Feminist Theories: Gender, Power, and Crime Part IX

Although their numbers have increased, females remain a relatively Gender: Juvenile Although their numbers have increased, females remain a relatively small proportion of the delinquency caseload nationwide. Juvenile courts handled 448,900 cases involving females in 2007, more than twice the 1985 number. In comparison, the number of cases involving males in 2007 (1,217,100) was just 30% more than the 1985 number. As a result of these trends, the female proportion of the delinquency caseload has risen steadily, from 19% in 1985 to 27% in 2007. Females accounted for a larger proportion of cases in 2007 than in 1985 for each of the four general offense categories. Source: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/230168.pdf

WHY THE JUVENILE FEMALE CHANGE? Juvenile courts cases handled Person offenses: homicide, rape, robbery, assault, violent sex WHY THE JUVENILE FEMALE CHANGE?

Women are the fastest growing segment of prison and jail populations (50% in the last decade).  In 1970 there were 5,600 women incarcerated in the US.  In 2004 there were 103,000.  African American women are more than 3 times as likely as Latino Women and six times more likely than white women to be locked up. 57% of women in State prison report that they were physically or sexually abused prior to incarceration. Most women prisoners are mothers.  64% have minor children, and 60% were living with their kids when arrested. 

Women Prisoners in California California holds the largest number of women prisoners of any US State, and has the two largest prisons for women in the world in Chowchilla. 40% were employed at the time of their arrest and 40% had incomes of less than $600 per month. 66% have been convicted of property or drug related crimes, crimes of survival.  More have been victims of violent crimes than have been convicted of violence. 

FBI stats: 2006-2010: Men versus Women http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl35.xls

Why?

The Rise of Feminist Criminology For much of its history, criminology has focused on men Empirical studies used male-only samples Theories constructed to explain why men and boys broke the law Due to males being disproportionately involved in crime Women’s criminality seen as tangential to the crime problem Most early criminologists were male

The Rise of Feminist Criminology Early analyses of women were sexist Viewed female criminality as a departure from “natural” female behavior that is maternal, passive, and gentle Female lawbreakers had a pathological defect in their biological makeup or within their psyche Social factors (e.g., inequality) were given little or no importance

The Rise of Feminist Criminology Starting in the 1970s, this male-only focus was challenged Gender was pushed to the front of the theoretical analysis Fueled in part by the Women’s Rights Movement, which had two major effects: Increased the number of women in criminology Focused attention on the social situation of women vis-à-vis men Gender-based differences in socialization and inequalities in power

The Rise of Feminist Criminology In the context of the Women’s Rights Movement, feminist criminology emerged Gender relations become central to understanding human behavior, including crime Focus on how gender relations are related to crime Special emphasis on how crime is related to gender-based inequality Attempt to change structural relationships in society that result in gender discrimination and oppression

The Rise of Feminist Criminology The questions feminist criminology attempts to answer include: How can female crime be explained? New theories need to be developed or traditional theories need to be revised to take into account gender How can the gender gap in crime, and changes in the gender gap over time, be explained? Gender is a strong correlate of crime, with males committing more crime than women However, the gender gap has decreased for certain crimes in recent decades

The Rise of Feminist Criminology The questions feminist criminology attempts to answer include: What role does gender play in the generation of male crime? Traditional theories devote little attention to the role of gender in producing crime How does gender “intersect” with race/ethnicity and class to affect crime?

Diversity Within Feminist Criminology There has been a prominent split in feminist criminology between: Liberal feminism Focuses on the salience of sex-role socialization and equality of opportunities More influence early in the feminist criminology movement Critical or radical approach feminism Emphasizes the structural inequality in power between men and women Focuses on the role of patriarchy Currently directs most theory and research within feminist criminology

Liberation and Crime Significant changes came from the Women’s Rights Movement Some feminist criminologists believed that if girls were raised like boys and had the same opportunities as boys, their behavior would be more like that of boys Would lead to equality in crime This idea was the basis of Rita Simon’s Women and Crime A major by-product of the Women’s Rights Movement will be a high proportion of women who engage in criminal behavior Women’s entrance into the workforce would also increase their probability for white-collar crime However, the Women’s Rights Movement would not increase violent crime

