Also postmodern feminism, Maguire, Morgan and Reiner (2002:114) suggest that It drew on the basic principles of postmodernism as a cultural phenomenon in the arts, philosophy, architecture and economy. One of the main ideas of this feminism was to reject the concept that there was only one single explanation for crime. An important belief of postmodern feminism is that it places itself in opposition to essentialism which is a understanding that differences between men and women are natural instead of socially constructed. There are some considerable changes that take place in the understanding of postmodern feminism, one is that the earlier discussed other is challenged and instead is celebrated. And it also challenges modern sciences rationality and objectivity and language is altered so that it holds closer to women’s experiences. And finally black feminist thought as this offers a great insight as they are on the inside but yet find themselves on the outside and so also can contribute their experiences of historical and material conditions to criminology.
Before going into more detail about the contributions of feminism to contemporary criminology I will just briefly discuss feminisms early contribution starting from the 60s where a lot of work was done by early feminists there focus was on women as victims than perpetrators, according to Maguire, Morgan and Reiner (2002:511) this could be seen on a academic level and a practical policy related level, major contributions were made at this time like refuges for women victims of domestic violence were set up by Erin pizzey, and also rape crisis centres and help lines for sexual abuse victims. They also go onto claim that for a lot of people these contributions are still the most important so far in modern times that feminism has offered to criminology and the criminal justice system. And this is also credited by Young in the key development of left realism.
The second wave feminism why feminist criminology developed. A, B, Proctor. (2006:5) explains that it was due to liberal feminist academics that did not agree to the way gender from criminological analysis was excluded. Which makes no sense as gender plays a big part in offending and how criminals are sentenced more so than class and class has been studied extensively. They also did not agree with critical and radical criminology how it failed to take into account the connection between inequality and crime outside that of economic disparities, which include also race and gender. They did not agree on the fact that women’s experiences were excluded from new theories of crime. They demanded that gender be included in the analysis of crime, what is important about this time is that it was a time where feminism was at a crucial point in the movement. And so not long after the start of the second wave in the 70s, minority group feminists found that their experiences were not represented enough in the mainstream and so projected their criticisms at their majority counterpart group and so found themselves speaking on behalf of lesbian feminists, feminists of colour, third world feminists and for the other marginalized feminists who condemned the whole hegemony of white, middle class, heterosexual feminist experience that was the mainstream.
What occurred here was that the second wave gave way to a new wave of feminism in the 80s and 90s. what was happening was that feminist were starting to focus on a understanding that there were various genders, races and sexualities and also that inequalities existed in a whole range of places and in feminism itself. So during this period of third wave feminism, feminist started to influence or contribute in the way that they wanted to, this is where intersectionality comes into the subject. A, B, Proctor. (2006:5) describes how intersectionality recognized the processes of race, class, power and gender and that they are not one dimensional and can exist simultaneously and have a clear bond with each other and the experience can be felt together. Another contribution being made at this time was that feminist criminologists were recognizing the need for intersectionality; he gives the example of Daly and Stephens (1995) this approach of studying crime could also look at how class, race, gender, age and sexuality make the normal and the deviant. And how these differences can put other members of society at risk of being made deviant or to break the law and so the law is reproducing them, it is contributions like these that can help criminologists understand and transform theories.
This second phase is also discussed by Daly, K. Maher, L. (1998:3) who suggest that there were some major changes that took place in this period of time, such as “feminist scholars referred to women or to women’s experiences in an unreflective way. They stressed the importance of distinguishing biological sex from socio-cultural gender, and of developing a comprehensive feminist theory that might replace liberal, Marxist, or psychoanalytic theories. These efforts became untenable in the 1980s with critique and challenge from two sources: women marginalized by feminist theory (e.g., women of colour and lesbians) and postmodern/poststructuralist texts and theorists”. The importance of this is that the critiques highlighted important questions like how feminist knowledge can produced and analysed. Also in this period of time feminist contributions can be seen when looking at what academics were dealing with at this time like “(1) to problematize the term women as a unified category; (2) to acknowledge that women’s experiences are, in part constructed by legal and criminological discourses; (3) to revisit the relationship between sex and gender; and (4) to reflect on the strengths and limits of constructing feminist truths and knowledge” Daly, K. Maher, L. (1998:3). This focuses more on the differences between women and men but has contributed to several categories like racism, hetrosexism and in the development of masculinities.
Over the years there have been various studies conducted that would not of otherwise of been studied and so there benefits would never of been felt if it had not of been for feminism. Some of the key areas that feminism has helped to develop are women and crime and the ways that gender affect crime. Maguire, Morgan and Reiner (2002:509) look at a study conducted by Carlen in her studies of convicted women in the UK found that these women are caught in two astringent structures, one being the class bind and the other the gender bind. What is clear is that these women weighted up the consequences and benefits of the crime they choose, instead of shoplifting or cheque fraud they choose property crime because these were easier for them. This shows that these were carefully considered choices and so crimes were pre meditated which is different from earlier concepts of female crimes.
