Introduction
Criminal women have infrequently been dealt with than criminals who are perceived as dangerous drives that need to be reckoned. Currently, criminal women have been the main target of voyeuristic research that is interested mainly in their sexuality (Klein & Kress, 1976, p. 155). In addition, with the common pigeonholes of women within the community criminal women are seen as incapable, hysterical, and irrational of being entirely initiative for their crimes and actions because of their sex and biology. This paper will discuss the key issues regarding gendered criminology theory.
The rationale for a gendered criminology theory
Basically, criminologists accept that the issue of the gender gap is universal in the area of crime. The rationale for a gendered criminology theory is based on the aspect that most women validate as faithful, obedient, pure mothers, wives, and daughters and eventually, they end up benefiting society and men. Criminology has handled the role of women with a great measure of indifference (Feinman, 1994, p. 16). The intellectual convection in which criminology obtains its formation of these sexes sustains respect for men’s force of character, intelligence, and independence while disregarding women due to their limitations of submissiveness and compliance. Nevertheless, those women who are non-conforming might be the one who simply questions the developed practices or beliefs, or those who involve themselves in crimes and actions related to men or may commit crimes. These types of women are doubly deviant or doubly damned. These characters mostly result in comprehension of being unstable or mentally abnormal (Bottoms, 1996, p. 1).
Rationality according to Steffensmeier (1983, p. 2) refers to the method that is utilized to bring to an end or the scope to which prompt methods are utilized to accomplish objectives and with particular regards to women. Therefore, if women are less involved in criminal actions and are reasonably less effective at it, then this shows an outcome of single-mindedness. In addition, it shows that within the normal criminal actions than due to their lack of access to social and organizations contacts which could help them in pursuing criminal enterprise more successfully and safely (Steffensmeier, 1983, p. 1025).
Key elements
There are four key elements that help one in understanding gender dissimilar in crime; gender organization, access to criminal chance or opportunity, motivation for the crime, and the offending context. Gender organization refers extensively to several parts of social life which vary markedly by gender. In combination with variations in sexual and physical features, the gender organization blunts the possibility of criminal actions in the areas of females but raises that possibility for men. The gender organization consists of moral establishment, differences in norms, relational concerns, and social control, sexual differences, physical differences, and reproductive differences. These six areas of life attempt to promote male crime and inhibit female crime, and shape the trends of female criminal actions which do happen (Zaplin, 1998, p. 7-8).
Similarly, gender norms, relational concerns, and moral development, social control, sexuality and, aggression, and physical strength disregard to limit women’s access to criminal chance or opportunity. Moreover, they shape the trends of female crime. Limits on female access to criminal opportunities lead to additional challenges on their criminal chances since females rarely hold such positions as a carpenter, dockworker, or truck driver, which could offer chances for fencing, drug trafficking, theft, and other criminal activities (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996, p. 464).
In addition, the same factors which limit female access to criminal opportunities also restrict the subjective readiness of females to get involved in criminal actions (Young, 1990, p. 18). In addition, they play a role in gender variations in criminal motivation; evaluation of costs, the likelihood of shame, benefits of crime, tastes of risk, and degree of self-control. Women have styles and preferences or risk-taking that vary from those of their counterpart men. Men are known to take risks in order to protect women or their loved ones or to maintain relationships (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996, p. 467).
Male and female offending trends vary extremely in their contexts. In this case, context represents the features and situations of a specific criminal act like the degree of property damage or personal injury, an association between the victim and offender, the role of the offender in committing and initiating the offense, and the significance of the crime. Similarly, when a similar crime is charged, the context of offending is mostly different for women and men. Moreover, male/female contextual variations heighten with the offense’s seriousness (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996, p. 478).
Support to the position taken by Steffensmeier and Allan
The other articles do support the position taken by Steffensmeier and Allan. For instance, Klein & Kress (1976) argues how women criminals have been less dealt with compared to those of men. According to Feinman, (1994), a criminal gap has been universal since women are perceived as individuals who should be protected from their criminal actions rather than being responsible for them. Similarly, Bottoms (1996), states that women who are non-conforming mostly engage themselves in criminal actions. These types of women are doubly deviant or doubly damned. Finally, the article authored by Steffensmeier (1983), supports the position taken by Steffensmeier and Allan by arguing that women are less involved in criminal actions and those who end up in criminal actions are not successful.
Conclusion
The gender criminology theory advances people’s knowledge concerning both male crime and female crime. The gendered theory varies from gender-specific theory which recommends causal trends for women’s crime which are particularly dissimilar from male crime theory. Similarly, male and female crime might be comprehended properly by understanding the manner in which the reflective variations between men’s and women’s lives shape the dissimilar trends of male and female offending.
Reference
Bottoms, A. (1996). Sexism and the Female Offender. Sydney: Gower Publishing.
Feinman, C. (1994) Women ion the Criminal Justice System. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Klein, D., & Kress, J. (1976). Any woman’s Blues: A critical Overview of Women, Crime and the Criminal Justice System. Crime and Social Justice, 5 (34).
Steffensmeier, D. (1983). Organization Properties and Sex-Segregation in the Underworld: Building a Sociological Theory of Sex Difference in Crime. Social Forces, 61 (4).
Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 459-487.
Young, A. (1990). Femininity in Dessent. London: Routledge.
Zaplin, R. (1998). Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Female offenders: critical perspectives and effective interventions. Web.