Her concern was that criminology, even in its more radical form, would be 'unmoved' by feminist critiques. She viewed criminology as completely dated and patriarchical and wished to abandon it because she could not see what it had to offer feminism.
“The 1970’s…saw the beginning of serious research in Britain on issues of gender, crime and criminal justice from the perspective of feminism. This reflected the growth of feminism in a general sense, in the United States during the 1960’s and in this country during the 1970’s” (Tierney, 1996:162-163). Up until and during this time feminism had achieved little or no credibility within the sphere of criminology, however these decades began a wave of feminist criminological literature that went much further than merely a critique of the masculine nature of criminology and the criminal justice system. “Feminist perspectives, over the past thirty years have not only put some new topics under the criminological cover, they have challenged the theories, concepts, methods and assumptions of most of the people already involved in the study of crime. Feminists argue that theories of criminality have been developed from male subjects and validated on male subjects. Whilst there is nothing wrong with this, the problem is that these theories have been extended generally to include all criminals, defendants and prisoners. It was assumed that the theories would apply to women; most however appear not to do so” (source adapted from Gelsthorpe and Morris, 1990: xii-8).
“Since 1975, the impact of the women’s liberation movement on female crime has become the basis of a heated debate in the criminological literature on women, which I will now go on to discuss in more detail. The catalyst was Freda Adler’s Sisters in Crime (1975) in which the proposition was advanced that women’s liberation was causing women to engage in more violent crime…Women have fought and won their battle for equality. They have ‘come of age’, and ‘the phenomenon of female criminality is but one wave in this rising tide of female assertiveness’ (Adler, 1975:1, source taken from Naffine, 1987:89). But do we take from this that there is feminine criminality or merely that women offenders are more assertive, more aggressive and hence more masculine?
There are two main arguments as to why feminism and criminology are ‘contradictions in terms’ as Walklate puts it. The first being that female offending makes up only a small amount of all criminal activity wherever research is carried out. The statement that “women commit much less crime than men do, is a statement that has achieved the status of a truth universally acknowledged” (Maguire et al, 1997:764). Differences between male and female offending seem to be common across a variety of nations and cultures and in his research, Frances Heidensohn found the same consistent pattern which he believes has “led some commentators to suggest that women offenders are ‘only 10% of the trouble’ (Maguire et al, 1997:766). This argument would therefore suggest that in the arena of crime feminism has no relevance, as females are not equal to males in terms of offending.
There is however another more telling argument as to the contradictory nature of feminism and criminology concerning the historical social construction of gender and more specifically those of ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’. Criminology is concerned with the factors that cause crime and therefore focuses heavily on the criminal and deviant mentality of individuals. Such mentality in females means the embracing of certain given masculine qualities such as competitiveness defiance and daringness.
Adler and her “lengthy analysis of the nature of the new female criminal seems to rest on two points. Firstly that “women are now more assertive, more aggressive and more ‘masculine’. Her other argument is that women’s liberation has opened up structural opportunities for women to offend…The crucial point about Adler’s description of crime…Is her acceptance of traditional criminology’s conception of crime as an expression of masculinity…and that crime is a vehicle for exhibiting traditional masculine qualities.” (Naffine, 1987:90-91). Since Adler’s publishing of Sisters in Crime in 1975 there have been constant criticisms of her standpoint with regard to the new female offender. Brown describes it as an 'embarrassment to feminism' and argues instead that feminism has made female crime more visible through increased reporting, policing and sentencing of female offenders.
The first objection to Adler’s theory consists of her apparent use of statistical illusions caused by the smallness of the base. “Crites quickly disposes of Adler’s argument : “1974 statistics show a 450% increase in arrests of adolescent females for negligent manslaughter compared with a 36% drop for young males. This figure is much less sensational, however when one sees that it results from an increase from two females…to eleven (Crites, 1976:33). Crites concludes that one ‘would not point to these eleven as proof of a trend toward violence on the part of young females’ (source taken from Naffine, 1987:93) as Adler had in representing her theory of increased masculinity of liberated females. Another sceptic of Adler, Rita Simon, rejects the view of crime as purely masculine endeavour and believes that instead of the apparent, albeit slight, rise in female offending is linked to the increased opportunities for crime given in the increasing equality of the workplace. Adler’s proposition that the liberated criminal woman has become more masculine can be quickly dealt with. “Criminologists have had little success at uncovering a relationship between masculinity in females and their criminality. So whether or not the women’s liberation movement is making females more like males, and this is yet to be established, this masculinisation does not seem to be conducive to offending” (source adapted from Naffine, 1987:96). This lack of proof of the hegemonic masculinity of crime would suggest again that there is no room for feminism within criminology at least on this basis of criminology being sex-specific towards male offenders or at least female ‘masculine’ ones.
So far this essay has mainly discussed reasons why feminist perspectives have little relevance in criminology, so why may feminism be needed? Feminism is important to help understand female offending. As has already been made apparent, previous criminological theories, due to their ‘male bias’, are not sufficient in explaining crime carried out by female offenders. Also previous discussions of female offending have been restricted within the boundaries of petty offences, such as shoplifting, due to the way women have been perceived within the sphere of crime and criminality. So feminist perspectives would help explain more serious crimes committed by women. Feminism promotes equal treatment within the institutions of the criminal justice system, therefore leading to a more equal society.
The agenda for feminist criminology has to be to demonstrate, to the more traditional members of the discipline, that the conventional view of women is inaccurate. If women are to be observed behaving in ways that do not fit criminological theories, it tends to be the theories not the women that are found to be deficient. It is exactly this type of deficiency that calls for feminist criminological theory, to remedy the currently dated and patriarchical texts within the field of criminology.
As a final thought, the difficulties that arise through finding a relationship, or balance, between feminism and criminology make it easier for scholars to view them as incompatible or untenable, or as Walklate puts it ‘contradictive.’ However, if we are ever to fully understand female criminality further discussion and progression between these two concepts is needed. The full extent of female crime cannot be understood and dealt with until society as a whole, particularly males, change their attitudes towards the female ability to commit crime and allow them full responsibility for it.
Bibliography
-
Adler, F (1975) Sisters in Crime, McGraw Hill, New York.
- Gelsthorpe, L (1989) Sexism and the female offender, Gower Publishing, Aldershot.
- Gelsthorpe, L and Morris, A (1990) Feminist Perspectives in Criminology, Open University Press, London.
- Naffine, N (1997) Feminism and Criminology, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
- Bowker, L (1981) Women and Crime in America, Macmillan Publishing.
- Collier, R (1998) Masculinities, Crime and Criminology, Sage.
- Maguire, M, Morgan,R and Reiner, R (1997) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford.
- Naffine, N (1987) Female Crime, Allen and Unwin.
- Tierney, J (1996) Criminology: Theory and Context, Longman.
- Muncie, J, McLaughlin, E and Langan, M (2001) Criminological perspectives: A Reader, Sage.
