However, such traditional approaches evidently do not lend themselves to any explanation regarding both the subtle and profound differences in female and male offending patterns. Four of these differences will be outlined to illustrate this point. Firstly, serious crimes against property and against persons are not only predominately committed by men, but are also a rare feature of female offending. Furthermore, the monetary value of female thefts, property damage and drugs is typically smaller than that for similar offences committed by men. Secondly, female offenders are more likely than men to be solo perpetrators and are less likely to participate in or lead criminal groups. Perhaps the most significant gender difference is the overwhelming dominance of males in more organized and highly lucrative crimes (Daly 1989). Thirdly, women seem to need a higher level of provocation before turning to crime, especially serious crime, exemplified by the finding that, in comparison to male offenders, female offenders are more likely to also be victims as children or adults (Daly 1994). Finally, female offending also tends to involve relational concerns, a statement supported by the fact that the role of men in initiating women into crime, especially serious crime, seems to be a consistent finding across research ( eg. Steffensmeier 1983). These findings provide some insight into the variety of factors that separate men and women in terms of pathways to crime and which would support the idea that gender is indeed an important aspect of criminal research.
Whilst understanding that issues and patterns regarding female crime are, in many ways, different to those of men; a finding which is unsurprising given the disparity in overall crime rates for each sex, many theorists have endeavoured to understand the relationship between women and crime. The assumption that female offending needs to be necessarily compared to male offending has, however, hindered many of these attempts, as is perhaps highlighted by the gender equality hypothesis which associated small increases in female crime rates during the 1970s with the modern women’s movement (Adler 1975). This idea rested upon the assumption that ‘liberation’ causes crime. This theory has been widely discredited, largely because, over time, an increase in crime in relation to women’s liberation has not materialised. However, discussion regarding such ideas, albeit in more complex forms, has continued to permeate criminology, exemplified by the power-control approach developed by Hagan et al. (1993). According to the power-control theory, the gender gap in ‘common delinquency’ is minimized for girls raised in ‘egalitarian’ families. However, empirical challenges to this theory have been reported in many studies (eg. Jensen 1993), whilst some have criticized the theory’s uncritical acceptance of the gender equality hypothesis (Morash and Chesney-Lind 1991). The idea that ‘equity’ has an effect upon the gender gap has also been challenged by those who have found that criminal women are, in fact, amongst the least likely to be affected by feminism and were found to score more highly on ‘femininity’ scores, whilst ‘masculine’ scoring women were less delinquent (Naffine 1987).
Some feminists espouse a position diametrically opposed to that of Adler under the ‘liberation hypothesis,’ pointing to the peculiarity of considering, ‘a hypothesis that assumed improving girls’ and women’s economic conditions would lead to an increase in female crime when almost all existing criminological literature stresses the role played by discrimination and poverty ( and unemployment or underemployment) in the creation of crime.’ (Chesney-Lind 1992 p.77). Some of such research has pointed to the idea that patriarchal power relations may actually provoke female criminal activity, arguing that such women are pushed into crime through victimization, role entrapment, economic marginality, and survival needs. Thus, sich a gender inequality approach suggests that greater gender equality would lead to a lower female share of crime.
In attempting to understand the relationship between women and crime, many feminist criminologists have highlighted the absence of women in criminological literature. However, many studies have emerged as a response to this problem and in relation to the growing acceptance within criminology that gender is, indeed, an important issue. A key element focused upon in many feminist theories regarding crime is an emphasis upon agency and the rational and purposive nature of many of the female offenders that have been studied. This idea goes against the previously held assumption that women’s behaviour was determined by their physiology or instincts. Carlen’s ethnographic studies of convicted women in the UK has suggested that they were aught in two constricting structures; the ‘gender bind’ and the ‘class bind’, however, the choice to offend and the type of offence committed was often made on the basis of carefully weighed consideration (Carlen 1988 p.45).
