CD8 - Gender and Crime
Key Statistics
As of 2022, men accounted for 80-85% of criminal proceedings in England and Wales, with distinct patterns in the types of crimes committed by each gender. Men were significantly more likely to be involved in violent crimes such as assault, murder, and robbery, as well as sexual offenses. In contrast, women were predominantly associated with non-violent crimes, including theft, shoplifting, and minor fraud. These trends are further reflected in prison demographics, where women constituted only 5% of the total prison population, often for less severe offenses compared to men. The age group of 18-24-year-old males remains disproportionately represented among offenders, although youth crime rates have been declining.
Reasons for Lower Female Criminality
Chivalry Thesis
Proposed by Otto Pollack in the 1950s, the Chivalry Thesis argues that the apparent lower crime rates among women reflect leniency in the criminal justice system rather than actual lower offending rates. Pollack suggested societal norms condition men to be protective toward women, resulting in lighter punishments. Supporting evidence includes Flood-Page’s (2000) findings that women were less likely than men to be cautioned for crimes (1 in 11 women compared to 1 in 7 men) and Hood’s (1989) analysis of 3,000 cases, which concluded that women were a third less likely than men to receive custodial sentences for similar crimes.
Pollack also proposed that women’s socialization and their biology makes them naturally more secretive, a trait that may help them conceal crimes more effectively than men. Women may choose methods of offending that are less detectable, such as theft or fraud. Even in severe cases such as murder, women tend to use less obvious means like poisoning or suffocation, often targeting vulnerable victims such as the very young or very old. This suggests that the observed lower rates of female offending may not entirely reflect reality but instead highlight women’s strategic approach to criminal behaviour.
The Chivalry Thesis offers a perspective on biases within the justice system, supported by statistical disparities in sentencing and patterns of offending. However, significant limitations exist. Walklate critiques this idea by pointing to "double victimization," where women, especially in sexual crimes, face judgmental treatment rather than leniency. Similarly, Carlen’s (1998) concept of "double deviance" suggests women who deviate from traditional gender norms face harsher judgment. Additionally, Pollack’s arguments are often considered outdated, as societal changes and increased gender equality within the criminal justice system challenge the applicability of his ideas today.
Control Theory
Pat Carlen’s control theory examines women’s conformity through two societal "deals": the gender deal and the class deal. These deals operate as mechanisms that encourage women to abide by societal norms and discourage criminal behaviour by offering emotional and material rewards for conformity.
The gender deal promises emotional rewards through adherence to traditional gender roles, such as being a wife, mother, or caregiver. For instance, women who embrace these roles are often rewarded with love, support, and a sense of belonging within their families and communities. A woman who fulfils societal expectations as a nurturing mother, for example, may feel valued and secure within her social network. This emotional reinforcement deters deviance, as engaging in criminal activity could risk disrupting these relationships and the associated benefits.
The class deal, on the other hand, offers material rewards for women who participate in legitimate employment and contribute to society through their labour. Women who work diligently and earn a steady income may gain access to financial security, social mobility, and an improved quality of life. For instance, a woman working in a stable job may feel a sense of achievement and enjoy the comforts that her income affords, reducing the allure of illegal activities.
However, Carlen argues that when these deals fail—due to poverty, unemployment, abuse, or exclusion from societal opportunities—women may turn to crime as an alternative means to achieve their emotional and material needs. For example, a single mother facing economic hardship might resort to shoplifting or fraud to provide for her children when legitimate means prove insufficient. Similarly, a woman who feels isolated or unsupported in her role as a caregiver may seek emotional validation through deviant behaviour.
Carlen’s theory sheds light on why disadvantaged women may deviate from societal norms and provides a nuanced understanding of the interplay between social structures and individual choices. However, the theory has limitations. Its reliance on a small sample of 30 women raises concerns about its generalizability. Moreover, its deterministic tone overlooks individual autonomy and free will in decision-making, implying that women are primarily shaped by external societal forces without room for personal agency. Despite these critiques, Carlen’s focus on the failure of societal structures offers valuable insights into the motivations behind female criminality.
