CH 6 Flashcards
the goal of feminist crim is:
to move women and an analysis of gender to the centre of criminological inquiry
two initial paths of feminist contributions
1) focus on sexist theories of crime to explain women’s crime
2) explanation of invisibility of women in the mainstream theories of crim
feminism
the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes
conservative approach
- theory of women’s crime
- focus on boil differences btw men and women that account for female criminal offending and differences in male and female offending
- women viewed as naturally inferior, which explains their criminality
- Lombroso and ferrero
Lombroso and Ferrero
(conservative approach)
women less intelligent, less sensitive to pain, more passive, more conservative
-adaptation of atavism theory (women not as evolved)
-female criminals vile, cruel, lacking in maternal instincts and ladylike qualities
Thomas
(conservative approach)
- human behaviour=expression of biol instincts of anger, fear, love, will to gain status and power
- women had more varieties of love in their nervous system, the need for which accounted for most female crimes (esp prostitution)
Glueck and Gleuck
(conservative approach)
- criminal women as “other”
- imprisoned women a “sorry lot”
- feeble minded, psychopathic tendencies, emotionally unstable
- just “human material”; hard to form into law abiding citizens
Pollak
(conservative approach-1950s)
- women’s crimes equal in severity to males’ but hidden and thus undetected (vastly undercounted) bc women are inherently deceptive and vengeful
- instigate, get males to perpetrate crime
- deceit rooted in biol ability to fake an orgasm
- anger, vengefulness, irritability, depression stemming from generative phases
Critiques of conservative theories
lent intellectual respectability to myths/folk tales abt women + their behaviour
- reflected assumptions about the dual nature of women (good girl/bad girl, sexual promiscuity amoral for women but not men)
- fails to consider gendered roles
- biologically deterministic (more recent)
- ignores broader structural factors that impinge on women’s lives and influence their criminal offending
Liberal approach
developed in 1970s
- more sociological analysis, shift focus from biology to culture
- differences btw men and women due to gender roles + socialization patterns
- culture created gender differences by proscribing certain roles + behaviours as gender appropriate
Role Theory: Hoffman
Hoffman-1970s
- lower rate of delinquency in girls result of differential socialization (males to be agressive, outgoing, allowed greater freedom; females passive, domesticated, closely supervised)
- explains women’s lesser involvement in violence and greater involvement in shoplifting
Role Theory: power-control theory
patriarchal family (employed husband, housewife)-parents, esp moms, control daughters more than sons; large gender differences in delinquent behaviour egalitarian family (both parents employed)-parenting more egalitarian, daughters less controlled, smaller gender differences in delinquency
Role theory: Smart
- role theory can only partly women’s crime
- little attention paid to broader origins of gender roles and why socialization patterns differ
- hagan’s theory does not got far enough in examining gender-based power
mainstream theories of crime
- fail to account for women’s crime (reflect sensitivity to class inequality but not gender inequality)
- rely on stereotypical constructions of masculinity (agressive, independent, daring, adventurous) and femininity (submissive, dependent, compliant)
Sutherland’s differential association theory
(mainstream theory of crime) -cultural heterogeneity for men (some learn definitions favourable to crime while others do not)
-women were also seen as culturally homogeneous (more altruistic and compliant than men), which Sutherland failed to examine