Adler: Sisters in Crime Supported the liberation thesis As women were demanding equal opportunity in legitimate endeavors, they were also forcing themselves into the world of crime Women were committing more crimes and engaging in traditionally male offenses Between 1960 and 1972, female arrests increased: 168 percent for burglary 277 percent for robbery 280 percent for embezzlement Over 300 percent for larceny

Adler: Sisters in Crime Argued that female offenders are not pathological and instead social experiences influence life-choices, including the choice of crime Women, at a young age, are taught to be obedient, dependent, modest about their bodies, and to avoid sex play Also taught to turn to others for gratification, cry when hurt, be spontaneously affectionate, and achieve less in school and work Socialized in this way by parents, school, toys, etc.

Adler: Sisters in Crime Thus, women are smaller and have been socially shaped toward passivity, dependency, and conformity, while men are stronger and have been socially shaped to be aggressive, achievement-oriented, and willing to break rules and take risks However, social times have changed, and this is changing the view of the “normal” male and female

Adler: Sisters in Crime Of all the differences between the sexes, only four—size, strength, aggression, and dominance—have been implicated in the overrepresentation of males in the CJS Size and strength are biological givens Aggression and dominance are socially learned In humans, there is almost a complete cultural “override” of innate drives and tendencies Culture defines what traits are dominant Cites Margaret Mead’s work Many examples of very aggressive, tough, stern women with power throughout history (e.g., Elizabeth I, Cleopatra, Golda Meir) These examples challenge the myth of innate female passivity

Adler: Sisters in Crime Thus, social position and social role expectations are more important than sex in determining behavior During the War, many women took on traditional male roles Between 1940 and 1945, women in the workplace and women involved in crime substantially increased This declined when the men returned

Adler: Sisters in Crime However, traditional roles did not return Men were seeing women as worthy rivals and feeling less charitable toward them Women proceeded to widen their social and criminal roles Men resisted (especially middle- and lower-class men)

Adler: Sisters in Crime Women were seen as sharing the same fortunate and unfortunate criminogenic qualities of men Two conclusions can be drawn: The small natural differences between the sexes have been polarized and institutionalized in special ways by different cultures to produce gender disparity This reveals more about the emotional needs of the society than about the innate possibilities of the individual When size and strength are discounted by technology, social expectations and social roles, including criminal roles, tend to increasingly merge

Liberation and Crime: Impact and Critiques The liberation thesis work was crucial in bringing gender into criminology However, there are three main criticisms: The empirical research does not support its predictions The increase in female arrests have occurred in traditionally “female” crimes and occurred before the Women’s Right Movement Also, the increase may be due to changes in police practices

Liberation and Crime: Impact and Critiques However, there are three main criticisms: Crime is actually more common among those women who did not achieve gender equality—those trapped in economically marginal positions True equality may reduce crime The liberation thesis did not consider the structural roots of the inequality between men and women Did not address patriarchy

http://www.kcra.com/news/21536522/detail.html

Patriarchy and Crime Radical feminism places patriarchy at the center of its analysis Has especially illuminated disparities in sentencing and crime control and victimizations of women by men and their sanctions The oppression of women, including their criminal victimization, is seen as a major cause of female offending Argues a need for gender-specific theories that take into account the role of patriarchy and the gendered experiences of women One popular theory is Meda Chesney-Lind’s feminist theory of female delinquency

Chesney-Lind: “A Feminist Theory of Female Delinquency” Existing theories cannot explain female crime Focus exclusively on men without taking into account female social experiences Does not agree with the liberation perspective Argues girls are frequently the recipients of violence and sexual abuse and can do little to fight back against their abusers Patriarchy is conducive to such abuse because females are, in general, objectified as sexual property Girls are easily defined as sexually attractive by older men In addition, official action of the juvenile justice system is a major force of oppression and reinforces women’s place in society

