Gender and crime summary sheet

The official criminal statistics tend to show that women

commit less crime than men. Approximately 80% of those
convicted of serious crimes are men. By the age of 40, only
9% of females have criminal records compared with 32% of
men. In 2013, women only constituted 5% of the total prison
population of the UK - there were only 3,966 women in
prison out of a total prison population of 85,340 in
November 2013.
It is suggested by Pollack that police culture (which is
overwhelmingly male) is paternalistic and sexist. Females
do not fit police stereotypes about suspicious or criminal
behaviour and consequently females are less likely to be
stopped, arrested or charged. Pollack and others have
suggested that the police and the courts treat female
offenders more leniently. Pollack refers to this softer
treatment as the chivalry factor.
Police are more likely to caution females than males.
According to Ministry of Justice statistics, 49% of females
recorded as offending received a caution in 2007,
whereas only 30% of male offenders received the same.
Steffensmeier too argues that women are treated more
leniently by the courts because judges are reluctant to
separate women from their children and regard women
as less dangerous than men.

Early feminist explanations of gender differences in crime

Some sociologists argue that the statistics are actually

incorrect women commit more crime than is officially
acknowledged in the statistics but they are often
treated more leniently by the police and the courts and
consequently their crimes are less likely to be recorded,
reported and prosecuted.
Other sociologists argue that the statistics are largely
correct, i.e. women do commit less crime because they
are simply less criminal than men.
Farrington and Morris (1983) studied the sentencing of 408
convictions for theft and found that women were not
sentenced any more leniently than men.
Police treatment is not consistent with the chivalry thesis, i.e.
prostitutes and rape victims have long complained about
uncaring and callous treatment from police officers.

Women may appear to be treated more leniently simply

because the offences they commit are less serious than
those committed by men.
Evidence against the notion of the chivalry factor:
Feminists such as Heidensohn argue that women are
actually treated more harshly than men especially if:
They commit murder or child-related crimes. The courts
and the media seem to view women murderers as
somehow more deviant than male murderers, probably
because they contradict the feminine stereotype of
nurturing and caring. Note the mass media fascination
with Myra Hindley, Maxine Carr, Rosemary West and Amanda
Knox.
Recently, moral panics have focused on violent girl gangs

focused on differences in the socialisation of males and

females. Males are socialised into being tough,
aggressive and risk-takers. This may mean that they are
more likely to commit criminal acts of violence. On the other
hand, girls are socialised into nurturing roles which
stress consideration and sensitivity towards others.
These feminine values and norms may actually prevent
most girls from engaging in deviant actions which are
harmful to others.
Heidensohn argues that females are generally more
conformist than males and this is because patriarchal
society imposes greater control over their behaviour.
Girls and young females lives often revolved around a
bedroom culture. Women are less likely to be involved
in white collar and corporate crime because
discrimination in the workplace (i.e. the glass ceiling) means
that the top jobs in industry and government are
occupied by men.

and alleged increases in female violence evidence from

the USA (this is a severely under-researched area in the UK)
suggest that girls from poverty-stricken backgrounds
join street gangs because they feel a strong need to
belong. However such girls, despite their involvement in
violence and drug-pushing still retain a strong sense of
femininity, i.e. their primary role is to support male
members of the gang as girlfriends etc.

