User:N123d4/sandbox

Scientific Sexism
The term scientific sexism is a subcategory of the concept of sexism which explores the notion and arguments that males or females are biologically and/or psychologically superior. Sexism, is defined as “prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender…It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another. ” As such, scientific sexism defines the ways in which these forms of discrimination have been informed by scientific theory – which often works to outline "natural," or biologically based sex roles. These roles not only include personality traits or stereotypes (e.g. women being passive or men being aggressive), but also inform social foundations such as education and employment by restricting or encouraging men or women to pursue different life paths (e.g. men in science or engineering, and women in the arts etc.)

Historically, scientific sexism derives from evolutionary theory - hence it is similar theoretically to sociobiology; which "aims to examine and explain social behaviour in terms of evolution." But instead of merely explaining broad social behaviour, scientific sexism denotes the belief that biological difference legitimates distinct gender roles. Aiming to explain that the binary rhetoric of “men this, women that” which infiltrates our social world, has foundations in genetics.

There is much debate surrounding the validity of the concept, with varied opinions within branches of science, sociology and psychology. Many scholars still believe that the Darwinian concepts that are innate to evolutionary theory are important in their validating of gender roles. Contrastingly, the line of debate that theories of evolution which work to separate the genders based on supposed genetic capability are innately sexist and unfounded, have been increasingly popularised.

Conceptual History
Cultural and historical research has demonstrated that different societies have distinct sex roles for males and females, that are often constructed through apparent biological difference. The specifics of these sex roles varies considerably within different societies and historical periods.

Initial versions of distinct sex differences (with specific reference to intelligence) became apparent in the late 16th Century. Juan Huarte's The Examination of Men's Wits (1575) presents a theory of sex differences which populated Western thought through until the 17th century. An increase in the popularity of scientific fields such as anatomy and physiology, led to Huarte's theories being proceeded by more specific scientific theories which denoted that the intellectual gap between the sexes came from the apparent simpleness of the female brain. As such, scientific method worked to construct women as biologically subordinate, passive and inferior.

Stephanie Shields' paper, Functionalism, Darwinism, and the Psychology of Women. A Study in Social Myths (1975), shows how sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists between the 19th and early 20th Century continued to argue for biological explanations of male dominance and female subordination. The paper examines the supposed variations in brain size and complexity between the sexes, the hypothesis of greater male variability, and the concept of maternal instinct - all through the lens of evolutionary theory.

Social Darwinism
Charles Darwin's On The Origin of Species (1859), has maintained a lasting prominence within fields of both science and social science that has, among certain scholars, fostered a belief that this Darwinian evolutionary theory works to legitimate the discrimination and stereotypes contained within sexism (along with classism and racism). Darwin's theory describes the concept that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. This theory not only discussed broad concepts of social and physical evolution but worked to enforce a gender divide in a world that already encouraged strong, powerful, working husband and "glamorized...dutiful, sexually passive roles to proper wives."

Education
Women have traditionally had limited access to higher education - or more so men are afforded easier access to institutions of higher education. Historically, when granted access to education women were encourage to pursue majors away from scientific subjects; for example the study of English literature, was constructed as a field of study that was considered suitable and specifically tailored for a women's apparent biological "lesser intellect." This diversion of women away from STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, or mathematics) in higher education creates a cycle of gender difference. Due to a general lack of exposure to the subject, a push towards easier, more feminine classes, and small numbers of other visible women going into the STEM field - the number of women in STEM becomes increasingly lowered, further the cyclical nature of gender difference.

Debate
There continues to be large amounts of debate surrounding the validity of the science behind the concept. Although many scientists, sociologists and psychologists still base their beliefs in early evolutionary theory models, working to enforce gender roles and stereotypes in the process, there are a significant number of criticism of the thought

Affirmative
Simon Baron-Cohen, a Cambridge University professor claims that 'the female brain is predominantly 'hard-wired' for empathy, while the male brain is predominantly "hard-wired" for understanding and building systems". Enforcing, a gender divide that has genetics at its core.

Negative
Since the early 1990s, feminist evolutionists and sociologists have criticised evolutionary psychologists - specifically addressing their perpetuation of gender stereotypes, the use of apparent questionable methodology, and a complete disregard of feminist theory. These scholars, who maintain a position against the theories behind scientific sexism claim that the biologists, psychologists, and sociologists that work to uphold sexist positions do so through clearly unsupportable scientific methods. As such rationalising social inequality with no strong conceptual base.