Chesney-Lind: “A Feminist Theory of Female Delinquency” Parents often insist on their daughter’s arrest More girls than boys referred to the juvenile court by their parents than by law enforcement Escape from abuse is not easy and leads to a pathway to crime for girls Run away from sexual victimization Runaways are often returned home by the state Once on the street, they are forced to commit crimes to survive Steal money, food, clothing Prostitution to obtain money Thus, their survival strategies are criminalized

Chesney-Lind: “A Feminist Theory of Female Delinquency” The backgrounds of adult women in prison show virtually all were victims of physical and/or sexual abuse as children Over 60% were sexually assaulted and over half were raped Often ran away and began engaging in prostitution and became addicted to drugs

Chesney-Lind: “A Feminist Theory of Female Delinquency” To fully understand female crime: Need to have qualitative research with girls Examine family and school settings and their impact on girls Understand the intersection of poverty, race, and gender on delinquency Understand official reaction to girls’ delinquency

Gendering Traditional Theories Along with gender-specific theories, there have been many efforts to “gender” traditional theories of crime to explain female crime and the gender gap Many of the variables that explain male crime also explain female crime and the gender gap Association with delinquent peers, beliefs favorable to crime, low social and self control, strains, the perceived costs and benefits of crime, and opportunities for crime explain both male and female crime and the disproportionate amount of male crime

Gendering Traditional Theories These same factors, however, may have a larger effect on males Differential association with delinquent peers is more likely to lead to crime for males Traditional theories also do not take into account why there are gender differences in the effect of certain factors They also do not take into account gender identity, gender discrimination, differences in physical size/strength, partner abuse, and sexual abuse

Gendering Traditional Theories Recent efforts to apply biopsychological theories to the explanation of female and male crime Moffitt et al. (2001)—females are less likely to possess the traits of negative emotionality and low constraint Gendering of general strain theory (GST) Broidy and Agnew (1997)—explain the gender gap with GST Males and females experience similar amounts of strain Males are more likely to experience strains conducive to crime Males often react to strain with moral outrage, while females react with depression and guilt (less conducive to other-oriented crime) Males are more likely to cope through crime because they have higher negative emotionality, lower constraint, more deviant associations, lower social and self control, and more beliefs favorable to crime

Gendering Traditional Theories Gendering control theory Costello and Mederer (2003)—argue women are more controlled than men and thus have lower crime rates Women are socialized to exercise more self-control and show more concern for others Women are more closely supervised and are more likely to be sanctioned by others when they display aggression Women are more involved in noncriminal activities (e.g., childcare and household work)

Gendering Traditional Theories Karen Heimer and Stacy De Coster gendered differential association theory/social learning theory Build off the work of Sutherland and Akers Argue social learning theory can explain the gender gap in criminal behavior

Heimer and De Coster: “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency” Combine differential association theory with insights from feminist theories and gender studies Reformulate differential association theory to show how structural and cultural contexts combine to explain variation in violent delinquency within gender and variation in levels of violence across gender

Heimer and De Coster: “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency” Core assumption of differential association theory is that there is normative conflict in society Differential social organization affects the behavior of individuals through a cultural process, differential association, in which individuals learn definitions and techniques favorable to the violation of law through interaction with others Propose an explanation of how culture and structure combine to create gendered experiences during adolescence

Heimer and De Coster: “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency” Consider two cultural outcomes: Violent definitions Gender definitions Consider two types of cultural processes: Family controls Peer associations (and histories of violent behavior)

Heimer and De Coster: “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency” Cultural definitions of violence Males and females both more likely to behave violently when they have acquired high levels of violent definitions Gender gap results because boys are more likely to acquire more violent definitions than girls Cultural definitions of gender Focus on patriarchy that influences the social arrangements, cognitions, and behavior of females and males Sees the essential natures of the sexes as different Females seen as nurturing, passive, and physically and emotional weak, while males seen as aggressive, competitive, independent, rational, and strong These ideas carry strong expectations for behavior Violence is not feminine and condemned; thus, females who accept traditional gender expectations are not likely to behave violently Violence is “doubly deviant”—a violation of the law and gender expectations

