% of this species' societies being matriarchal.



I would also appreciate some environmental factors which would favor matriarchy.







biology culture fantasy-races






share|improve this question









New contributor




Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago









Amadeus

21.7k43085




21.7k43085






New contributor




Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 6 hours ago









Zuzka Houšková

162




162




New contributor




Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Right now on Earth there are matriarchal societies of humans, and they are quite "reproductively compatible" with the patriarchal societies around them. Are you thinking instead of polyandrous (one female, multiple male) societies?
    – RonJohn
    6 hours ago


















  • Right now on Earth there are matriarchal societies of humans, and they are quite "reproductively compatible" with the patriarchal societies around them. Are you thinking instead of polyandrous (one female, multiple male) societies?
    – RonJohn
    6 hours ago
















Right now on Earth there are matriarchal societies of humans, and they are quite "reproductively compatible" with the patriarchal societies around them. Are you thinking instead of polyandrous (one female, multiple male) societies?
– RonJohn
6 hours ago




Right now on Earth there are matriarchal societies of humans, and they are quite "reproductively compatible" with the patriarchal societies around them. Are you thinking instead of polyandrous (one female, multiple male) societies?
– RonJohn
6 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













Biological lifelong pair bonding (monogamy). This is rare, but does happen.



At least one reason males seek dominance in a society is to increase their access to mates, and thus have more children then other males, thus their genes are increased in the next generation.



Due to sexual differences between genders, only males tend to do this; specifically in humans a female can only give birth to perhaps twenty children in a "sexual career", but a male can father thousands of children in his sexual career. Therefore, there is an evolutionary upside for males to mate with as many women as possible, but there is no evolutionary advantage for women to do so.



Due to this dimorphism leading to competing mating strategies for spreading one's genes, men (and males in most wild animals) exhibit aggression and dominance over other males, to prevent them from mating and secure more mates for the "alpha". By the same token, in humans with a culture, it serves men to dominate both men and women to ensure their own ready access to reproductive opportunity.



This is true whether the result is the actual production of many children or not; the instinct to take control and subjugate others (by brute force or intelligent strategy) is still there, and stronger in males than in females.



An antidote for that, as a trait, would be lifetime pair bonding, eliminating the need for men to compete for women. Excerpts from the link:




The few animals that do stick together are providing scientists with valuable clues about the biological basis of fidelity. One of the most studied animals in this regard is the mouse-like prairie vole. A male vole will prefer to mate exclusively with the first female he loses his virginity to. And his faithfulness approaches a kind of fanaticism: Far from trying to woo other females, a mated male vole will actually attack them.



In recent years, scientists have traced these unusual behaviors to levels of certain neurotransmitters in the rodents' brains. Interestingly, one of these, dopamine, is also implicated in drug addiction in humans.




That's a plausible explanation for your species too: The female chooses a virgin male, and (biochemically speaking) the male becomes love-addicted to the female for life, he doesn't want to mate with any other female, and the only way for him to get his sex-fix is to please her, which he wants to do. He's literally not capable of being attracted to or aroused by another female.



In a way, you extend the "fallen into crazy love" phase of the relationship indefinitely, for the male. As part of pleasing her (and not suffering from the withdrawal symptoms of being denied sex with her) he lets the woman be in charge and make the decisions.



Presto, Matriarchy.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Postulating a cognitive aspect to sexual dimorphism, where the females are the brains of the clan/tribe/species. Couple this with males being subject to musth, like elephants - where their sex hormonal drives are so strong they cannot be entrusted to leadership. Highly intelligent matriarchal societies would have more subtle ways of co-opting the males into cooperation, including withholding sex, ritual restraints, cultural taboos.



    Postulating a reproductive bias toward females which tends to keep males in the minority within populations.



    Postulating the female controls paternity, as a means of modulating male behavior, enhancing female control at the most basic level.



    Postulating females as the larger of the sexes (as in hyenas). Less plausible.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      Giving females conscious control over the success of pregnancies also tips the scales towards matriarchies.
      – Joe Bloggs
      6 hours ago










    • noted & added - thanks Joe
      – theRiley
      5 hours ago










    • IOW, drug the males??
      – RonJohn
      4 hours ago










    • not necessary. already available in the animal kingdom biologically: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_female_choice
      – theRiley
      3 hours ago













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131192%2fwhat-biological-trait-could-make-a-humanoid-species-more-likely-to-be-matriarcha%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    3
    down vote













    Biological lifelong pair bonding (monogamy). This is rare, but does happen.



    At least one reason males seek dominance in a society is to increase their access to mates, and thus have more children then other males, thus their genes are increased in the next generation.



