Gender differences in crime

Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess explanations for apparent gender differences in involvement in crime (21 marks)

Official records show an overwhelming predominance of males compared with females committing crimes. Heidensohn criticised the male dominance known as “malestream criminology” (a term used to describe the fact that make ways of thinking have dominated criminology) and suggested 4 possible reasons why:
1) Male dominance offenders: due to the dominance of male offenders, sociologists thought that it was appropriate to study them rather than the minority of female offenders.
2) Male domination of sociology: Heidensohn states that the sociological topics of investigation reflect a male view and male interests, therefore a women perspective were never taken into account.
3) Vicarious identification: men study what interests them and so they obtain a thrill by putting themselves in the place of another person.
4) Sociological theorising: male sociologists constructed their theories without applying them to females. In effect, they ignore the specific view point of women.
Criminologists have omitted to explain what it is that makes males more likely than females to commit crime. There were 3 approaches explaining the relationship between women and offending which are: biological explanations, sex-role theory and changing role:
1) Biological explanations: this is the belief proposed that women are innately different from men – they have a natural desire to be caring and nurturing, neither of which values support crime. ‘Normal’ women are therefore less likely to commit crime. However, Dalton claimed that hormonal or menstrual factors can influence a minority of women who commit crime.
2) Sex-role theory: this argues that women are less likely to commit crime than men because of the restricted roles they claim to have in society.
Socialisation – Parsons argued that girls have a clear role model to follow that emphasises caring and support due to the fact that child-rearing is carried out by their mothers, therefore this channels them into being ‘lady-like.’ Farrington and Painter carried out a longitudinal study of female offenders and uncovered different patters of socialisation between offenders and non-offenders. They found that the female offenders had erratic parenting and had no support from their parents, or praise from achievements in school. This shows us that socialisation plays a vast role in our outcome as humans. Whether or not we are socialised in a specific way could always determine how we present ourselves, and what norms and values we allow ourselves to follow.
Social control – females are less likely to commit crime because of the closer levels of supervision that they are subjected to at home in childhood which carries out throughout life. Heidensohn points out that a range of informal sanctions to discourage women would stray them from ‘proper’ behaviour including gossip, ill repute etc.
Marginalisation – the narrow range of roles that women are allowed to have limits their opportunities to commit crime. This is because they are more confined by their socialisation and social control than men.
Although, Adler suggests that the increasing rates of female crime are linked to their freedom from the traditional forms of social control and their acceptance into more ‘masculine’ roles. Denscombe argued that female roles are changing and has results into an increase of engaging in risk-taking behaviour to present their masculine side. Westwood developed similar ideas and argued that identities are constantly being reconstructed and reframed. The concept of having a fixed female identity has changed overtime as women are now reconfiguring their identity in a more confident and forceful way which becomes a possible factor for the increase in female crime. However, Heidensohn disputes Westwood’s argument, citing evidence that shows convicted offenders tend to score highly on psychological tests of ‘femininity’ indicating that they have no taken on female roles.
Smart introduced the idea of “transgression” (a feminist theory which is used to suggest a ‘break out’ of the confines of traditional criminology) in response to the need for a feminist version of criminology – one that answered the concerns of women. Furthermore, Carlen argued that the explanations of female crime were inadequate because they were theoretically weak and represented a ‘bolt on’ to existing male criminology. This lead to feminists looking more closely at: the way women stayed in at night in fear of becoming victims, domestic violence and how women were treated by law in issues of rape and harassment.
Smart’s idea of transgressive criminology began to feed back into mainstream criminology. Some sociologists began to go beyond traditional limits and assessed the issues of why most crime is male crime. Connell argued that there were a number of different forms of masculinity that changes over time – this is called “hegemonic masculinity” He argued that a ‘normative masculinity’ (socially approved idea of what a real man is) exists in society. Messerschmidt defined normative masculinity through different from and desire for women. He suggested that masculinity is not something natural, but something males achieved as an accomplishment which is constantly worked at. However, due to the different explanations of what makes a man A MAN, achieving masculinity may lead to some men to commit crime. Crime is committed by those less powerful in an attempt to be successful at masculinity. Moreover, Messerschmidt said that businessmen are able to express their power over women in the workplace while those with no power at work may turn to expressing masculinity by using violence in the home or streets. Nevertheless, both types of men are achieving their normative masculinity. Katz, however, argued that most criminology fails to understand the role of pleasure in committing crime. The search for pleasure has to be placed within the context of masculinity and stresses the importance of stress, control and success.
In conclusion, explanations for gender differences in involvement in crime may differ due to the factors that affect the will power of both genders to be delinquent. Such factors may also affect the reasons behind them committing crimes, which may include the struggle for identity or simply to prove their masculinity.