Feminist Criminology Perspectives and the Female Offender - Report Example

Feminist Criminology Perspectives and the Female Offender Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 2. Female Criminality 5 2 Defining Crime 62.2 Gender and Crime 8 3. Feminism and Victimization 8 3.1 Feminism and Criminality 8 3.2 Criminal Offender and Victim 9 4. Delinquency 10 4.1 Early Theory on Male Delinquency 10 4.2 Applying Male Delinquency to Female Criminality 11 4.2.1 Sameness 12 4.2.2 Difference 12 5. Conclusion 13 Bibliography 15 Abstract Feminist criminology studies have been on the rise in the last thirty years so that the differences between male offending and female offending can be evaluated through the varieties of feminist groups. The contribution of feminist criminology and theories to the overall understanding of criminology has expanded the understanding of differences between the genders in the commission of crime as well as a better understanding of victimology. Through focusing on liberalist, radical, socialist, and post-modern feminist perspectives the idea of female offending is examined. This paper looks at male offending in relationship to female offending through perpetuated victimization and power dynamics. Finally, the ideas of sameness versus differences in relationship to how male and female offenders should be considers opens a debate about what creates an equalized society and what furthers discrimination by not taking into consideration power imbalances between the genders. \ Feminist Criminology Perspectives and the Female Offender 1. Introduction Current discussions on the idea of crime and gender roles have developed the scholarly inquiry of female crime. The roles of the female in relationship to crime most often place them as the victim whether they are the offender or the victim in a crime. As cultures change towards deeper ideas about equality, however, the female offender can also be seen as the aggressor or dominant in the criminal to victim dynamic. The discussion of female crime can be reframed to an empowering position in which her desire to rebel against the established culture is equal to that of the male drive to defy cultural norms. Crime is the result of power and the nature of imbalance that occurs between the powerful and the powerless. The dynamics between the genders, male and females as they relate within the social context, provides for an understanding of power and perspective where crime is concerned. Crime is conducted in order to defy the powerful, but in the relationship between male and female power, male domination is asserted through anti-social behaviours. The common idea of woman as the victim is framed under this understanding of culture. Female criminal behaviour has often been positioned in relationship to studies that have been done about male criminal behaviour. Studies on female criminal behaviour have begun to recognize that the nature of the female criminal is a complex system of behaviours that reflect some of the power structures that provide for the development of the criminal mind, but complicated further by the idea of the culture of domesticity. The following paper will discuss the nature of female criminal behaviour through the perspectives of liberal feminism, radical feminism, socialist feminism, and postmodern feminism. The aim of this paper is to reveal the contributions of feminist perspectives and inquiry to the field of criminology. The female criminal will be examined through conflict theory and the power control theory of crime. Through evaluating how these dynamics make men and women the same and at the same time different, the overall nature of feminist criminal inquiry will be shown to having influenced the overall discussion about crime. . 2. Female Criminality In order to create a discussion of criminality in relationship to feminism, a definition of several types of feminism must first be discussed. Liberal feminism is the primarily concerned with the increase of choices and freedoms that are enjoyed by men. Access to the benefits of the law and to education work to make women equal to men is supported through the liberal feminist (Hinds, Phoenix, and Stacey 2012, p. 7). Radical feminism and socialist feminism are oppositional perspectives through which the topic can be discussed. Radical feminism focuses on the idea that men as a social group benefit from the continued oppression of women. Socialist feminism focuses on the way in which capitalism will continue the oppression of women through unequal pay and work opportunities (Hinds, Phoenix, and Stacey 2012, p. 6). Each form supports the idea that men need the subordination in order to fulfil their roles within the context of social and cultural expectation. Postmodern feminism is a developing discourse on the state of the female gender since the 1950s. Postmodern frameworks of feminism are defined by the need to discuss gender in relationship to social construction. Butler (1999, p. 9) discusses the idea of the construction of not only gender, but of sex so that the understanding of the roles and expressions of woman or man is defined by how the social construction of those roles and expressions have been defined. When