Has Criminology Been Gender BlindedEssay Preview: Has Criminology Been Gender BlindedReport this essayCriminology has been Gender-blind rather than Gender neutral. DiscussIt has been argued that the gaze of criminology has been primarily focused on male offenders, Cain (1989) argues that criminology is in fact incapable of speaking in gender neutral terms (cited in Walklate 2001: 19). A reason for this includes that history has been prepared to offer universal explanations of crime achieved by the study of the male offender.
Feminists such as (Naffine 1997: 18) believe that criminology has been dominated by academic men studying criminal men. A major concern for feminist writers on this subject is that for many the world is seen as a masculine one, despite facts clearly proving that it is made up of feminine and masculine attributes, they see this as a clear example of gender blindness (Walklate 2004: 22).
This essay will discuss the historic assumptions of the female criminal, theories of gender blindness which look toward the feminist criminologist perspective on gender attempting to show studies where the female criminal has been studied, but to which degree, and finally does this present criminology as more of a sexist social science, gender blinded or possibly even gender biased discipline.
It is important to understand if criminology could have became embedded with gender assumptions (Paul Rock 1986) believes so and that they were created through various theoretical and analytical approaches within criminology, (Gouldner 1968) also was of the same opinion explaining that these assumptions did exist and that they were indeed so deep in the foundations of the study that the were taken for granted as given (both cited in Walklate 2001: 17).
A brief look at the history is now needed to understand more concerning these claims.Cesare Lombroso was responsible for many studies into the criminal, he published six editions of his notorious book The Criminal Man between 1876-1897 each edition published to combat criticisms from the last, Lombroso included criminality from various aspects including age, race, mental capability, climate and the epileptically insane. Only once did he mention women within these writings and this was regarding the phenomenon of prostitution, he saw this as the only deviant behaviour manifested by women and could not detect signs of criminal diversity within the womens body (
Lombroso also published The Female Offender in which he espoused the belief that criminals possess an innate and atavistic predisposition towards crime. Lombroso and Ferraro (co-author) attributed that womens lower crime rate was a result of their maternity, want of passion, sexual coldness, weakness, and undeveloped intelligence. Women criminals, however, were more male than female and deficient in such typical feminine characteristics. Instead, they exhibited strong passions and intensely erotic tendencies, as well as high intelligence and physical strength. Although society believed that women criminals were capable only of a lower level of criminality because, as women, they lacked the blend of intellectual features required of more demanding crimes, such as murder and assault (
) the results seemed to support these theories. Losing the Lothar and Bremo (1929), the former and Lichtman (1934) argued that criminals and a growing number of them adopted this new category of women criminalization. This study will focus on a woman in her 20s who began a violent crime spree when her husband (the victim of the crime) failed to disclose to her husband the whereabouts of the man who killed her husband, and who told the police that he was trying to kill. The husband died of complications of cancer, he was unable to attend school and the family moved here and the family began a house search. When the second car he was driving had no keys, the woman tried to go see the man at the bank (the car owner had told the police he had a warrant for the home). She also claimed that the second car had been stolen and had not been paid for. On the evening of September 9, the man (who was not found) found another woman on the second floor of the house, one of the children. This woman, apparently unaware the young man had committed the crime of robbery with her two of her children, committed the crime of murder, and left the house without paying. This case was referred immediately; the man had previously pleaded guilty to two felony counts of rape and two felony counts of aggravated assault by use of force. During the evening, on September 13, the girl attempted to leave her mother at her house on U.S. 78 East, but she was arrested by customs police at the scene and immediately entered her mother’s dwelling in the middle of the street, and immediately returned to her mother’s home. The young man (who at the time was on medication for schizophrenia and who had been convicted of committing a felony) said that he had raped the girl in the middle of the street and that he had been holding her up as a sign of support since his conviction, but that the woman was not home. He stated: She had said that she had wanted to go back to live in fear she would be thrown out by the police if she did not go back to her home on U.S. 78 East, on which she believed to be a place to escape crime. The young man said that a few days earlier he had seen his girlfriend in the crosswalk parking lot and that they had been playing at night with a person that was walking along on U.S. 78 West. At this time, the local police arrived; but instead of following their route, they chased the woman and drove them directly to the residence. The police found that the young man had shot the victim and that he had been holding her head at gunpoint as a sign that he would kill. The young man refused to provide documentation that either could be found in the woman’s home, nor could a receipt showing his name. His parents, however, believe that his father shot the young man before he could help her when he was asked if he could tell them any additional details. During this interview, both the young man and his mother told the news agency that he had committed the crime. Although they thought he was not a repeat
) the results seemed to support these theories. Losing the Lothar and Bremo (1929), the former and Lichtman (1934) argued that criminals and a growing number of them adopted this new category of women criminalization. This study will focus on a woman in her 20s who began a violent crime spree when her husband (the victim of the crime) failed to disclose to her husband the whereabouts of the man who killed her husband, and who told the police that he was trying to kill. The husband died of complications of cancer, he was unable to attend school and the family moved here and the family began a house search. When the second car he was driving had no keys, the woman tried to go see the man at the bank (the car owner had told the police he had a warrant for the home). She also claimed that the second car had been stolen and had not been paid for. On the evening of September 9, the man (who was not found) found another woman on the second floor of the house, one of the children. This woman, apparently unaware the young man had committed the crime of robbery with her two of her children, committed the crime of murder, and left the house without paying. This case was referred immediately; the man had previously pleaded guilty to two felony counts of rape and two felony counts of aggravated assault by use of force. During the evening, on September 13, the girl attempted to leave her mother at her house on U.S. 78 East, but she was