Since 1977, studies into female crime have increased and this is reflected in the official crime figures. Pollack (1961) has suggested that the official statistics are inaccurate. Male dominated institutions such as the police and the CPS are more likely to treat women more leniently. This is called the chivalry factor. They are more likely to be given a caution or a lesser sentence. Judges are reluctant to separate a mother from her child and consequently are unwilling to impose a custodial sentence. This view has led to a myth of female crime. It is more often not reported or prosecuted.
Abbott and Wallace (1990) criticised the chivalry factor as a myth. They have suggested that adolescent girls are more likely to be put into care to protect them from their own promiscuity. Teenage boys’ promiscuity is viewed by society as being “one of the lads”.
It is clear that female crime is now being recognised and women commit a different sort of crime to their male counterparts. However, understanding the crime statistics seems less clear and depends on interpretation. One feminist view is the crime figures are incorrect. Women do commit a large amount of crime but are treated leniently. An alternative view assumes the statistics are correct. Women have less opportunity to commit crime due to socialisation and family commitments. Women conform more than men.
It is clear that society cannot take female crime seriously. The portrayal of women criminals is misleading and inadequate. The view that female crime statistics are inaccurate due to the chivalry factor indicates that female crime is underrepresented. In general, Malestream sociology still neglects the fact that gender influences crime. Sociology needs to recognise the importance of gender in criminology to identify the true picture of women in crime.
In addition to attacking the male studies in crime, feminists’ have criticised the male scientific methodology. Supporters propose that a specific women’s methodology is needed to understand women in society. They suggest a sympathetic approach that includes working in partnership with female participants to produce data that is qualitative rather than quantitive.
Comte (1896) is recognised as the father of sociology. He felt the only way sociological methodology would be taken seriously was to emulate the natural sciences and proposed that a rigid scientific method of study was essential. He believed that men and women were fundamentally different. Men were intellectually superior to women with women only superior to men in terms of emotion. Men are rational whereas women are emotional. If men are rational and not in touch with an emotional side to sociology, this indicates that Malestream sociology is inferior as it does not study the emotional aspects of human nature. Society needs to recognise both the rational and emotional aspects of behaviour to get a complete picture of society.
Science and rationality are seen as male approaches to sociology and because they are the main research methods, feminist have seen this as another indication of male domination. By adopting a scientific approach, research tends to minimise women’s views and concerns. Feminists have suggested that a specific women’s methodology is needed to obtain a clear understanding of women’s roles. Traditionally quantitive research methods are associated with positivism and objectivity. Feminists have called for a qualitative and subjective approach that is traditionally associated with interpretivism.
Oakley (1981) proposed an alternative to the stringent conventional interview. She draws on her own experience of interviewing expectant mothers. She found that by becoming actively involved and treating the respondent’s as friends, many of the women expressed an interest in her research and were keen to cooperate. She tried to make sure she did not exploit the women. She always asked permission to record the interview. She often helped them with housework and childcare. She discussed her own experiences with childbirth and offered her advice. By becoming actively involved and building a relationship with her subjects she found they were more likely to volunteer personal information. She believed that this interaction produced more valid qualitative research.
Critics of this method of interview have said that this type of unstructured interview and the close involvement of the researcher can affect the results. The researcher is in danger of being subjective and consequently the results are of no value. However, feminists have rejected the view that they can be completely objective in the sense of being uninvolved. As researchers they are a part of what is being researched. Involvement is seen as necessary and inevitable. Nonetheless, the researcher must be constantly aware of how her values, attitudes and perceptions are influencing the research process. The researcher must attempt to remain detached. Feminists have found it difficult to carry out research that lives up to the demands of the qualitative methodology. This is because most of the female researchers have received training within malestream assumptions.
George Murdock (1949) proposed that the biological differences between men and women as the basis for the sexual division of labour in society. He suggest that biological differences such as a mans strength and the fact that women bear children leads to gender roles out of practicality. The women’s role as homemaker has arisen as a merely the most efficient way of organising society.