However, it could be argued that a satisfactory unified theoretical framework has yet to be developed for explaining female criminality and gender differences in crime. One must ask whether perhaps the wrong questions have been asked. Heidensohn has argued; ‘’an examination of female criminality and unofficial deviance suggests that we need to move away from studying infractions and look to conformity instead, because the most striking thing about female behaviour…is how notably conformist to social mores women are’ (Heidensohn 1996 p.11). This emphasis has, however, been concentrated upon by ‘control theory’, developed originally by Hirschi et al. (1969), which explains delinquency by the failure of the social bonding process, thus stressing conformity and what may have impaired it, rather than deviancy and what has caused it. Heidensohn has argued that women are subject to a series of pressures and rewards to conform to which men are not. Thus, she argues, informal sanctions discourage women from straying far from ‘correct’ behaviour, such as parental disapproval, gossip, ill-repute and male companions. These are combined with commitments which occupy women more fully than they do men, such as children, family and community. Furthermore, it is argued that public images and culture encourage daring deviance in men but suggest that deviant women are punished (Heidensohn 1996). However such ideas have produced empirically inconclusive results, whilst Naffine has criticized such approaches for depicting women as essentially passive (Naffine 1987p.68-70). The lack of empirical consensus to support many explanations for female crime and the gender gap have thus provoked Byrne to comment; ‘Unfortunately feminist criminology has not offeref any comprehensive theory to supplement those it has criticized’ (Byrne 1990 p.25).
However, more recent theory has addressed the question of the gender gap from a different, and perhaps more pertinent perspective, by refocusing attention upon men within a gendered context. Recent work has suggested that masculinities, as a socially constructed concept, may explain the gender gap more clearly in accounting for the imbalance in terms of the abundance of male crime rather than the small percentage of crime committed by female, and is thus an important construct for understanding crime and violence. Miedzian (1991) has argued that socialization, peer pressure, media and military influences lead men to perceive violence as being acceptable ‘masculine’ behaviour by men. Thompson, in his qualitative examination of dating violence, found that men with more masculine gender orientations were more likely to be involved in violent exchanges. An important element of such theory is the idea of ‘doing gender’, introduced by West and Zimmerman (1987), which conceptualises gender as a routine accomplishment that is created and maintained through everyday interaction. This argument thus attempts to identify the way in which expressing masculinity is directly linked to criminal behaviour, and especially the use of violence.
Messerschmidt’s ‘masculinity hypothesis’ uses this concept and argues that criminal behaviour may be considered an acceptable way to convey the ‘toughness’ that is linked with masculine traits. Other traditional outlets of successful masculinity, he argues, include success in school, marriage and children and, above all, occupational achievement which is usually derived from monetary success, thus accomplishing the masculine role of a ‘good provider’ (Messerschmidt 1993 p.70). However, when these traditional means of demonstrating masculinity are stifled or do not exist, violent behaviour is more likely to occur as an alternative ‘masculine-validating resource’ (ibid. p.83). Thus Messerschmidt hypothesizes that criminal behaviour is seen as an acceptable, alternative way to accomplish or project masculinity. Although there is little evidence of rigorous empirical work to support this hypothesis, Krienert (2003), in a qualitative investigation of newly incarcerated offenders in Nebraska, found evidence to support Messerscmidt’s general theoretical notion that men who lack masculine resources are more likely to turn to violence. In a more general sense, research such as this represents an important transition in research from knowing that men commit more crime to understanding the unique nature of masculinity in relation to this difference.
In conclusion, much of criminological theory has centred around the mediating effects of social class and race. However, perhaps the most obvious, clear-cut and extreme differentiation in crime rates relates to gender. Furthermore, in many aspects, such as education and employment, the gender issue has transformed in a way that other variables have not, whilst in relation to crime the differential between women and men appears, with a little variation, to have remained steadfastly wide. However, perhaps due to this lack of historical variation, criminology as a discipline seems all too often to have assumed that crime is ‘male’ and further based research around this assumption, rather than investigating the dynamics behind it. It seems entirely necessary to understand women’s relation to crime, not only as victim, but also as perpetrator. Furthermore, the fact that crime is disproportionately male warrants further investigation into the idea of gender and, specifically ‘masculinity.’ The gender gap that exists in crime and deviance will seemingly not go away, thus it seems crucial to understand why it is there.