discussing liberal feminism in relationship to criminality, the female will offend less often because they do not have the same numbers of opportunities for deviance as men do through socialization dynamics. Radical feminists are concerned with patriarchal manifestations of crime against women and that women will offend after victimization by men. Socialist feminists define crime through class based systems, while the post-modernist feminists will look at how crime is socially constructed, redefining what are considered social truths about female based crimes through the examination of stereotypes that suppose certain ideas that may not be reflected through actual phenomenon (Burgess-Proctor 2006, p. 29) 2.1 Defining Crime A basic definition of crime can be said that it is simply anti-social behaviour. Society constructs laws through which order is created and placed upon society. So when something that is against those laws is acted out, the behaviour is anti-social. Crime may be simple to define, but the way in which it is constructed is far more complex. Helfgott (2008, p. 71) writes that “Crime is defined by the dominant class to include behaviour patterns of those who do not have power in society and used as a tool to serve the interests of the powerful”. This creates new implications on the idea of anti-social behaviour. This takes the interests of the powerful and places them in direct conflict with the interests of those who do not have power. Feminism comes into direct conflict with the desires of the powerful, who are still in this late post-modern period mostly men, so that the needs of women are sometimes considered anti-social. Female interests are in direct conflict to a continuation of patriarchy. Helfgott (2008, p. 70) further discusses the nature of crime in relation to conflict theory. Crime is concerned with the incompatible interests of the various groups within society. The needs of women are not always in line with the needs of men, causing a rift in the development of law. Historically, as an example, the need for a woman to be safe has not been a priority against the need for a man to ‘keep his house in order’. This meant that there were laws that allowed for men to commit violence against women in order to keep the patriarchal framework intact. Ultimately, it is the power-control theory of crime that describes a great deal of the foundation of how the criminal defines their human experience. The patriarchal society asserts that the mother and father take control of the behaviours of their daughter, while there are higher expectations, but less of a sense of control over sons. This control over the daughter is called the ‘instrument-object-relationship’ (Helfgott 2008, p. 72). This is the direct connection to the development of the ‘cult of domesticity’ for girls where boys have the mind set to conduct delinquent behaviour. 2.2 Gender and Crime Gender labelled crime means that either as offender or as victim; it is rare for the other gender to experience those events from that perspective. As an example, it is most often males who rape and females who are raped. Each side of that phenomenon is gender specific for the most part. There are exceptions, of course, but those are rare. Serial killing is most often a male offender oriented crime. Domestic violence is most often defined by a male committing violence against a woman. The most often experienced dynamic between the genders is the male offender against the female victim. The existence of the female offender has been a phenomenon was more often seen as an anomaly and has only just begun to be seriously studied as a relational dynamic within the public sphere. Burgess-Proctor (2006, p. 28) writes that the issue of female criminology is a “theoretical framework that recognizes multiple, intersecting inequalities”. She goes on to discuss how inclusion of a variety of different facets of the human experience, such as race, class, sexuality, age, gender, religion, nationality, and physicality are all related to crime, but can be distinctly viewed as relevant to the development of criminal choices. 3. Feminism and Victimization 3.1 Feminism and Criminality Women are often seen as certain types of offenders. The offenses of women against society are more often than not sexually associated with the prostitute being the prime example. Women rarely are portrayed as committing crimes on their own. They are the girlfriend of the perpetrator, the property of the perpetrator, or acting on the command of some higher male authority through which the cost benefit analysis of crime has determined that to commit the crime will benefit them with the attention of the male figure while the cost would deny them that benefit. Female crime is most often stereotyped as her role as a follower, keeping her in the position of victim even as she offends against society. 