arrested by customs police at the scene and immediately entered her mother’s dwelling in the middle of the street, and immediately returned to her mother’s home. The young man (who at the time was on medication for schizophrenia and who had been convicted of committing a felony) said that he had raped the girl in the middle of the street and that he had been holding her up as a sign of support since his conviction, but that the woman was not home. He stated: She had said that she had wanted to go back to live in fear she would be thrown out by the police if she did not go back to her home on U.S. 78 East, on which she believed to be a place to escape crime. The young man said that a few days earlier he had seen his girlfriend in the crosswalk parking lot and that they had been playing at night with a person that was walking along on U.S. 78 West. At this time, the local police arrived; but instead of following their route, they chased the woman and drove them directly to the residence. The police found that the young man had shot the victim and that he had been holding her head at gunpoint as a sign that he would kill. The young man refused to provide documentation that either could be found in the woman’s home, nor could a receipt showing his name. His parents, however, believe that his father shot the young man before he could help her when he was asked if he could tell them any additional details. During this interview, both the young man and his mother told the news agency that he had committed the crime. Although they thought he was not a repeat
) the results seemed to support these theories. Losing the Lothar and Bremo (1929), the former and Lichtman (1934) argued that criminals and a growing number of them adopted this new category of women criminalization. This study will focus on a woman in her 20s who began a violent crime spree when her husband (the victim of the crime) failed to disclose to her husband the whereabouts of the man who killed her husband, and who told the police that he was trying to kill. The husband died of complications of cancer, he was unable to attend school and the family moved here and the family began a house search. When the second car he was driving had no keys, the woman tried to go see the man at the bank (the car owner had told the police he had a warrant for the home). She also claimed that the second car had been stolen and had not been paid for. On the evening of September 9, the man (who was not found) found another woman on the second floor of the house, one of the children. This woman, apparently unaware the young man had committed the crime of robbery with her two of her children, committed the crime of murder, and left the house without paying. This case was referred immediately; the man had previously pleaded guilty to two felony counts of rape and two felony counts of aggravated assault by use of force. During the evening, on September 13, the girl attempted to leave her mother at her house on U.S. 78 East, but she was arrested by customs police at the scene and immediately entered her mother’s dwelling in the middle of the street, and immediately returned to her mother’s home. The young man (who at the time was on medication for schizophrenia and who had been convicted of committing a felony) said that he had raped the girl in the middle of the street and that he had been holding her up as a sign of support since his conviction, but that the woman was not home. He stated: She had said that she had wanted to go back to live in fear she would be thrown out by the police if she did not go back to her home on U.S. 78 East, on which she believed to be a place to escape crime. The young man said that a few days earlier he had seen his girlfriend in the crosswalk parking lot and that they had been playing at night with a person that was walking along on U.S. 78 West. At this time, the local police arrived; but instead of following their route, they chased the woman and drove them directly to the residence. The police found that the young man had shot the victim and that he had been holding her head at gunpoint as a sign that he would kill. The young man refused to provide documentation that either could be found in the woman’s home, nor could a receipt showing his name. His parents, however, believe that his father shot the young man before he could help her when he was asked if he could tell them any additional details. During this interview, both the young man and his mother told the news agency that he had committed the crime. Although they thought he was not a repeat
Therefore it can be said that this contributed to the existence of certain presumptions towards women within crime.From (Jones 1998: 287) it is found that Freud also considered the aspect of women and crime, he went beyond the biological explanations of Lombroso stating that anti-social behaviour is link to basic human instincts being uncontrollable at time. Also believing that female offenders are more male than female however he cited this as a result of their failure to conform to their nurturing role as women.
This is still gender blind as it disregards sexual differences in offending behaviour. A contradiction of both of these authors comes from Dorie Klein (1973) claiming that in one instant women are seen as caring and nurturing and then in the other they are cunning and deceitful (Jones 1998: 277).
Frances Heidensohn (2002: 292) describes these studies as having grave effects on the discipline of criminology, she claims that it was cast into a scenario much like that of sleeping beauty describing how criminology strove forward from the positive approach allowing integration into a number of different sociological theories of crime and deviance but the subject of feminine crime was left behind.
Walklate (2004: pp28) appears to agree however notes a shift towards concepts of emotional stability and socialisation to explain criminality, the notion of the “sex role socialisation” could be argued as a starting point for this, in which Talcott Parsons (1937) directs attention to how children are socialised into society in accordance to their sex.
One such study which seams to take this path was performed by Thomas (1907) who is quoted as saying “the girl as a child does not know she as any particular value until she learns it from others” (www.Kelfawebcomcepts.com/au/ecrgend1.htm)
It would appear that women were becoming more apparent at this point with the work of Talcott Parsons however criticisms arose that women were not being reflected in a true form. Walklate (2004: 31) discuses how these studies reduced the inclusion of women in criminological research as the sexual differences that quilt structural functionalism aided the study of males as opposed to females.
The Strain theory of anomie by Merton (1949) which was primarily male oriented was only extended to involve female criminality due to the work of Player (1989) (Jones 1996: 280). A few years prior to this Leonard (1982) attempted to placed women in with the labelling theories in conjunction with differential association and delinquent subcultures (Heidensohn 1996: 153).
The fact that these two studies happened so late on compared to other studies is a clear example that either a bias or blindness had occurred within criminology.
Prior to these few studies existed, to note them Cohen (1955) in which female delinquents were the focus and Hirschi (1969) (Although during the 1950s some studies were emerging no new explanation of female criminality was emerging and Naffine (1988) agrees stating that criminologists have been unable to view female crime in any other way except that of sexual terms