Sex Role Theory
Sex Role Theory – Socialization
Talcott Parsons (1950s) attributed differing crime rates to gendered socialization. Women were traditionally socialized into nurturing and passive roles, aligning with societal expectations of care and restraint, whereas men were socialized to be assertive and risk-taking, increasing their propensity for criminal behaviour. This framework helps explain historical patterns of crime disparity by linking societal roles to criminal tendencies. For example, the risk-taking behaviours encouraged in men may lead to involvement in crimes such as robbery or violent confrontations, while women’s nurturing roles reduce their likelihood of engaging in deviant acts.
Despite its clarity, the theory’s limitations include its reliance on traditional family structures, which modern parenting practices often reject. Gender roles today are less rigid, with girls encouraged to pursue sports or leadership roles and boys socialized into emotional expression. Additionally, this framework overgeneralizes gender behaviours, ignoring individual differences that defy these norms.
Sex Role Theory – Social Control
Frances Heidensohn’s approach emphasizes how patriarchal control restricts women’s opportunities for crime through three distinct spheres: the domestic sphere, the workplace, and public spaces.
In the domestic sphere, Heidensohn highlights how traditional gender roles confine women to caregiving, housework, and employment responsibilities, often referred to as the "triple shift." These demands leave little time or energy for deviant behaviors. Additionally, expectations of women’s roles as caretakers can further deter them from criminal activities that may disrupt family life.
In the workplace, patriarchal structures impose limitations on women’s access to power and opportunity. The glass ceiling restricts women’s entry into higher-level positions where white-collar crimes, such as fraud or embezzlement, are more likely to occur. Moreover, women often face closer scrutiny in professional settings, reducing opportunities for criminal behavior compared to their male counterparts.
In public spaces, Heidensohn argues that women are subject to heightened surveillance and societal restrictions. For example, societal expectations discourage women from being in certain places at specific times, such as late at night, due to concerns about personal safety. This limits their physical presence in situations where crimes might occur. Furthermore, studies have shown that women are more frequently monitored by CCTV and other surveillance measures, which further curtails their opportunities for deviance.
These controls collectively reduce women’s participation in crime, but they are not without critique. Overemphasizing patriarchal constraints may overlook women’s agency and their ability to resist or subvert these controls. Some women may engage in covert acts of defiance or seek criminal opportunities despite societal restrictions. Additionally, modern shifts in domestic roles and increased female participation in the workforce challenge the universality of Heidensohn’s conclusions.
Sex Role Theory – Opportunity
Dunscombe and Marsden expand the discussion by considering the concept of opportunity in female criminality. They argue that women, burdened with the "triple shift," managing employment, housework, and caregiving, have significantly less time and opportunity to engage in criminal behavior. This limitation contrasts with men, who are often afforded more free time and access to unsupervised spaces where criminal opportunities might arise. For example, men’s participation in night-time social activities or roles in higher corporate positions increases their potential for both blue-collar and white-collar crimes.
Dunscombe and Marsden’s perspective provides a valuable addition to the framework of social control, but it is not without criticism. Changes in technology, such as remote work and the commercialization of domestic tasks, may now provide women with greater opportunities to commit crimes. Additionally, the theory assumes that all women are equally constrained by the triple shift, overlooking variations in socioeconomic status and personal circumstances.
In summary, while the sex role theory offers insights into how gendered socialization and societal structures shape criminal opportunities, it must evolve to reflect modern shifts in gender dynamics and societal roles.
Sex Role Theory – Social Control
Frances Heidensohn’s approach emphasizes how patriarchal control restricts women’s opportunities for crime. Domestically, women’s roles in caregiving, housework, and employment (the "triple shift") limit their time for deviance. At work, structural barriers such as the glass ceiling reduce their access to white-collar crime. In public, societal surveillance, including heightened scrutiny of women’s behavior, discourages criminal activity. These controls collectively reduce women’s participation in crime.
However, overemphasizing control may overlook women’s agency. For example, women may resist these controls through covert acts of defiance or find criminal opportunities despite societal restrictions. Additionally, societal changes such as increased female workforce participation and shifts in domestic roles challenge Heidensohn’s assumptions.
Reasons for Increased Female Criminality
Liberation Thesis
Freda Adler’s (1975) liberation thesis links the rise in female criminality to societal changes brought about by the feminist movement. Adler argues that as patriarchal control has weakened and women’s opportunities have expanded, their involvement in crime has also increased. This is exemplified by the "laddette" culture of the 1990s, where young women engaged in behaviors traditionally associated with men, such as binge drinking, violence, and gang activities. The decline of traditional gender roles has created new avenues for women to commit crimes, including white-collar offenses in professional settings. For instance, more women in corporate roles may now have access to financial resources and opportunities for crimes such as embezzlement or fraud.