3.2 Criminal Offender and Victim Women are acculturated to fear for their safety because they are assumed to be more vulnerable than men. Women fear for their personal safety because of the violence that is committed against them. Women live in safety only because men allow it, which of course is not historically the case. Women have always lived free of physical harm only because men have determined when they will and will not be secure. The law has not always supported the physical safety of women. From the 1700s to the 19th century men had the ability under civil law to ‘punish’ women for their transgressions as they were held responsible for the actions of women (Vermeulen 2005, p. 191). The implication of the female on the presence of the man in society continues to be an underlying dynamic just as the threat of violence outside of the social order is still a possibility. Therefore, women are characterized as offenders in their subordinate position, still victims and under the control of men when they offend against society. While society has worked to develop social order that includes laws and structures of equity, the very nature of criminal behaviour is to come in conflict with social order. It is not unreasonable for the dynamics of organized crime to have a far more highly patriarchal hierarchy than does the social construction of mainstream society. Not only does patriarchy figure into crime, but feudalism is highly relevant to how crime structures are built (Karstedt 2000, p. 58). A good example of how women are reduced to sexual objectification in organized crime can be seen in motorcycle clubs. In motorcycle clubs women are reduced to the whims of the male objectification, the trade of sex and female sexuality a large part of their business. Women who are associated with the gang have little power and trying to assert power can be dangerous with consequences. The reversion to strong patriarchal systems within crime that has become organized provides context for understanding the continuing victimization of the female gender even when participating in criminal activity (Karstedt 2000, p. 32). 4. Delinquency 4.1 Early Theory on Male Delinquency Criminal behaviour is all about culture. Delinquency is a subculture of the main culture, the development of anti-social behaviours in response to structures of society. Cohen and Short (1958, p. 20) placed the source of delinquency in male children on the inability of working class boys to meet the expectations of society. When greater disparities in equality were in existence, the nature of the female position in society did not encourage delinquency, but the expectations in the male position of society encouraged them to come up against social conventions and traditions out of frustration. Shaw and McKay (2009, p. 190) discuss the nature of delinquency in relationship to location. Urban ecologies lead to the same kind of delinquent behaviour within the same context and associated to common patterns. Cohen and Short (1958) created a study that discussed collective sub-cultural behaviour and orients it to male reaction formation and social frustration. Boys create cultures in which they can belong because they know they can never become a part of the middle class. Bryant (2006, p. 234) quotes the work of Walther Miller who was in conflict with Shaw and McKay stating that there were certain focal points that were the key to delinquent behaviour. He listed those key elements as trouble (antisocial behaviours), smartness, toughness, excitement, fate, and autonomy. The importance of autonomy is crucial in that rather than taking on the role of poverty that society ascribes to an individual, the individual reorganizes that role to be successful outside of the social order. 4.2 Applying Male Delinquency to Female Criminality The study of feminist criminology arose out of the evidence that mainstream scholarly discussion was not addressing the concepts of inequality as a factor in criminality outside of disparities in economy (Burgess-Proctor 2006, p. 30). One of the primary issues in the discussion is the sameness/difference issues that arise where female and male offenders are concerned. Whether or not male and female offenders should be treated the same in relationship to law, sentencing, and incarceration is a serious discussion that on the one hand suggests some form of discrimination through differences, but on the other suggests that equality would ultimately mean unequal as the gender specific needs cannot be met through sameness (Burgess-Proctor 2006, p. 30). 4.2.1 Sameness The liberal feminist would look at criminality and expect that sameness in the treatment of men and women would create equality. Through radical feminism sameness would be a way in which to ignore the power dynamics between men and women and punish the offending woman without taking in her oppressed position in society. Socialist feminists would look at the aspect of sameness as a way of defining the female through the actions of men that placed her in the position to offend. Postmodern discussions about female offending in relationship to offending would also support that sameness is another way of supporting the needs of the patriarchal system. Sameness means that there is equality in treatment and access under the law. It discounts any external differences that would change the perspective on how to treat the offender and provide for them once incarcerated. It provides for the same opportunities of education and rehabilitation, but also discounts social factors that make