Editing Primatology (section)

===Changing stereotypes{{Clarify|reason=Clarify what this section has to do with women in primatology|date=January 2022}}===
Darwin noted that [[sexual selection]] acts differently on females and males.<!-- does this passage mean beyond primates? This whole paragraph could be talking about most of the animal kingdom until it finally vaguely mentions primates again at the end, let alone any further specificity like Hominoidea or hominids.--> Early research emphasized male-male competition for females. It was widely believed that males tend to woo females, and that females are passive. For years this was the dominant interpretation, emphasizing competition among dominant males who control territorial boundaries and maintain order among lesser males. Females, on the other hand, were described as "dedicated mothers to small infants and sexually available to males in order of the males' dominance rank". Female-female competition was ignored. Schiebinger proposed that the failure to acknowledge female-female competitions could "skew notions of sexual selection" to "ignore interactions between males and females that go beyond the strict interpretation of sex as for reproduction only".<ref name="Schibinger_Londa">{{cite journal|last=Schiebinger|first=Londa|year=2001|title=Has Feminism Changed Science|journal=Signs|publisher=First Harvard University Press|volume=25|issue=4|pages=1171–5|doi=10.1086/495540|pmid=17089478|s2cid=225088475}}</ref> In the 1960s primatologists started looking at what females did, slowly changing the stereotype of the passive female. We now know that females are active participants, and even leaders, within their groups. For instance, Rowell found that female baboons determine the route for daily foraging.<ref name="Despret2009">{{cite book|last=Despret|first=Vinciane|url=https://orbi.uliege.be//bitstream/2268/135556/1/Rowell%20derni%c3%a8re%20version%20anglais.pdf|title=Rebels, Mavericks, and Heretics in Biology|publisher=[[Yale University Press]]|year=2009|isbn=9780300158458|editor-last=Harman|editor-first=Oren|pages=338–355|chapter=Culture and gender do not dissolve into how scientists "read" nature: Thelma Rowell's heterodoxy|hdl=2268/135556|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Similarly, Shirley Strum found that male investment in special relationships with females had greater productive payoff in comparison to a male's rank in a dominance hierarchy.<ref name="Strum2012">{{cite journal|last1=Strum|first1=Shirley C.|year=2012|title=Darwin's monkey: why baboons can't become human|journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology|volume=149|pages=3–23|doi=10.1002/ajpa.22158|pmid=23077093|doi-access=free}}</ref> This emerging "female point of view" resulted in a reanalysis of how aggression, reproductive access, and dominance affect primate societies.

Schiebinger has also accused sociobiologists of producing the "corporate primate", described as "female baboons with briefcases, strategically competitive and aggressive". This contrasts with the notion that only men are competitive and aggressive. Observations have repeatedly demonstrated that female apes and monkeys also form stable dominance hierarchies and alliances with their male counterparts. Females display aggression, exercise sexual choice, and compete for resources, mates and territory, like their male counterparts.<ref name="Schiebinger_Londa" />