While the liberation thesis connects societal shifts with rising female crime rates, it has its limitations. The theory assumes a direct link between liberation and criminality, but not all women experiencing increased freedom engage in crime. It also struggles to explain crimes committed by women who remain constrained by poverty or traditional roles. Moreover, the theory overlooks the intersectionality of gender, race, and class, which can shape women’s pathways to crime differently depending on their specific contexts.
Feminisation of Poverty
The feminization of poverty highlights economic pressures as a driving force behind increased female criminality. Women disproportionately experience poverty due to gendered wage gaps, single-parent responsibilities, and limited access to high-paying jobs. Many turn to crimes like shoplifting, fraud, or prostitution to meet basic needs. For example, a single mother struggling to provide for her children may resort to shoplifting for essential items or engaging in credit card fraud to make ends meet. Statistics show that 25% of single women live in poverty, and 45% of single parents—90% of whom are women—fall below the poverty line.
This explanation underscores the structural challenges women face, linking economic deprivation to criminal behavior. However, it is not exhaustive. Many women in poverty do not resort to crime, emphasizing the role of individual agency and moral decision-making. Moreover, it cannot explain non-economic crimes such as violent offenses, suggesting that other factors—like personal circumstances or psychological motivations—also influence female criminality.
Reasons for Male Criminality
Masculinity Theories
Masculinity theories explore how societal expectations of masculinity drive male criminality. Bob Connell’s concept of normative masculinity emphasizes traits that society traditionally expects from men, such as being the breadwinner, assertiveness, and risk-taking. These traits, while culturally celebrated, can also pressure men to engage in behaviors that align with these roles, potentially leading to criminal activity when legitimate means of fulfilling these expectations are unavailable. For example, a man unable to achieve financial success through legal employment might turn to theft or fraud to fulfill the "breadwinner" role.
James Messerschmitt’s theory of hegemonic masculinity expands on Connell’s work by focusing on the internalized traits associated with the dominant form of masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity involves a societal ideal of manhood characterized by aggression, competitiveness, heterosexual dominance, and toughness. This ideal can lead men to commit violent crimes as a way of asserting dominance or proving their manhood, particularly in situations where they feel their masculinity is threatened. For instance, violent offenses such as assault may stem from a perceived need to defend one’s honor or establish authority in a social setting.
The difference between normative and hegemonic masculinity lies in their scope and focus. Normative masculinity refers to societal expectations that broadly guide male behavior, whereas hegemonic masculinity focuses on the cultural dominance of specific masculine traits and how they are internalized and acted upon. Both constructs provide insights into male criminality, explaining why men might engage in crimes to conform to these ideals or reclaim a sense of masculine identity.
While these theories offer valuable perspectives, they have limitations. They tend to be descriptive rather than explanatory, failing to address why not all men exposed to these pressures engage in crime. Additionally, societal changes, such as increased gender equality and shifts in family dynamics, challenge the relevance of traditional masculinities. Theories of masculinity must adapt to these changes to remain applicable to modern contexts.
Edgework Theory
Stephen Katz’s Edgework Theory offers a unique perspective on male criminality by emphasizing the thrill and risk-taking aspects of crime. Katz describes "edgework" as the act of engaging in activities that test boundaries and push individuals to the edge of their physical or emotional limits. For many men, crime becomes a way to experience control, mastery, and exhilaration—feelings that align with traditional masculine ideals of dominance and adventure. This theory suggests that crimes like burglary, car theft, or violent confrontations are not merely acts of necessity but deliberate pursuits of adrenaline-fueled pleasure and a sense of self-worth.
For instance, street racing offers participants an immediate thrill combined with the risk of arrest or injury, allowing them to demonstrate their skills and bravery. Similarly, gang violence can be seen as a form of edgework, where individuals assert their dominance and loyalty while navigating high-risk environments. These activities enable men to reinforce their masculinity through daring acts that demand both physical and psychological resilience.