Heimer and De Coster: “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency” Direct parental controls and emotional bonding Three keys aspects influence the learning of violent definitions: Supervision Discipline Emotional bonds to family Girls are supervised more closely and have stronger emotional bonds to families than boys Parental controls can be divided into two types: Direct—supervision and coercive discipline Indirect—emotional bonding and attachment Direct control has a stronger impact on boys, while indirect control has a greater impact on girls

Heimer and De Coster: “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency” Association with aggressive peers By middle childhood, male peer groups bond through transgressing rules and aggression, whereas female peer groups bond through disclosing intimacies Boys are more likely than girls to have aggressive friends and experience aggression in their peer groups Gender differences in the number of aggressive friends should combine with gender differences in levels of exposure to parental controls to provide more opportunities for boys than girls to learn violent definitions Even when boys and girls have equal numbers of aggressive peers, these peers may encourage their male friends more than their female friends to form violent definitions

Heimer and De Coster: “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency” Violent histories Foster subsequent acceptance of violent definitions when youths rationalize past violent behavior Violent delinquency can become automatic, habitual, and stable over time There are gender differences in prior levels of violence with males having longer histories These prior histories combine with parental controls and aggressive peers to offer more opportunities for boys to learn violent definitions

Heimer and De Coster: “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency” The social structure conditions these cultural mechanisms in three ways: Structural positions influence violent definitions indirectly by shaping parental controls, peer associations, and violent behavioral tendencies Youths from structurally disadvantaged families are likely to experience lower levels of supervision and emotional bonding to families than other youths and experience higher levels of coercive discipline, including restrictions, threats, and physical punishment This increases the chances the youths will learn violent definitions and form oppositional peer groups leading to violent histories and the learning of violent definitions

Heimer and De Coster: “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency” The social structure conditions these cultural mechanisms in three ways: Structural positions may influence the learning of violent definitions independently of family controls, peer associations, and prior histories Structurally disadvantaged youths have restricted access to legitimate power and methods for dealing with problems They are receptive to alternative solutions and form definitions favorable to using violence and force to solve problems

Heimer and De Coster: “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency” The social structure conditions these cultural mechanisms in three ways: Gender definitions are also shaped by differential social organization Gender definitions vary with the stratification of power Gender roles are less rigid in middle-class than in working-class and lower-class families Race also can condition gender definitions Female- versus male-headed households may vary in gender definitions

Heimer and De Coster: “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency” These ideas reconceptualized differential association theory by incorporating theoretical arguments by gender Draw on feminist and gender studies to specify the role of gender definitions and to develop explicit arguments about gender differences in the influence of parenting processes and peer influence Violent delinquency is “gendered” and is a product of gender socialization and the patriarchal system

Masculinities and Crime: Doing Gender James Messerschmidt challenged traditional and feminist criminology Traditional theories do not examine how “being male” is related to crime Feminists have a stereotypical view of men and do not see the variations among men Messerschmidt sees criminality and masculinity intertwined In social situations, men are constantly confronted with establishing their manliness and when legitimate means of demonstrating masculinity are denied, crime becomes a resource in which to do this

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Focus on the sociology of masculinity Argues gender intersects with race and class to create different masculinities Meaning of masculinity varies by structural location Crime can be a way to “do gender” or show masculinity Need to create a theory that recognizes that illegal behavior, like legal behavior, personifies both social practice and social structure

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Recognizes that all individuals engage in purposive behavior and monitor their own action reflexively Social structures organize the way individuals think about their circumstances and generate methods for dealing with them

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Masculinity is accomplished and constructed in specific social situations Hegemonic masculinity is the idealized form of masculinity Defined as work in the paid-labor market, the subordination of women, heterosexism, and the driven and uncontrollable sexuality of men Emphasizes practices toward authority, control, competitive individualism, independence, aggressiveness, and the capacity for violence

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime In social situations, men undertake processes that show they are a “man” Crime is a suitable resource for “doing gender” when other resources are lacking When masculinity is threatened, questioned, or undermined, crime is more likely to result