    Due to sexual differences between genders, only males tend to do this; specifically in humans a female can only give birth to perhaps twenty children in a "sexual career", but a male can father thousands of children in his sexual career. Therefore, there is an evolutionary upside for males to mate with as many women as possible, but there is no evolutionary advantage for women to do so.



    Due to this dimorphism leading to competing mating strategies for spreading one's genes, men (and males in most wild animals) exhibit aggression and dominance over other males, to prevent them from mating and secure more mates for the "alpha". By the same token, in humans with a culture, it serves men to dominate both men and women to ensure their own ready access to reproductive opportunity.



    This is true whether the result is the actual production of many children or not; the instinct to take control and subjugate others (by brute force or intelligent strategy) is still there, and stronger in males than in females.



    An antidote for that, as a trait, would be lifetime pair bonding, eliminating the need for men to compete for women. Excerpts from the link:




    The few animals that do stick together are providing scientists with valuable clues about the biological basis of fidelity. One of the most studied animals in this regard is the mouse-like prairie vole. A male vole will prefer to mate exclusively with the first female he loses his virginity to. And his faithfulness approaches a kind of fanaticism: Far from trying to woo other females, a mated male vole will actually attack them.



    In recent years, scientists have traced these unusual behaviors to levels of certain neurotransmitters in the rodents' brains. Interestingly, one of these, dopamine, is also implicated in drug addiction in humans.




    That's a plausible explanation for your species too: The female chooses a virgin male, and (biochemically speaking) the male becomes love-addicted to the female for life, he doesn't want to mate with any other female, and the only way for him to get his sex-fix is to please her, which he wants to do. He's literally not capable of being attracted to or aroused by another female.



    In a way, you extend the "fallen into crazy love" phase of the relationship indefinitely, for the male. As part of pleasing her (and not suffering from the withdrawal symptoms of being denied sex with her) he lets the woman be in charge and make the decisions.



    Presto, Matriarchy.






    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      Biological lifelong pair bonding (monogamy). This is rare, but does happen.



      At least one reason males seek dominance in a society is to increase their access to mates, and thus have more children then other males, thus their genes are increased in the next generation.



      Due to sexual differences between genders, only males tend to do this; specifically in humans a female can only give birth to perhaps twenty children in a "sexual career", but a male can father thousands of children in his sexual career. Therefore, there is an evolutionary upside for males to mate with as many women as possible, but there is no evolutionary advantage for women to do so.



      Due to this dimorphism leading to competing mating strategies for spreading one's genes, men (and males in most wild animals) exhibit aggression and dominance over other males, to prevent them from mating and secure more mates for the "alpha". By the same token, in humans with a culture, it serves men to dominate both men and women to ensure their own ready access to reproductive opportunity.



      This is true whether the result is the actual production of many children or not; the instinct to take control and subjugate others (by brute force or intelligent strategy) is still there, and stronger in males than in females.



      An antidote for that, as a trait, would be lifetime pair bonding, eliminating the need for men to compete for women. Excerpts from the link:




      The few animals that do stick together are providing scientists with valuable clues about the biological basis of fidelity. One of the most studied animals in this regard is the mouse-like prairie vole. A male vole will prefer to mate exclusively with the first female he loses his virginity to. And his faithfulness approaches a kind of fanaticism: Far from trying to woo other females, a mated male vole will actually attack them.



      In recent years, scientists have traced these unusual behaviors to levels of certain neurotransmitters in the rodents' brains. Interestingly, one of these, dopamine, is also implicated in drug addiction in humans.




      That's a plausible explanation for your species too: The female chooses a virgin male, and (biochemically speaking) the male becomes love-addicted to the female for life, he doesn't want to mate with any other female, and the only way for him to get his sex-fix is to please her, which he wants to do. He's literally not capable of being attracted to or aroused by another female.



      In a way, you extend the "fallen into crazy love" phase of the relationship indefinitely, for the male. As part of pleasing her (and not suffering from the withdrawal symptoms of being denied sex with her) he lets the woman be in charge and make the decisions.



      Presto, Matriarchy.






      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        3
        down vote










        up vote
        3
        down vote









        Biological lifelong pair bonding (monogamy). This is rare, but does happen.



        At least one reason males seek dominance in a society is to increase their access to mates, and thus have more children then other males, thus their genes are increased in the next generation.



        Due to sexual differences between genders, only males tend to do this; specifically in humans a female can only give birth to perhaps twenty children in a "sexual career", but a male can father thousands of children in his sexual career. Therefore, there is an evolutionary upside for males to mate with as many women as possible, but there is no evolutionary advantage for women to do so.