Edgework theory provides valuable insight into the psychological motivations behind male criminality, highlighting how crime can serve as a vehicle for self-expression and identity formation. However, it is not without criticism. By focusing heavily on individual agency and the allure of risk, edgework theory risks underplaying structural factors like poverty, inequality, and systemic barriers that also drive crime. Furthermore, it fails to account for why many men who enjoy risk-taking channel their energy into non-criminal pursuits, such as extreme sports, entrepreneurship, or military service. Critics also argue that the theory overemphasizes the pleasure derived from crime while neglecting the broader social and economic contexts that make crime a viable option for some individuals.
Crisis of Masculinity
Sociologist Bob Connell introduced the concept of a "crisis of masculinity" to explain shifts in male behaviour, particularly in response to societal changes that have disrupted traditional male roles. Historically, men were expected to fulfil the role of the primary breadwinner, a position that signified dominance, authority, and purpose. However, deindustrialization, the rise of gender equality, and shifting economic opportunities have eroded these traditional roles, leaving many men feeling displaced and directionless. This sense of normlessness, or "anomie," can lead to frustration and confusion, prompting some men to reassert their masculinity through deviant behaviours or criminal activity.
The crisis of masculinity can manifest in various ways. Young men facing unemployment or underemployment may join gangs or engage in violence as a means to reclaim a sense of power and identity. Violent offenses, including assault and domestic abuse, can be seen as an attempt to reassert dominance in a world where traditional avenues of male power have diminished.
Linked to this is the concept of "toxic masculinity," which refers to the cultural expectations that pressure men to suppress emotions, exhibit dominance, and avoid vulnerability. These traits can exacerbate criminal behaviours by encouraging aggression and a lack of accountability. For example, toxic masculinity may push men to engage in risky behaviours or lash out violently when they perceive their masculinity as being challenged.
Albert Cohen’s theory of status frustration further illuminates this issue. Cohen argued that working-class boys often experience frustration when they fail to meet societal standards of success, which are typically based on middle-class values such as academic achievement and stable careers. In response, they may form delinquent subcultures that invert these values, celebrating deviant acts like theft, vandalism, and violence. This creates an alternative route to achieving status and respect among their peers, even as it aligns them with criminal behaviour.
While the crisis of masculinity provides valuable insights into the links between societal changes and male criminality, it is not without limitations. It risks overgeneralizing male behaviour and ignoring the agency of men who adapt successfully to changing roles. Additionally, it often assumes a monolithic experience of masculinity, failing to account for the diverse ways men respond to these societal pressures based on their class, ethnicity, or individual circumstances. Despite these critiques, the theory highlights the importance of understanding the interplay between cultural expectations of masculinity, economic structures, and deviant behaviour in explaining male criminality.
Labelling Theory
Labelling theory examines how societal reactions to individuals’ behaviour can influence their identity and future actions, particularly among males. The theory suggests that when individuals are labelled as "deviant" or "delinquent," they may internalize these labels, adopting them as their primary identity or "master status." For example, a boy labelled as "troublemaker" in school may start to see himself through that lens, leading him to engage in behaviours that align with this expectation.
This process often ties back to early socialization. Boys who struggle in school or at home may be labelled as disruptive or underachieving, which can limit their opportunities for legitimate success. As a result, they may gravitate toward deviant subcultures where their behaviour is valued, finding alternative ways to gain status and recognition. Albert Cohen’s theory of status frustration complements this view, suggesting that working-class boys who fail to meet middle-class standards may reject societal norms and form delinquent subcultures.
Labelling theory also intersects with ideas of masculinity. Societal expectations tied to hegemonic masculinity, such as aggression and dominance, can reinforce deviant behaviour when boys feel pressure to embody these traits. For instance, a boy labelled as "fearless" or "tough" might engage in violent acts to live up to these masculine ideals.
Despite its strengths in highlighting the role of societal reactions in shaping behaviour, labelling theory has limitations. It does not explain why some individuals reject negative labels and pursue non-deviant paths. Additionally, it overlooks structural factors, such as poverty and systemic inequalities, that contribute to criminal behaviour. While useful, labelling theory is most effective when integrated with other explanations, such as socialization and structural theories, to fully understand male criminality. Labels associated with masculinity can create a "master status," leading to criminal behaviour through self-fulfilling prophecies. For example, societal expectations of aggression and dominance may reinforce deviant behaviour in men.