Download Feminist school of criminology

Feminist school of criminology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Feminist school)
• Ten things you didn't know about images on Wikipedia •
Jump to: navigation, search
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
Criminology and Penology
Schools
Chicago School · Classical School
Conflict Criminology
Environmental Criminology
Feminist School · Frankfurt School
Integrative Criminology
Italian School · Left Realism
Marxist Criminology
Neo-Classical School
Positivist School
Postmodernist School
Right Realism
Criminal justice portal
See also Wikibooks:Social Deviance
This box: view • talk • edit
The Feminist School of criminology developed in the late 1960s and into the 1970s as a
reaction against the gender distortions and stereotyping within traditional criminology. It
was closely associated with the emergence of the Second Wave of feminism and it speaks
with multiple viewpoints developed from different feminist writers. Politically, there is a
range from Marxist and Socialist to Liberal feminism addressing the "gender ratio"
problem (i.e. why women are less likely than men to commit crime) or the
generalisability problem (i.e. "adding" women to male knowledge, whereby the findings
from research on men are generalised to women).
Contents
[hide]

1 Discussion
o




1.1 Gender ratio
 1.1.1 The history of male stereotypes
 1.1.2 More modern theories
o 1.2 Female theories about female offending
2 Biological explanations of female criminality
3 Victimology
4 Criticisms
5 References
[edit] Discussion
Criminology is the study of crime and criminal justice, and it covers a multitude of
topics, but the principal theories of criminality have been developed from male subjects,
have been validated on male subjects, and focus on male victimisation. While there may
be nothing wrong with this, the theories have then been generalised to include all
criminals, defendants and prisoners, i.e. the facts about crime tend to be based on the sex
of the offender and not the crime itself. This 'sexism' in criminology also influences the
sentencing, punishment, and imprisonment of women who are not expected to be
criminals and, if they are, they may be described as 'mad not bad'. The attribution of
madness to women flows from the entirely outdated construct that women who conform
are pure, obedient daughters, wives and mothers who benefit society and men. If they
dared to go against their natural biological traits of 'passivity' and a 'weakness of
compliance', they must be mentally ill: a classic androcentric view which has been held
by few academics in decades. Feminism operates within the existing social structures to
examine the social, political, and economic experience of women and to devise strategies
for achieving greater equality (via inequality) in women's roles. This involves
considering how women came to occupy subservient roles, the nature of male privilege,
and the means whereby the discourses that constitute the power of patriarchy can be
redirected to transform society.
As it is, gender role expectations continue to define acceptable behaviours and attitudes
for females and males; deviation from these expectations may result in a variety of
societal sanctions ranging from verbal abuse to violence to incarceration. These roles are
a powerful form of social control maintained through informal and formal mechanisms.
Heidensohn (1992, 2000) suggests a male-biased control theory:


"a woman's place is in the home": a woman has fewer opportunities for criminal
activity because the routine of domesticity keeps her in the home. In any event,
women are more afraid to go out of the home after dark because they fear
aggressive male behaviour.
at work, men have a supervisory or managerial role (often characterised by
women as harassment) which makes it more difficult for women to commit major
crimes.
Further, males, the dominant group and the standard of normality, have maintained
inequality through control of the definition of deviance and of the institutions of social
control. Women have been defined as different from men and, hence, inferior; that stigma
has acted to deny them their full civil rights and access to societal resources (Naffine:
1996).
Feminists waves may have brought greater liberation to women, it has not changed their
pattern of crime. Women are still much less likely to commit crime, this includes both
blue and white collar crime. Feminist criminology is conflict based calling for the
downgrading of many dominant crime theories, as they were constructed without
consideration for feminist viewpoints. Feminists’ now call for the inclusion of women
into criminological teaching, research, theory and publications (and not only because they
are after jobs and nice fat grants).[1]
Most criminological texts (from the Nineteenth Century) and discussions almost forget
about women as they are afforded little attention as they are grouped with juvenile
delinquents and the mentally insane. Smart argues this grouping with the more neglected
members of the criminal world is a reflection of the females role in the community,
women have always lacked “civil and legal status”, therefore it is acceptable for women
to be grouped with juvenile offenders and mentally challenged offenders.[2] Smart
continues the study of criminology is always in reference to men, in reference to a male’s
rationality, motivation, alienation and his victim who is always male. The disqualification
of women from the criminological field is evident in criminological text as it is assumed,
the man can speak for her. In criminology, just as in society man is the centre of the
universe and women are merely their complement.