        Due to this dimorphism leading to competing mating strategies for spreading one's genes, men (and males in most wild animals) exhibit aggression and dominance over other males, to prevent them from mating and secure more mates for the "alpha". By the same token, in humans with a culture, it serves men to dominate both men and women to ensure their own ready access to reproductive opportunity.



        This is true whether the result is the actual production of many children or not; the instinct to take control and subjugate others (by brute force or intelligent strategy) is still there, and stronger in males than in females.



        An antidote for that, as a trait, would be lifetime pair bonding, eliminating the need for men to compete for women. Excerpts from the link:




        The few animals that do stick together are providing scientists with valuable clues about the biological basis of fidelity. One of the most studied animals in this regard is the mouse-like prairie vole. A male vole will prefer to mate exclusively with the first female he loses his virginity to. And his faithfulness approaches a kind of fanaticism: Far from trying to woo other females, a mated male vole will actually attack them.



        In recent years, scientists have traced these unusual behaviors to levels of certain neurotransmitters in the rodents' brains. Interestingly, one of these, dopamine, is also implicated in drug addiction in humans.




        That's a plausible explanation for your species too: The female chooses a virgin male, and (biochemically speaking) the male becomes love-addicted to the female for life, he doesn't want to mate with any other female, and the only way for him to get his sex-fix is to please her, which he wants to do. He's literally not capable of being attracted to or aroused by another female.



        In a way, you extend the "fallen into crazy love" phase of the relationship indefinitely, for the male. As part of pleasing her (and not suffering from the withdrawal symptoms of being denied sex with her) he lets the woman be in charge and make the decisions.



        Presto, Matriarchy.






        share|improve this answer












        Biological lifelong pair bonding (monogamy). This is rare, but does happen.



        At least one reason males seek dominance in a society is to increase their access to mates, and thus have more children then other males, thus their genes are increased in the next generation.



        Due to sexual differences between genders, only males tend to do this; specifically in humans a female can only give birth to perhaps twenty children in a "sexual career", but a male can father thousands of children in his sexual career. Therefore, there is an evolutionary upside for males to mate with as many women as possible, but there is no evolutionary advantage for women to do so.



        Due to this dimorphism leading to competing mating strategies for spreading one's genes, men (and males in most wild animals) exhibit aggression and dominance over other males, to prevent them from mating and secure more mates for the "alpha". By the same token, in humans with a culture, it serves men to dominate both men and women to ensure their own ready access to reproductive opportunity.



        This is true whether the result is the actual production of many children or not; the instinct to take control and subjugate others (by brute force or intelligent strategy) is still there, and stronger in males than in females.



        An antidote for that, as a trait, would be lifetime pair bonding, eliminating the need for men to compete for women. Excerpts from the link:




        The few animals that do stick together are providing scientists with valuable clues about the biological basis of fidelity. One of the most studied animals in this regard is the mouse-like prairie vole. A male vole will prefer to mate exclusively with the first female he loses his virginity to. And his faithfulness approaches a kind of fanaticism: Far from trying to woo other females, a mated male vole will actually attack them.



        In recent years, scientists have traced these unusual behaviors to levels of certain neurotransmitters in the rodents' brains. Interestingly, one of these, dopamine, is also implicated in drug addiction in humans.




        That's a plausible explanation for your species too: The female chooses a virgin male, and (biochemically speaking) the male becomes love-addicted to the female for life, he doesn't want to mate with any other female, and the only way for him to get his sex-fix is to please her, which he wants to do. He's literally not capable of being attracted to or aroused by another female.



        In a way, you extend the "fallen into crazy love" phase of the relationship indefinitely, for the male. As part of pleasing her (and not suffering from the withdrawal symptoms of being denied sex with her) he lets the woman be in charge and make the decisions.



        Presto, Matriarchy.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 5 hours ago









        Amadeus

        21.7k43085




        21.7k43085






















            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Postulating a cognitive aspect to sexual dimorphism, where the females are the brains of the clan/tribe/species. Couple this with males being subject to musth, like elephants - where their sex hormonal drives are so strong they cannot be entrusted to leadership. Highly intelligent matriarchal societies would have more subtle ways of co-opting the males into cooperation, including withholding sex, ritual restraints, cultural taboos.



            Postulating a reproductive bias toward females which tends to keep males in the minority within populations.



            Postulating the female controls paternity, as a means of modulating male behavior, enhancing female control at the most basic level.