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Men portray masculinity in different ways depending on their position in the social structure Men experience their daily world from a particular position in society and differentially construct the cultural ideals of hegemonic masculinity For example, white, middle-class boys strive for a career Have a calculative attitude, high value on rationality and responsibility Geared toward school where masculinity is accomplished through sports and academic success Sport creates an environment supporting competition, winning, toughness, and endurance, and subordinates other types of masculinity like those who participate in nonviolent games (e.g., debate) Seek to obtain appropriate qualifications for a respectable career with a secure income to stay in the middle class Thus, hegemonic masculinity involves work in the paid labor market, competitiveness, personal ambition/achievement, and responsibility

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Hegemonic masculinity also involves dominance, control, and independence School discourages these elements Middle-class, white boys accomplish gender by conforming to school rules and by dominating student organizations “Accept” school values and thus school is an influential restraint on middle-class, white youth However, outside of school, these same boys construct age-specific forms of criminality to restore the aspects of masculinity the school denies Pranks, vandalism, thefts, drinking outside school

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Accommodating masculinity is a controlled, cooperative, rational gender strategy of action for institutional success White, middle-class boys are drawn to different masculine constructs within the school and thus develop this accommodating masculinity Their agenda is to become an accomplice to the institutional order and reap the benefits it offers They accomplish gender in the school setting and simultaneously reproduce class and race relations through the same practices

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Because school both creates and undermines hegemonic masculinity, some white, middle-class boys draw primarily on nonviolent forms of youth crime creating an opposition masculinity This is based on the hegemonic masculine ideals the school discourages White, middle-class boys construct their gendered actions in relation to how such actions might be interpreted by others in the particular social context in which they occur

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Students who fail to achieve academically and/or occupy the lowest status positions in school exhibit the highest rates of youth crime For white, middle-class boys who are not successful at schoolwork and do not participate in school sports, school is a frustrating masculine experience Thus, they seek out other masculine- validating resources, such as vandalism and drinking

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime White, working-class boys also experience school as emasculating Engage in age-specific crime to “do gender” However, also have an in-school opposition masculinity as well Oppose school and its conformists both inside and outside of the school Schooling seen as irrelevant Value manual rather than mental work Evolve into an unstructured, counterschool group Target those who value school Enjoy fighting in and out of school as a way to construct masculinity around physical aggression Also engage in pranks and vandalism in and outside of school

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Outside of school, white, working-class boys also disproportionately engage in hate crimes Their public masculinity is constructed through hostility to, and rejection of, all aspects of groups that may be considered inferior in a racist and heterosexist society A specific racial gender is constructed through the practice of racist violence Similarly, homosexuality is seen as unnatural and effeminate sex, so violence against homosexuals is a way to “do gender” for these working class youths

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime White, working-class boys also intermittently participate in theft to get extra cash in order to participate in the youth culture Go to events, wear the right clothes, date, etc. These boys also often work over 10 hours a week during the school year Allows them to show their manhood Puts them in contact with adults However, they are locked into dead-end jobs, making less money than those who conformed to the school This reproduces class, race, and gender relations

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Lower-working class, racial minority boys often do not have access to paid labor, and their parents are unable to subsidize their youth culture needs, thus the youth gang becomes crucial The youth gang is where resources are available to sustain a masculine identity The street group is a collective solution to their prohibitions and a lifestyle that takes the form of street crime

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Lower-working class, racial minority boys often do not have an occupational future that can be anticipated, and thus hegemonic masculinity is threatened Turn to physical violence within and outside the school to achieve masculinity School has less significance to these youths Become involved in serious property crimes (e.g., robbery) and in publicly displayed forms of group violence such as “turf wars” Robbery is a means to get money and dominates and humiliates the victims Seen as “hardmen” and doing a stickup is doing masculinity by manufacturing an angle of moral superiority over the intended victim

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Young, middle-class and working-class men produce unique types of masculinity (situationally accomplished by drawing on different forms of youth crime) by acknowledging an already determined future and inhabiting distinct locations within the social structural divisions of labor and power Young men experience their everyday world from a specific position in society and so they construct differently the cultural ideals of hegemonic masculinity