[edit] Gender ratio
Research methods are "technique(s) for ... gathering data" and are either quantitative or
qualitative. It has been argued that methodology has been gendered (Oakley 1997; 1998),
with quantitative methods traditionally being associated with words such as positivism,
scientific, objectivity, statistics and masculinity, while qualitative methods have generally
been associated with interpretivism, non-scientific, subjectivity and femininity. These
associations have led some feminist researchers to criticise or even reject the quantitative
approach, arguing that it is in direct conflict with the aims of feminist research, though
other have argued that this rejection is merely because those feminist writers did not like
the results of the quantitative analysis. It has been argued that qualitative methods are
more appropriate for feminist research by allowing subjective knowledge (read untestable
facts and assertions based on 'common knowledge'), and a more equal relationship
between the researcher and the researched (Westmarland: 2001). As official records, the
statistics generated by crime reporting show that fewer women commit crimes, and far
fewer women are victims of crime, but there has been little research to explain this
difference. One explanation for this omission might be that because women commit
fewer crimes, they are less of a problem so an examination of their criminality is either
inherently less interesting or less relevant to developing an understanding of how to
control the men. But the explanation is more likely concerned with male stereotypes.
[edit] The history of male stereotypes
Critique has been the essential tool for the production of feminist, not simply anti-sexist,
theory. Victorian America viewed women in accordance with inflexible ideals of
femininity, and the male-dominated criminal courts were inhibited by notions of chivalry
when required to apply justice to women whom cultural norms had determined to be
"pure, passive and dependent", and whom, leading experts claimed, seldom committed
crimes. Later, Otto Pollak (1950) claimed that men are socialised to treat women in a
fatherly and protective manner. Female offenders were like their mothers and wives, and
the male judiciary could not imagine them behaving in a criminal way. Women were
therefore protected: their criminal activity was less likely to be detected, reported,
prosecuted, or sentenced harshly. Chivalry had only positive effects on women who were
essentially more deceitful than men, and were the instigators rather than the perpetrators
of crime. Where did this greater capacity for deceit come from? From the 'passive' role
which, according to Pollack, they have to assume during sexual intercourse. Less
flatteringly, The Criminality of Women also claimed that women prefer professions like
maids, nurses, teachers, and homemakers so that they can engage in undetectable crime.
He also thought women were especially subject to certain mental diseases like
kleptomania and nymphomania.
The most investigated "difference" between the sexes was biological. Cesare Lombroso
(1903) identified the female physiognomy thought most likely to determine criminal
propensity. This was the new science of "criminal anthropology" matching the general
fascination with Darwinism and physical anthropology, where scientists sought
pathological and atavistic causes for criminal behaviour. While he credited criminal
women as being stronger than men, the consequence was that prison would hardly affect
them at all. Lombroso concluded true female criminals were rare and showed few signs
of degeneration because they had “evolved less than men due to the inactive nature of
their lives”.[3] Lombroso argued it was the females’ natural passivity that withheld them
from breaking the law, as they lacked the intelligence and initiative to become criminal.
Sigmund Freud theorised that all women experience penis envy and seek to compensate
an inferiority complex by being exhibitionistic and narcissistic, focusing on irrational and
trivial matters instead of being interested in building a just civilisation. William I.
Thomas (1907) published Sex and Society in which he argued that men and women
possessed essentially different personality traits. Men were more criminal because of
their biologically determined active natures. Women were more passive and less
criminally capable. In The Unadjusted Girl (1923) he argued that as women have a
greater capacity to love than men they suffer more when they do not receive social
approval and affection. The "unadjusted girls" are those who use their sexuality in a
socially unacceptable way to get what they want from life. The female criminal forgoes
the conventional rewards of domesticity by refusing to accept prevailing modes of
sexuality and seeks excitement, wealth, and luxury: a pursuit that may conflict with the
interests of the social group as it also exercises the freedom to pursue similar goals.