            Postulating females as the larger of the sexes (as in hyenas). Less plausible.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Giving females conscious control over the success of pregnancies also tips the scales towards matriarchies.
              – Joe Bloggs
              6 hours ago










            • noted & added - thanks Joe
              – theRiley
              5 hours ago










            • IOW, drug the males??
              – RonJohn
              4 hours ago










            • not necessary. already available in the animal kingdom biologically: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_female_choice
              – theRiley
              3 hours ago

















            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Postulating a cognitive aspect to sexual dimorphism, where the females are the brains of the clan/tribe/species. Couple this with males being subject to musth, like elephants - where their sex hormonal drives are so strong they cannot be entrusted to leadership. Highly intelligent matriarchal societies would have more subtle ways of co-opting the males into cooperation, including withholding sex, ritual restraints, cultural taboos.



            Postulating a reproductive bias toward females which tends to keep males in the minority within populations.



            Postulating the female controls paternity, as a means of modulating male behavior, enhancing female control at the most basic level.



            Postulating females as the larger of the sexes (as in hyenas). Less plausible.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Giving females conscious control over the success of pregnancies also tips the scales towards matriarchies.
              – Joe Bloggs
              6 hours ago










            • noted & added - thanks Joe
              – theRiley
              5 hours ago










            • IOW, drug the males??
              – RonJohn
              4 hours ago










            • not necessary. already available in the animal kingdom biologically: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_female_choice
              – theRiley
              3 hours ago















            up vote
            2
            down vote










            up vote
            2
            down vote









            Postulating a cognitive aspect to sexual dimorphism, where the females are the brains of the clan/tribe/species. Couple this with males being subject to musth, like elephants - where their sex hormonal drives are so strong they cannot be entrusted to leadership. Highly intelligent matriarchal societies would have more subtle ways of co-opting the males into cooperation, including withholding sex, ritual restraints, cultural taboos.



            Postulating a reproductive bias toward females which tends to keep males in the minority within populations.



            Postulating the female controls paternity, as a means of modulating male behavior, enhancing female control at the most basic level.



            Postulating females as the larger of the sexes (as in hyenas). Less plausible.






            share|improve this answer














            Postulating a cognitive aspect to sexual dimorphism, where the females are the brains of the clan/tribe/species. Couple this with males being subject to musth, like elephants - where their sex hormonal drives are so strong they cannot be entrusted to leadership. Highly intelligent matriarchal societies would have more subtle ways of co-opting the males into cooperation, including withholding sex, ritual restraints, cultural taboos.



            Postulating a reproductive bias toward females which tends to keep males in the minority within populations.



            Postulating the female controls paternity, as a means of modulating male behavior, enhancing female control at the most basic level.



            Postulating females as the larger of the sexes (as in hyenas). Less plausible.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 3 hours ago

























            answered 6 hours ago









            theRiley

            1,542114




            1,542114








            • 1




              Giving females conscious control over the success of pregnancies also tips the scales towards matriarchies.
              – Joe Bloggs
              6 hours ago










            • noted & added - thanks Joe
              – theRiley
              5 hours ago










            • IOW, drug the males??
              – RonJohn
              4 hours ago










            • not necessary. already available in the animal kingdom biologically: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_female_choice
              – theRiley
              3 hours ago
















            • 1




              Giving females conscious control over the success of pregnancies also tips the scales towards matriarchies.
              – Joe Bloggs
              6 hours ago










            • noted & added - thanks Joe
              – theRiley
              5 hours ago










            • IOW, drug the males??
              – RonJohn
              4 hours ago










            • not necessary. already available in the animal kingdom biologically: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_female_choice
              – theRiley
              3 hours ago










            1




            1




            Giving females conscious control over the success of pregnancies also tips the scales towards matriarchies.
            – Joe Bloggs
            6 hours ago




            Giving females conscious control over the success of pregnancies also tips the scales towards matriarchies.
            – Joe Bloggs
            6 hours ago












            noted & added - thanks Joe
            – theRiley
            5 hours ago




            noted & added - thanks Joe
            – theRiley
            5 hours ago












            IOW, drug the males??
            – RonJohn
            4 hours ago




            IOW, drug the males??
            – RonJohn
            4 hours ago












            not necessary. already available in the animal kingdom biologically: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_female_choice
            – theRiley
            3 hours ago






            not necessary. already available in the animal kingdom biologically: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_female_choice
            – theRiley
            3 hours ago












            Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Zuzka Houšková is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.















             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131192%2fwhat-biological-trait-could-make-a-humanoid-species-more-likely-to-be-matriarcha%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

            Calculate evaluation metrics using cross_val_predict sklearn

            Insert data from modal to MySQL (multiple modal on website)