It is argued by Adler that as society becomes less

patriarchal and as womens economic opportunities
become similar to mens, so female crime rates will
rise. In other words, womens liberation from patriarchy
will lead to a new type of female criminal committing
offences such as violence and white collar crime
traditionally committed by male criminals. This is
because of womens greater self-confidence and
assertiveness, and the fact that they now have greater
opportunities in the legitimate employment structure.
Carlen argues that capitalist society offers its members a
However, critics of rational choice theory suggest that
class deal material rewards in return for working hard.
Carlen
However these working-class women had failed to gain
- Over-emphasises the influence of structural influences
qualifications often because they had left school early
such as patriarchy and social class and under-plays
because of family breakdown or because they had been
the role of free will and choice in offending. Many
abused and left home as a result. Their lack of
women in similar situations choose not to commit crime.
qualifications and a permanent address meant that
- Used a very small sample which may not be
they found it difficult to find a job and earn a legitimate
representative of female criminals in general, e.g.
living. The second obstacle was their gender. Carlen argues
she neglects middle-class female offenders.
that in patriarchal societies, women are promised material and
emotional rewards from family life if they conform to the social
expectations attached to being a mother and wife. Carlen calls
this the gender deal. However, Carlen found that few
women in her sample had benefitted from these family
controls many had been abused, both as girls and as
women, half had spent time in care and many were

homeless and poor because consequently they had run

away either from home or care. Many of the women had
therefore rationally concluded that crime was the only
route to a decent standard of living. In other words, the
benefits of crime outweighed the costs and risks. These
women had nothing to lose by choosing to engage in
criminal action.
Messerschmidt argues that working-class youth have less
chance of educational success and often construct an
oppositional subculture which operates both inside and
outside of school and which is organised around hegemonic
masculine values. Black youth too may have few
expectations of a reasonable job and may use these
normative masculine values to shape their membership of
territorial gangs and their use of violence. However,
Messerschmidt also acknowledges that middle-class men
may be motivated by these masculine values to commit
white collar and corporate crime.

However Messerschmidts analysis has been criticised.

Firstly, he fails to explain why not all men use crime in
order to achieve masculine goals.
Secondly, he may over-emphasise the concept of
masculinity in explaining all types of crime.
Thirdly, some sociologists suggest masculinity is just
one way in which crime is expressed rather than it
being a major cause of crime e.g. is violence caused
by masculine values or is it just carried out by tough
men?

Winlow (2004) argues that young working-class males have

become more violent in the past 40 years because of the
changing nature of the economy in the late 20th and
early 21st century. His analysis of masculinity in
Sunderland suggests that the nature of crime has
changed because the nature of masculinity has
changed. In the industrial period, which made up most of the
20th century up to the 1980s traditional working-class
masculine values were mainly expressed through work
in the factories and mines, on the building site, etc. Winlow
notes that in the post-industrial age, men cannot express
their masculinity through being in work because of
industrial decline (e.g. the factories and mines have closed
down), globalisation (e.g. other countries can produce
manufactured goods more cheaply) and long-term
unemployment.

However, Winlow does acknowledge that the type of

normative masculinity that Messerschmidt identifies the
hard man was sometimes expressed by a minority of men
through their leisure-time which was mainly focused on
drinking in pubs. Winlow points out that when violence broke
out it was often shaped by masculine competition for
status or respect or for the attention of women. Such
outbreaks of violence (which were relatively rare) shaped
some masculine reputations as men became known as the
type that cant be pushed around or guys you dont want to
mess with etc. This type of masculinity therefore was
constructed around a hierarchy based on toughness,
willingness to confront and fight as well as
honour/shame. However, it is important to note that this
type of masculine behaviour was not mainstream. Most
men avoided behaving in this way.

Violence is therefore a source of masculine status in postindustrial Sunderland and very importantly violent ability is
increasingly a valued skill in the organised criminal
marketplace.
Katz argues that violence may seem irrational but the
pleasure derived from the thrill and power exercised
over others is actually quite rational in the context of
masculinity with its emphasis on toughness,
aggression, control and reputation.
Lyng (2002) agrees with Katz and argues that young men
search for pleasure through risk-taking. Much crime is
edgework it is located on the edge between security
and danger.

Croall suggests that for teenage girls, crimes may have little
to do with poverty they are more likely to be motivated by
three inter-related factors:
-By a drug habit (which often leads to prostitution and
shoplifting
-By the excitement or thrill that often accompanies the risk
of committing crime.
-By the mass medias emphasis on materialism which
fuels the
conspicuous consumption of goods such as designer label
clothing (which are often the target of crimes such as
shoplifting).