Talcott Parsons (1959) accounts for the role of women in industrial society as fundamental for the socialisation of young children and the emotional well-being of her spouse. For the socialisation of the child to be effective Parson’s believes the child needs a close, supportive and loving relationship with the mother especially during the primary years. According to Parson’s because the woman bears and nurses the child, they have a stronger relationship with them. Furthermore, the absence of the father from the home due to his “breadwinning” role means she has to take the primary responsibility for the children.
John Bowlby (1965) agrees with Parsons’ that a women’s place is in the home caring for young children. Bowlby conducted several studies into juvenile delinquency. He found that the majority of the psychologically disturbed children had been separated from their mother at an early age. They appeared unable to give or receive love. From this Bowlby concluded that a close and loving relationship between mother and child was essential for mental well-being.
Ann Oakley has rejected the views of Murdock, Parsons and Bowlby as inadequate and biased. She accuses Murdock’s of interpreting the cross-cultural studies through both Western and male eyes. This points to his studies as being inadequate as it is solely a malestream point of view. Oakley finds plenty of evidence in her own studies to attack the assumption that biology determines the sexual division of labour. The Mbuti Pygmies, a hunting gathering tribe who live in the Congo rain forest, have no gender division of labour. Men and women hunt together and both sexes are responsible for the childcare. Turning to industrial societies, Oakley points out that women play an important part in the armed forces and in India, some 12% of labourers on building sites are women. These examples show that there are no exclusive roles for women and that biological characteristics do not exclude women from particular jobs.
In addition, Oakley criticised the argument of Bowlby. She uses the example of the Indonesian island of Alor. In this and other horticultural societies, women are not tied to their offspring and it appears to have no psychological effects. Within two of giving birth the women return to the fields leaving the infant in the care of grandparents, the father or other siblings. Oakley attacks Bowlby’s claim that a lack of intimacy between mother and child causes anti-social behaviour in later life. She notes that a large body of research shows that the employment of the mother has no detrimental effects on the child.
Oakley is particularly contemptuous in her attack on Parson’s. She accuses him of basing his analysis on the values of his own patriarchal society. She claims the housewife-mother role exists for the convenience of men and gender roles corroborate the domestic oppression of women.
Oakley concludes that gender roles are determined by culture rather than by biology. Biology does not stop women from undertaking particular occupations. Furthermore, evidence from cross-cultural studies indicates that children do not need a close and intimate relationship with a female in order to thrive.
To conclude, it is clear that since the second wave of feminism in the 1960’s, studies into female criminology have increased. This is reflected in the increase of the female crime statistics. The problem with the statistics is they are ambiguous and depend on interpretation. However, it is clear that malestream studies into crime are inadequate on their own for a true representation of women in crime.
Critics have accused feminist methodological results of having no real value because the emotional approach to the interview is too subjective. Nevertheless, as long as the researcher remains aware of this the feminist methodology is an accurate measurement of female emotional responses. This points to the malestream-structured interview as being inadequate for a representation of emotional responses.
Finally, it is clear the biological explanation of the gender division of labour is inadequate to explain the role of women in society. Feminists have accused Murdock, Parson’s and Bowlby of ignoring the fact that culture and socialisation determines a women’s position in society. In Oakley’s scathing attack on Parsons she accuses him of basing his theory on the myth of male superiority therefore, perpetuating the oppression of women.
Word Count 1,900
Bibliography
Bilton T, Et Al, (1981), Introductory Sociology 2nd Edition, (London) The Macmillan Press LTD
Haralambos M And Holborn M, (1991), Themes And Perspectives 3rd Edition, (London) Collins Educational.
Haralambos M And Holborn M, (2000) Themes And Perspectives, 5th Edition. (London) Harper And Collins Publishers LTD
Kirby M, Et Al, (2000) Sociology In Perspective, AQA Edition. (Oxford) Heinemann Educational Publishers.
