The term gender entrapment was coined by Beth Richie in the explanation of black beaten woman’s interplay of devotion and racial distinctiveness, especially in the United States’ prisons. In this case, gender entrapment assisted black women to live in a relationship where violence thrived. As a result of this; the black women’s devotion hindered them from discussing their experiences in public, as they thought that doing so would upset the entire community resulting in their lack of protection and effective counseling. Based on this, the women had difficulties in selecting what was most excellent for themselves, their males, and the whole society. It can be argued that black women got totally nothing even after devoting themselves to their race. In support of this, Ritchie stated that imprisoned women faced a lot of trouble in trying to re-join their own community since they were seen as delinquents. In other words, when a black woman is released from jail she has not received the same way a man would be; by the community. In this case, Richie found that bodily attacks, emotional degradations, disadvantaged financial statuses, and explicit racial discrimination contributed to desperation among black women. Based on this, Richie found that women’s deviant conduct was contributed to; their acknowledgment and strong obligation to hegemonic sexual category, ethnic prospects, and the wish to maintain authenticated; as well as retain a socially acknowledged way of life (Richie, 1995).
On the other hand, Steffenmeier and Allan indicated that both males and females engaged themselves in negligible offenses and drug use than in major crimes like murder and robbery. Contrary to Ritchie’s statements, Steffen and Allan said that men are highly rated in offending than women except in prostitution; although the gap was wider in major crimes than in minor ones. In this case, from information drawn from the ‘FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports’ in 1995; women mostly arrested were in connection of minor property crime like deception, drug abuse and prostitution (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996).
It can be argued that Steffen’s theory agrees with Ritchie’s; since it also indicates that increased crime among women was a result of increased economic susceptibility, persecution, role entrapment, and survival needs. In this case, situational strains including the peril of losing a value affiliation pushed women to crimes. Based on Steffenmeier’s gendered theory, women were inhibited from crime while men were encouraged into it through gender norms. In this case, women’s role responsibility, assumption of the female nurturance and their beauty prospects as well as sexual effectiveness; were the central concerns that held back women’s involvement in the crime. Contrary to Ritchie’s theory, women according to Steffenmeier and Allan’s theory were highly rewarded for building and sustaining a relationship as well as nurturing a family. In this case, it was evident that females’ distinctiveness was a result of the males’ in their lives (Steffensmeier, 1977).
Further, social control was a powerful constraint to the women’s willingness and capability to involve themselves in crime. This is the case because their conduct was supervised especially during their influential years and in the case of any misconduct; they faced pessimistic sanctioning. Still, on the same point, it can be argued that women were the least to be engaged in crime because of their concern for others. Based on this, women might fear their disjointing from the rest of the family and society members especially when imprisoned. It can also be argued that; women from their early ages were socialized to be responsive to the concerns of others and to be good wives and mothers (Lorber, 2005) (Rothenberg, 2003).
In their gendered approach, Steffenmeier and Allan criticized negatively Ritchie’s theory as their arguments were that; if females engage themselves in politics and ‘high-level finance’ among other opportunities, they would be involved in offenses such as price-fixing, corruption, and bribery among others. Based on this, it can be seen that women do not get involved in crimes because of the lack of opportunities, as a provision for them would lead to their involvement in white-collar crime (Steffenmeier & Allan, 1996).
Basing on these ideas, Ritchie’s thesis in her study was that women’s law-breaking conduct was not comprised by their refusal of customary gender and racial roles. As a result, she argued that it is an acknowledgment and strong obligation to hegemonic gender and ethnic prospects; and they wish to sustain a socially authenticated way of life. Based on this, the gendered approach could be built on the key elements of gender norms and social control. In this case, women had their own unique roles in the society which according to the gendered approach; inhibited them from criminal involvements. In addition, women were expected to have sensitivity to others’ needs and at the same time be good wives and mothers; hence resulting from these expectations, were hindered from criminal acts (Lorber, 2005) (Rothenberg, 2003).
In conclusion, Ritchie’s study showed that more black women than white ones were involved in crime because of racism and traditional affiliation. On the other hand, her theory helps in building key elements of the gendered approach of Steffenmeier and Allan.
Reference list
Gabbidon, S. (2005). Race and Crime, First Edition. London: Sage Publications.
Lorber, J. (2005). Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics, Third Edition. Los Angles: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Richie, B. (1995). Compelled to Crime: The Gender Entrapment of Battered, Black Women, First Edition. New York: Routledge Publishers.
Rothenberg, P. (2003). Race, Class and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study, Sixth Edition. New York: Worth Publishers.
Steffensmeier, D. (1977). “Sex Differences in Patterns of Adult Crime: A Review and Assessment.” Social Forces 58: 1080-1108.
Steffensmeier, D. & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending.” Annual review of sociology 22: 459-487.