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Oppositional masculinities are based on a specific relation to school generated by the interaction of school authority with class, race, and gender dynamics For white, middle-class boys, a nonviolent oppositional masculinity occurs primarily outside school For white, working-class boys and lower-working class, racial minority boys, specific types of oppositional masculinities prevail both inside and outside school For each group of boys, a sense of masculinity is shaped by their specific relation to the school and by their specific position in the divisions of labor and power

Messerschmidt: Masculinities and Crime Critiques of Messerschmidt’s theory Females are omitted from the analysis However, argues some females may embrace “bad girl” femininity True of female gang members Or may adopt and embrace a masculine identity and “be one of the guys” The listing of the ways men demonstrate masculinity is narrow The motivation theory—the need to do masculinity—may overexplain/overpredict many criminal acts that are committed simply because they are fun or gratifying Some support that crime is sometimes used to achieve masculinity and threats to one’s masculinity increase the likelihood of crime

Messerschmidt’s Body Friendly Criminology Recently, Messerschmidt has suggested the role of the body be considered in the link between masculinity and crime Our bodies constrain or facilitate social action Physical size and strength are sources of opportunity and structure the nature of conformity and crime Being strong = good at sports, good fighter Being weak = may be defined as weak and thus prey on more vulnerable victims (e.g., young female relatives in private places)

An Integrated Theory of Gender and Crime Many theories have tried to explain female and male crime and the gender gap in crime Darrell Steffensmeier and Emilie Allan have attempted to integrate multiple theories in their gendered theory of female offending Note traditional theories have shortcomings Do not explain why the gender gap is largest for serious crime Do not shed light on gender differences in the context of offending Does not explain why females are less likely to participate in or lead criminal groups Does not explain why female offending often involves relational concerns Thus, they draw on traditional and feminist theories Consider many causal factors of traditional theories and how gender influences an individual’s standing on these factors Also consider other causal factors (e.g., consequences of motherhood)

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” No unified theoretical framework has been developed for explaining female criminality and gender differences in crime Argue traditional gender-neutral theories provide reasonable explanations of less serious forms of female and male criminality However, they are not very informative about the specific ways in which differences in the lives of men and women contribute to gender differences in type, frequency, and context of criminal behavior

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” Gender mediates the way the traditional theories’ factors play out into sex differences in types, frequency, and contexts of crime involvements

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” A gendered approach has four key elements: The perspective should help explain not only female criminality but male criminality as well by revealing how the organization of gender deters or shapes delinquency by females, but encourages it by males The norms, identities, arrangements, institutions and relations by which human sexual dichotomy is transformed into something physically and socially different The perspective should account not only for gender differences in type and frequency of crime, but also for differences in the context of offending Sheds light on gender differences for serious offenses

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” A gendered approach has four key elements: Compared to theories based on male crime, there is a need to consider several key ways in which women’s routes to crime (especially serious crime) may differ from those of men (e.g., the blurred boundaries between victim and victimization in women’s crime, women’s exclusion from criminal opportunities, women’s ability to exploit sex as an illegal money-making service, consequences of motherhood/child care, centrality of gender relational concerns, greater need of street women for protection form predatory or exploitive males)

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” A gendered approach has four key elements: The perspective should explain the extent to which gender differences in crime derive not only from complex social, historical, and cultural factors, but from biological and reproductive differences as well

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” The organization of gender, along with sex differences, contributes to male and female differences in several types of characteristics that increase the probability of prosocial and altruistic responses of females and antisocial responses of males

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” Five areas that inhibit female crime but increase male crime: Gender norms There is a greater taboo against female crime Women are seen to be nurturing, beautiful, and sexually virtuous Women are rewarded for their ability to establish and maintain relationships and to accept family obligations Women’s identities tend to be derived from key males in their lives Women have greater child-rearing responsibilities Femininity stereotypes of submission, domestication, and nurturance are incompatible with qualities of the criminal world; thus crime is stigmatizing for females Fear of sexual victimization diverts women from crime-likely places (e.g., bars, nighttime streets)