[edit] More modern theories
Strain Theories are criticised by feminists as betraying a double standard. When male
offenders commit a crime under certain conditions of opportunity blockage, their
commission of crime is somehow seen as a "normal" or functional response. When
women commit crime, Strain Theory views it as some sort of "weakness". Naffine (1987)
probably represents the best example of this critique, but there are other critiques, such as
the characterisation of females as "helpmates" or facilitators of crime in the Strain
Theories of Albert K. Cohen, and Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin.
The research methodology in Social Learning Theories, such as Edwin Sutherland's
Differential Association Theory, is criticised for relying on male examples, using case
studies of males only, and being a male-dominated perspective that glamorises the male
criminal, or at least the sociable, gregarious, active, and athletic characteristics of the
male criminal. Similarly, Social Control Theories, such as Hirschi's Social Bond Theory,
focuses almost exclusively on social class at the expense of gender and race.
Feminists therefore concluded that the failure of criminology to research the issue of
female criminality fairly either reflected a male-dominated discourse in which men
primarily research male issues, or betrayed the rigidity of male stereotypes which allowed
men to justify their prejudices with pseudoscience.
[edit] Female theories about female offending
Adler (1975) proposed that the emancipation of women during the 1970s increased
economic opportunities for women and allowed women to be as crime-prone as men.
While "women have demanded equal opportunity in the fields of legitimate endeavours, a
similar number of determined women have forced their way into the world of major
crime such as white-collar crime, murder, and robbery" (Adler, 1975: 3). She suggested
that as women are climbing up the corporate business ladder, they are making use of their
'vocational liberation' to pursue careers in white-collar crime. But feminism has made
female crime more visible through increased reporting, policing and the sentencing of
female offenders and, even then, the statistical base is small in comparison to men.
Carlen (1985) argues that Adler's 'new female criminal' is cast as the 'biological female'
who is essentially masculine. The 'new female' criminal turns out to be the 'old
maladjusted masculinist female' of traditional criminology, rejecting her proper feminine
role such as institutionalising rather than incarcerating women who commit 'male'
offences such as robbery, i.e. Adler's 'sisters in crime' appears to work within the
frameworks of traditional criminology rather than a feminist one. For an examination of
gender in crimes of violence, see Alder).
A debate in the recent criminology literature has focused on the handling of female
offenders as they are processed through the criminal justice system. There are two
competing perspectives. The chivalry or paternalism hypothesis which echoes the
perception of female inmates as victims, argues that women are treated more leniently
than men at various stages of the male-dominated justice process as a function of the
male desire to protect the weaker (Crew: 1991; Erez, 1992). The "evil women"
hypothesis which parallels the female inmate as subhuman perspective, holds that women
often receive harsher treatment than men in the criminal justice system and suggests that
this different treatment results from the notion that criminal women have violated not
only legal boundaries but also gender role expectations (Chesney-Lind, 1984; Erez,
1992). Simon (1975) predicted that the criminal justice system would start treating men
and women offenders equally. There is mixed empirical evidence for this emancipation
or liberation thesis, and some would say that absolutely no empirical evidence exists for
it and the notion is discredited (Chesney-Lind & Pasko 2004). Sex differentials in
sentencing are subject to a variety of interpretations, and not all feminists want the
criminal justice system to treat women equally. It seems that women are not committing
the "big take" offences like stock fraud and other white-collar crimes, or bank robberies.
Instead, they are admitted to the justice system charged with committing different crimes.
Wundersitz (1988) and Crew (1991) consider the chivalry and paternalism factors in the
process.
Farrington and Morris (1983) found some empirical evidence that women did receive less
severe punishments, but female offenders are far more likely to be first-time offenders,
and to have committed a less serious form of the relevant offence; they stole smaller or
fewer items, used less violence, and so on. Prior history of offending, and seriousness of
offence, are fundamental factors in determining severity of sentence, for any offender.
Once these variables are entered into the equation, it is possible to conclude that female
offenders are not being treated any differently from males in equivalent circumstances.
However, the evidence does suggest that married women with a caring role are more
likely to be treated leniently. This may be because they are expected to remain in the
home to continue their dependent "maternal" function. Unmarried women or those in
unconventional relationships tended to receive more harsh treatment, confirming a
sentencing model based a cultural need to reinforce gender roles within a framework of
heterosexual marriage or family life. Kruttschnitt (1982) who investigated the link
between economic independence, informal social control, and heavier sentences for
women. In a study of convictions in a Californian population in the 1970s Kruttschnitt
found that sentence may differ with the extent to which a woman is economically
dependent upon someone else for her day-to-day existence: the more dependent she is,
the less severe her disposition. Thus, the degree to which a female offender can be shown
to be under informal social control may produce a lighter formal sentence.