Another key area that feminism has influenced greatly is prison for women, men and women throughout history have been generally subjected to the same penal system as men. But this can be challenged, as it is clear that women are treated differently and punished differently. Maguire, Morgan and Reiner (2002:512) talk of the research done into women’s prisons in UK in the 80s and 90s about the distress and conditions that men and women felt but mainly for women. It is claimed that women receive poor education, training and do not have good job opportunities in prison, and that they are likely to do domestic work in prisons. This is understood to be a cause of policy that believes women to be doubly deviant and so they need more pressures so that they will conform and become rehabilitated. Studies such as these have gone a long way in highlighting the inequalities in the prison system and for the reform of them.
Also another area that feminism has contributed to criminology is women and the criminal justice system. There was an earlier view in criminology that the criminal justice system treated women differently and was not as strict on women as men when judges handed out sentences. But in the last few decades studies have reported that this is not the case, which Downes, D. Rock, P. (2007:267) explain that one study by Farrington and Morris concluded that courts in Cambridge gave lighter sentences on merit of the offences they had committed and if it was their first offence. Also Heidensohn found evidence to support the fact that women are doubly punished when they break the law and Carlen found that women are sentenced harsher when they have failed their responsibilities as mothers. And the Cambridge study also found that women that are divorced or have separated from their partners or come from a background of deviance are also treated more severally in the courts. But women that conform to the conventional roles are treated more leniently.
But further studies have claimed that there is a need for women offenders to be treated differently, as Carlen explains this is important because of the way that females offend and the circumstances that surround their offences. The claim here is that women are already sentenced more harshly and have got to put up with a double regulation which directs back to double deviance again. Carlen also provides ways in which gender specific policies and laws can work. In 1998 an inquiry was set up into women’s imprisonment by Dorothy Wedderburn, They found key issues that were wrong and stated that “the criminal justice and prison system is so dominated by the handling of men that it is failing to provide for the particular needs of women, they instance four distinctive characteristics of women: 1. Their different patterns of offending from men and lower levels of risk to the public: 2. Their roles as mothers and primary carers and the resulting higher costs of their imprisonment: 3. Their histories of psychiatric illness and earlier abuse; 4. The Cinderella factor of small numbers” Maguire, Morgan and Reiner (2002:514). Besides these recommendations they also formed a National Women’s justice Board. These have formed due to the contribution of feminists.
Now moving onto Gender and crime, Gender is subject that feminists have brought to criminology as it was not a concern before they highlighted it, out of this came two key developments one is the Generalizability problem and second the gender ratio problem. Which according to Vold, Bernard, and Snipes (2002:273) the generalizability problem is about whether older forms of criminology theories, which have been developed to explain male criminal behaviour, can be used or generalized to explain female criminal behaviour too. The gender ratio problem on the other hand concerns explanations why women commit less crime than males or are less likely. Female criminologists recognise these two problems and usually concern there study with one or the other, the research and studies that have gone into these problems have helped to change the debates that surround criminology.
Conclusion
What I have found is that feminism has contributed to feminism, the contribution is diverse and has a range of scope and is of a rich material. Because of feminism many questions have been turned on their head and the various studies that have been conducted have helped change the lives of many women and also have changed the way world of crime is studied. This essay shows the many different and rich feminist perspectives that have influenced criminology like liberal feminism, Marxist feminism, socialist feminism, Existential feminism, Psychoanalytical feminism, post modern feminism and finally Black feminism. The essay has also looked into how contemporary feminist criminology has developed in phases alongside feminism and how it has contributed and what the reasons were initially for feminists to involve themselves in this field like equal opportunities. Also discussed was Women and crime where this essay managed to show using various studies that there are many differences between the genders when it come to the crimes that are committed and how women carefully consider their options when they commit crime. What also has come light is that women in the prison system face many inequalities in such things as education and training but also how old views of women being treated leniently by courts when sentencing is a myth but can be seen when sentencing women that do not conform to their natural roles as mothers and wives. In contemporary time’s criminology or feminist criminology now focus their attention on key problems the generalizability and gender ratio problem which this essay has found to be a key area for present and ongoing research for feminist criminology and criminologist alike.
Bibliography
Maguire M, Morgan R and Reiner R. (2002) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 3rd edition, Oxford University Press.
Vold, G. Bernard, T and Snipes, J. (2002) Theoretical Criminology. 5th edition, Oxford University Press.
Daly, K. Maher, L. (1998). Criminology at the Crossroads, Feminist readings in crime and justice. Oxford University Press.
Dobash, R, E. Dobash R, P. (1992). Women Violence and Social Change. Rutledge.
Downes, D. Rock, P. (2007). Understanding Deviance. 5th edition. Oxford University Press.
Proctor, B, A. Intersections of Race, Class, Gender, and Crime: Future Directions for Feminist Criminology, Feminist Criminology (2006; 1; 27)