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” Five areas that inhibit female crime but increase male crime: Moral development and amenability to affiliation A greater inherent readiness of women to learn parenting and nurturing predispose them toward an ethic of care This restrains women from violence and crime that hurts others Women are socialized to be responsive to the needs of others and fear the separation from loved ones Men are conditioned toward status-seeking, and this can increase criminal behavior

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” Five areas that inhibit female crime but increase male crime: Social control Female misbehavior is more stringently monitored and corrected through negative stereotypes and sanctions Greater control of females reduces their risk-taking and increases attachment to parents, teachers, and conventional friends, which reduces the likelihood of crime This restricts the freedom of adult women to explore the temptations of the world

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” Five areas that inhibit female crime but increase male crime: Physical strength and aggression Women may lack the power or may perceive themselves as lacking violent potential for the successful completion of some crime Real or perceived vulnerability accounts for females’ restriction to solo roles or roles as subordinate partners in crime groups

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” Five areas that inhibit female crime but increase male crime: Sexuality Reproductive sexual differences contribute to greater sexual deviance and infidelity among males Women have expanded opportunities for financial gain through prostitution and related illicit sexual roles Reduces the need to engage in serious property crime However, even prostitution is male-dominated, controlled by police, pimps, and male clients

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” Access to criminal opportunities The five factors limit female access to criminal opportunities Women are also less likely to have access to crime opportunities as a spin-off of legitimate roles and routine activities, but have considerable opportunities for the commission, surveillance, and arrest for petty forms of fraud and embezzlement Very restricted in access to underworld crimes/organized crime due to institutional sexism

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” Motivation The five factors also limit females’ motivation for crime Contribute to gender differences in taste for risk, likelihood of shame or embarrassment, self-control, and assessment of costs and rewards of crime Crime is not easily available and thus requires more motivation for females Women take greater risks to sustain valued relationships, while men take greater risks for status or a competitive advantage

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” Context of offending refers to the characteristics of a particular offense, including both the circumstances and the nature of the act Examples: setting, if the offense is committed with others, the offender’s role in initiation, victim–offender relationship, etc. The more serious the offense, the greater the contextual differences by gender

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” Great example of contextual differences is seen in spousal murders, where females commit 1/3 to 1/2 of all offenses Females are far more likely to kill only after a prolonged period of abuse, fear for their lives, and exhaustion of all other alternatives Males who kill are more likely to do it by murder-suicide, family massacres, stalking, and murder in response to spouse’s infidelity

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” In common delinquency, female prevalence is similar to that of males in simple forms of delinquency like hitting others or stealing, but girls are far less likely to use weapons or to intend serious injury to their victims, steal things they cannot use, or break into buildings When females commit traditional male crimes, they are less likely to be solitary, more likely to be accomplices, and less likely to receive an equal share of proceeds Female burglaries involve less planning and are more spontaneous and more likely to occur in the daytime in residences where no one is home

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” This theory explains male and female patterns of crime as well as gender differences in crime The perspective predicts that female participation is highest for those crimes most consistent with traditional norms and for which females have the most opportunity and lowest for those crimes that diverge the most from traditional gender norms and for which females have little opportunity

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” The lowest percentage of female offending is found for serious property crimes, both on the street (e.g., burglary, robbery) and in the corporate world (e.g., insider trading, price-fixing) These crime are at odds with female stereotypes and are those that women have limited access to The only crimes where females outpace males are prostitution and running away

Steffensmeier and Allan: “Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending” This gendered approach helps clarify the gendered nature of both female and male offending patterns This gendered theory has not received any formal test but is compatible with much of the research on gender and crime

Summary Feminist theories argue traditional theories are male-centered and do not do an adequate job of explaining female criminality or the gender gap in crime Feminist theories have attempted to create gender-specific theories Some focused on the impact of the Women’s Rights Movement (Adler) Others focused on the role of patriarchy (Chesney-Lind) Some have kept traditional theories but attempted to gender these traditional theories to apply to female crime (Heimer and De Coster) Messerschmidt focused on males and explained that men “do gender” through crime Finally, Steffensmeier and Allan integrated traditional and feminist theories to create a gendered theory of female offending