Chapman (1980) studied the connection between labour force participation, and revealed
an increase in female criminal activity during times of economic hardship. The smallest
increases in arrests coincided with periods of the greatest increase in economic activity
with the most common offence being that of shop lifting. These findings would seem to
support a theory of a relationship between employment and crime rather than that offered
by the 'women's liberation thesis'. When times are good, the offending woman appears to
stabilise rather than escalate. An absence rather than availability of employment
opportunities (liberation thesis) would seem a more plausible explanation for increases in
female crime. Naffine (1987: 99) believes the criminal woman's motive appears more
rational and straight forward than manifesting her gender-role concerns or seeking to
compete with the criminal male.
Studies of patriarchy tend to look at everything from female membership in maledominated professions to the "rape culture" with promotes female victimisation. The
study of patriarchy has also allowed feminists to uncover hidden forms of violence
against women. For example, feminist critiques of pedagogy (how teachers teach) have
become quite common, as education, particularly criminal justice education, becomes the
domain for discovering examples of male-dominated thinking and examples of the
marginalisation thesis (women being reminded that they are only women, o rmen being
reminded that they are bad - simply because they are not women).
[edit] Biological explanations of female criminality
Criminology texts usually does not cover the broad possibilities that may account for
female criminality. A criticism of criminological explanations of female crime is its
insistence on presuming the nature of females and their predisposition away from crime.
This determinate model of female criminality, Smart (1976:176) argues assumes an
“inherent and natural distinction exists between the temperament, ability and
conditionability of men and women”. Further explained, females have a milder
temperament, have a lesser ability to commit crime and are more easily conditioned
towards abiding the law. Past studies of women have developed myths about female
criminality, criminologists have explained female criminals as being more “cruel and
sinister than that of the male. She is described as unnatural, masculine” (Burke
2001:162), and lacking the qualities that would make her a reserved and obedient female.
This approach has been criticised as it assumes any female that varies from the traditional
female role is criminal or likely criminal and it assumes that there is a large and
significant difference between men and women. Smart argues that the differences that
exist between males and females are of little importance in the study of crime as the
factors that cause crime are “culturally determinate rather than a reflection of the natural
qualities of the sexes” (1976:176).
Feminists have levelled complaints at this angle of criminology that assumes females are
controlled by their biology and are incapable of thinking for themselves, feminist point
out that while criminological thinking has surpassed the gloomy days of biological
determinism and the predetermined actor model of crime, criminological explanations of
female crime has not. The study of female criminality is where the study of male
criminality was in the 1870’s. Some criminologists suggest a link between “hormonal
changes in pregnancy, menstruation and female criminal behaviour” and crime(Burke
2001:164). Furthermore, in criminal cases women have used defences such as post-natal
depression as the reason for infanticide and other crimes. The reliance upon biological
reasons for a female’s criminality has reinforced societal views of the biologically
criminal female. Society therefore, neglects to account for other reasons such as social
and economic for a female’s criminal act.
[edit] Victimology
Feminist argue criminological texts neglect the victimisation of women. Women are
given little thought as the focus is mounted upon the male offender, the victimisation of
women is forgotten:







Three out of four women will be victims of violent crimes during their lives.
Violence is the leading cause of injuries to women aged 15 to 44.
50 per cent of homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence.
Assault is the largest cause of injury to women in the US.
Arrests rate for domestic violence is guessed at 1 in 100 domestic assaults.
Less than 1 per cent of rape victims have collected damages.
Domestic violence costs the state between 5-10 billion each year.[4]
Feminists argue these figures would not be ignored if society was not so accepting of
female exploitation. Domestic violence and rape are increasingly being reported, as they
have been given greater significance and a deeper understanding by society. Past
generations of women have suffered in silence due to the lack of importance the police
and criminology has afforded women’s victimisation.
