Feminist explanations of the low crime rate of women often focus on the way women are socialised and socially controlled within a patriarchal society. Heidensohn argues that women are controlled in three main arenas and this control means that they are less likely to commit crimes than men. Firstly they are controlled in the home where they still take responsibility for housework and childcare, meaning that they are at home far more often than men. Secondly they are controlled in public because fear of crime makes them less likely to be out on the streets, particularly at night. Finally, at work women are controlled at work where male bosses may sexually harass them and ignore them when promotion opportunities arise. These points may go some way to explaining the low crime rates of women but the female crime rate is rising so this social control may be breaking down. As Denscombe’s research shows, young women are becoming more confident and so are more likely to get involved in delinquent acts.
Other feminists ask why certain women do commit crime. The Marxist feminist Carlen argues that working-class women are controlled by the promise of various rewards, a satisfying and happy home and family life (the ‘gender deal’) and equal opportunities and rewards at work ((the ‘class deal’). When these ‘deals’ do not work out and these women do not reap the rewards of a happy home life and a rewarding work life then social control breaks down and makes them more likely to offend. Carlen’s ideas are based on her own research so are quite convincing. However, her conclusions may be influenced by her own commitment to Marxist and feminist values.
A very important aspect of feminist approaches has been the attention radical feminism in particular has paid to women as victims of crime and abuse. Radical feminists focus on the way patriarchy influences people’s personal lives. Research by feminists such as Stanko and Dobash and Dobash has revealed huge amounts of domestic violence and abuse. These are often not picked up in official statistics or even the British Crime Survey because many women are frightened to report their abuse, don’t want to threaten their marriage or may even blame themselves. However, in recent years the police have made great efforts to become more sensitive to domestic violence, often setting up units to deal with this problem and working closely with women’s refuges. Perhaps feminism approaches to crime have encouraged this process.
The postmodern feminist Smart goes further by actually arguing that the subject of criminology itself needs to be developed so that it meets the needs of women more effectively. She argues for a ‘transgressive’ criminology that goes beyond the boundaries of traditional criminology which focuses only on crime. Smart argues that this means that criminology reflects the interests of men. The subject needs to be widened to include all aspects of harassment of women such as men calling out on the street, brushing up against women on public transport and approaching women in an unwanted manner in pubs and clubs.
There is no one feminist approach to explain the patterns of gender and crime, liberal, Marxist, radical and postmodern feminists al look at the issue from slightly different perspectives. However, they share in common the view that traditional criminology reflects a male bias and that the concerns of women have not been dealt with well. In recent years however, feminist approaches have been very influential in the way domestic violence is viewed and dealt with by the police and courts. At the same time female crime rates are increasing, perhaps reflecting the changing role of women. Feminists need to turn their attention to explaining these new patterns of crime.