Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the view that women commit less serious crimes as well as having less serious crimes committed against them so they are not worthy of study. (21 marks) It has been argued that males are more likely to commit crimes than women and it is more probable that males are repeat offenders, have longer criminal careers and commit more serious crimes, for example, men are 15 times more likely to be convicted of homicide.
However, such statistics are heavily debatable as some criminologists argue that they underestimate the amount of female as against male offending. Typical female crimes, including shoplifting, aren’t as likely to be reported, and even if these crimes are reported, women are less likely to be prosecuted or will get off lightly. Which is reflected by Otto Pollak argument as he states that ‘men hate to accuse women and thus send them to their punishment’, showing that the criminal justice system is thus more lenient with women and so their crimes are less likely to be shown in official statistics.
Such feminists as Frances Heidensohn have criticised ‘malestream’ criminology for ignoring female victimisation in studies and statistics on crime. Official statistics show that men are more likely to be street crime offenders than women; however it has been highlighted by feminists that the British Crime Survey (BCS) data indicates that women are prone to be victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, statistics show that 85% of domestic violence victims were women.
Despite this, these assaults are generally committed in private and have generated a great fear towards these crimes, they are however reported significantly less often to the police than assaults against males are as it seems that victims are more disinclined to avoid reporting their assault for fear of being found out by their abusive partner. Heidensohn goes onto explain how women commit less crimes due to the patriarchal society as it imposes greater control, minimising their opportunity to offend, it takes place at home, in public and at the work place.
Due to the stereotypical domestic role of housework and childcare, this imposes limitations on women that increase their time inside the home, reducing the opportunity to offend, and those who attempt to reject this role are likely to find themselves in a position of domestic violence, inflicted by their partners, reducing them to a subordinate position. This control is also transferred in the work place as their behaviour is controlled by senior positions such as managers, enforcing the glass ceiling. Sexual harassment has been said to keep women ‘in their place’, reducing the opportunity to offend.
This control is also visible in public places as women are controlled by the treat of male violence against them, in particular sexual violence. Despite the control enforced on women in these areas, which has been argued to reduce the likelihood of their offending, it has also been stated by Heidensohn that it could indeed shift women into deviation as women are more likely to suffer from poverty and so there is a possibility that they turn to a deviant career, of theft or prostitution as a means for survival.
Certain crimes that women are involved in are more likely to experience are less likely to be reported in official crime figures giving the impression that women suffer less crime. Radical feminist, Elizabeth Stanko claims that domestic violence, and the government’s failure to prevent it is actually down to another element of women’s subordination in patriarchal society.
Both feminist sociologist such as Carol Smart and Frances Heidensohn highlight the question as to whether or not because of the impression that statistics have given us, does it actually mean that women commit less crime, or is it actually another element to the subordination of women. Heidensohn explores the reasons as to why female crimes seem to have been neglected, one of which being that traditional female crimes, such as shoplifting, aren’t as serious and a smaller matter of concern than male crime, therefore convictions aren’t made as easily.
Due to sociology and criminology both being brought into being by, for and about men, they naturally neglect the female perspective and the study of criminology has become gender blind, ignoring the different experiences that women have to men in relation to crime. There is also the argument that men who study criminology are only really interested in male crimes that appear more ‘exciting’ rather than the ‘everyday’ crimes, and so Heidensohn identifies this as being the vicarious identification. Functionalists however base their beliefs of gender differences on socialisation of both males and females.
Parsons argues that due to females being socialised into being ‘feminine’ from an early age, they do actually commit fewer crimes. Whereas males are socialised into being more aggressive which increases the likelihood of them committing crimes later in life as they may be more disposed to commit acts of violence or take advantage of criminal opportunities when they present themselves. Heidensohn disputes this has she believes women commit fewer crimes because of social control as from an early age, women are prevented from being criminal and so they grow up into becoming housewives, reducing the opportunity to commit crime.
Functionalist, Cohen goes onto explain that because men have much less of a socialising role than women in the conventional nuclear family, so, socialisation can be more difficult for boys than for girls. Cohen argues that this relative lack of an adult male role model means boys are more likely to turn to all-male street gangs as a source of masculine identity. New Right theorists also agree that due to an absent male role model in lone parent families leads to a higher possibility of males becoming deviant.
Sandra Walklate disagrees of this biological sex assumption that tries to explain gender differences in crime in terms of behaviour learned through socialisation. Heidensohn goes onto explain how women are victims of social control in their three main areas of life due to chauvinistic culture. Furthermore, she goes onto explain that due to welfare cuts, women are driven to crime by poverty, so they commit crimes in order to fulfil an economic need rather than women’s liberation, for example, prostitution.
There is a debate as to what actually makes a male more likely to commit than a female am only recently have criminologists generally asked what it is about being male that leads men to offend. Postmodernists have also contributed as to why men are more likely to commit crime and they go onto focus on the concept of masculinity. Messerschmidt argues that masculinity is an accomplishment that males continuously try to achieve and also try to show off to others.
The most prestigious form that most men wish to accomplish is hegemonic masculinity that includes the subordination of women and work in the paid-labour market. Some men however, have subordinated masculinities such as gay men who have no desire to accomplish hegemonic masculinity, also including some lower class males and also some of an ethnic origin, who lack these resources. Messerschmidt sees crime as a resource to gain this masculinity, and those who don’t have access to these resources may turn to different forms of rule breaking to demonstrate their masculinity.
White middle class youths may have to subordinate themselves to teachers to achieve middle class status, leading to accommodating masculinity within school, yet outside of school, their masculinity may turn to forms of crime such as vandalism and drinking. White working class youths have a less chance of educational success and so their masculinity is constructed around sexist attitudes, by perhaps opposing teachers’ authority. Black working class youths may also have few expectations of a reasonable job and may use gang membership and violence in order to express their masculinity.
Criticism of Messerschmidt have been drawn, such as the questioning of whether or not masculinity is actually an explanation of crime, or is it actually a description of male offenders. Messerschmidt doesn’t explain why not all men use crime to accomplish masculinity and he over works the concept of masculinity to explain virtually all male crimes. To conclude, statistics give the impression that women commit less crime; feminists would put this down to the reason that malestream criminology ignores the victimisation of women in studies and statistic on crime.
It has been argues by Heidensohn that female criminal behaviour is less problematic and a less of a matter than male crime. She goes onto also explain that men studying criminology are more likely to gain excitement from studying unusual phenomena. Criminal statistics don’t supply valid picture of true levels of crime in relation to gender, and feminists point out such things as females being simply victims of a less visible crime and so feminists do present and powerful critique of the male dominated criminology.