Another criticism levied at criminology by feminists, is the lack of interest given to
women who are the silent sufferer whilst their male partner is in prison. Criminological
studies generally focus on the prisoner and his relationship with the penal system, having
little interest for the females concerns. Prisoner studies detail the anguish suffered by the
imprisoned men who are separated from their families but we hear nothing of the
suffering of the women and their families who are the other side of that relationship”.[5]
Feminists have introduced the possibility that females suffer equally when men are
imprisoned.
[edit] Criticisms
Carlen[6] believes there are shortcomings in feminist theories of criminality. Carlen points
to three key areas of female offending that feminist theory cannot explain;



That women’s crimes are that of the underclass, suggesting class conflict
Female offending is disproportionately from ethnic groups suggesting race
conflict
Women in prison have usually suffered from poverty
[edit] References
1. ^ Vito, G. and Holmes, R. (1994). Criminology. Theory, Research and Policy.
International Thomson Publishing, California.
2. ^ Smart, C. (1976). Women, Crime and Criminology. Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London.
3. ^ Burke, R. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory. Willan Publishing,
Devon.
4. ^ Muraskin, R. and Roberts, A. (2002). Visions for Change. Crime and Justice in
the Twenty First Century. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
5. ^ Smart 1976
6. ^ Carlen, P., (1992) ‘Criminal Women and Criminal Justice, the Limits to and the
Potential of, Feminist and Left Realist Perspectives’, in Matthews, R., and Young,
J., (eds), Issues in Realist Criminology. Sage, London.




















Abbott, P. & Wallace, C. (1990) An Introduction to Sociology: Feminist
perspectives (Part 9).
Adler, Freda. (1975). Sisters in Crime.
Alder, Christine. Explaining Violence: Socioeconomics and Masculinity. [1]
Carlen, Pat. (1985). Criminal Women
Carlen, Pat. (1988). Women, Crime and Poverty. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Chapman, Jane Roberts. (1980), Economic Realities and the Female Offender.
Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1984). "Women and Crime: A review of the recent literature
on the female offender". (Report No. 295). Honolulu: University of Hawaii,
Youth Development and Research Center.
Chesney-Lind, Meda & Pasko, Lisa. (2004). The Female Offender: Girls, Women,
and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crew, B.K. (1991). "Sex differences in patriarchy: Chivalry or patriarchy?"
Justice Quarterly, 8 (1), 59-83.
Farrington, D. P. & Morris, A. (1983). "Sex, sentencing and reconviction". British
Journal of Criminology. Vol. 23, pp229-48.
Heidensohn, Frances. (1992) Women in Control? The Role of Women in Law
Enforcement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heidensohn, Frances. (2000) Sexual Politics and Social Control. Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.
Kruttschnitt, C. (1982). "Women, crime, and dependency: an application of the
theory of law". Criminology. Vol. 19, pp495-513.
Lloyd, A. (1995) Doubly Deviant, Doubly Damned: Society's treatment of violent
women.
Lombroso, Cesare. (1980) The Female Offender. Littleton, Colorado: Fred
Rothman.
Naffine, N. (1987). Female Crime: The Construction of Women in Criminology.
Boston: Allen and Unwin.
Naffine, N. (1996). Feminism and Criminology. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Oakley, Ann (1997). "The gendering of methodology: An experiment in
knowing". Seminar to Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study in the Social
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 10th April.
Oakley, Ann (1998). "Science, gender, and women's liberation: An argument
against postmodernism". Women's Studies International Forum, 21(2), 133-146.
Pollak, Otto. (1950). The Criminality of Women. (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.




Simon, Rita. (1975). Women and Crime. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Thomas, William I. (1923). The Unadjusted Girl. With Cases and Standpoint for
Behavioral Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1923. (reprinted (1967).
N.Y.: Evanston; London: Harper & Row).
Westmarland, Nicole. (2001). "The Quantitative/Qualitative Debate and Feminist
Research: A Subjective View of Objectivity" Forum: Qualitative Social
Research. Volume 2, No. 1 – February. [2]
Wundersitz, J., Naffine, N. & Gale, F. (1988). "Chivalry, Justice or Paternalism?
The Female Offender in the Juvenile Justice System". Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Sociology, Vol. 24, p359.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_school_of_criminology"
Categories: NPOV disputes | Criminology