the female and male experience different. Burgess-Proctor (2006, p. 32) writes that “critics of the sameness approach argued that this model actually harms women because the law is not gender neutral but in fact assumes a male standard”. Sameness makes an assumption that the development of criminology has occurred under a neutral standard, but it has routinely been developed through focus on the male. 4.2.2 Difference Proctor-Burgess (2006, p. 33) has approached the idea of difference through stating that issues about sameness and differences seem to avoid the issues of privilege and power. If discussed through the concept of radical feminism, the power of patriarchy is an overriding idea through which differences in the way in which criminality is approached in men and women is justified. Social construction also would support the dynamics of difference in treating men and women because of the disparity that initializes the inclusion of women in criminal behaviours. From the post-modern perspective the idea of difference would clearly be relevant as the development of a new discourse since the 1950s on criminality from a feminist perspective has been one of the goals of the post-modern feminist. The idea of difference in relationship to how criminal behaviour is approached for the male and female offender supports the realities of social construction of role identities as they relate to criminal offense. The power structure that still permeates society is rife with the oppression of women; their criminal endeavours not solely their own choice. The problem is that the same can be said of men who are responding to the social pressures of not being able to meet the expectations of being within the middle class. Where women are subject to the pressures of male oppression, males are subject to the pressures of social expectation. In this, men and woman have a type of equality. 5. Conclusion Having considered the different perspectives on the female offender, it is clear that there is a power dynamic through which offending becomes a part of victimization. Through conflict theory the nature of offending has been clarified to be an oppositional reaction to society as it has been built to be reflective of the interests of the powerful. This means that the poor are used in order to support the needs of the wealthy. The power-control theory on social construction supports the idea that the male offender is made more often than the female as the female is retained under the ‘cult of domesticity’. The male is frustrated by his inability to meet the expectations of society, thus offends in order to equalize his position. Sameness can be applied through understanding that the pressure on both the male and the female equalizes their position as offenders. At the same time, differences in power support the idea that male and female offenders should not be treated the same. This is furthered as one looks at the organization of crime which is highly patriarchal. Men run crime units through feudal style power, with female input rarely taken into consideration. Moreover, it is likely that female members in a crime organization are being used as a commodity for income, their sex and sexuality owned and managed for the purposes of making money for the male members of a group. The work of Burgess-Proctor (2006) defines the idea of research into criminology through her perspectives on the various feminist groups in relationship to the rise of the topic of female criminal behaviour for scholars and researchers. The focus was always on the male offender, their disillusionment a resource from which they begin to offend against a society in which they are likely not to be included. The idea of the female offender is framed through many theories that include oppression, patriarchy, and the cost/benefit of committing crime. Further research is needed in order to identify if there are unequal differences or if the social pressure on men is similar to the oppression of women, equalizing the incentives to offend. The contributions to understanding crime have been significant when discussed under feminist theoretical frameworks. The differences between the genders and the dynamics of power have helped to understand the pressures that create crime, thus changing how criminality is approached. Bibliography Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006) Intersections of Race, Class, Gender, and Crime: Future Directions for Feminist Criminology. Feminist Criminology. 1 (1) pp 27-47. Butler, Judith (1999). Gender trouble. London: Routledge. Top of Form Helfgott, Jacqueline B. (2008). Criminal Behavior: Theories, Typologies, and Criminal Justice. Los Angeles: SAGE. Hinds, Hillary, Phoenix, Ann, and Stacey, Jackie (2012). Working out: New directions for women’s studies. Bottom of Form Karstedt, Suzanne. (2000). Social dynamics of crime and control: New theories for a world in transition. Oxford: Hart. McLaughlin, Eugene. (2003). Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings. London: Sage. Vermeulen, Stephanie. (2005). Stitched-up: Who fashions womens lives?. Johannesburg: Jacana. Walklate, S. (2004) Gender, Crime and Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Read More