Gender and Crime

Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending Author(s): Darrell Steffensmeier and Emilie Allan Source:
Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22 (1996), pp. 459-487 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083439 . Accessed: 20/05/2013 05:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 86.124.90.134 on Mon, 20 May 2013 05:56:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1996. 22:459-87 Copyright( 1996 by AnnualReviewsInc. All rights reserved
GENDERAND CRIME:Towarda GenderedTheoryof Female Offending

Darrell Steffensmeier
Departmentof Sociology, PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,UniversityPark, Pennsylvania16802
Emilie Allan
Departmentof BehavioralSciences, St FrancisCollege, Loretto,Pennsylvania15940
KEY WORDS: gender,feminism,crimetheoriesandresearch,women andcrime,crime patterns
ABSTRACT Criminologistsagree that the gender gap in crime is universal: Women are always and everywhereless likely than men to commit criminal acts. The experts disagree, however, on a numberof key issues: Is the gender gap stable or variantover time and across space? If there is variance,how may it best be explained? Are the causes of female crime distinctfrom or similarto those of male crime? Can traditionalsociological theories of crime explain female crime and or gender-specifictheorieshold the the gendergap in crime? Do gender-neutral most explanatorypromise? In this chapterwe first examine patternsof female offending and the gendergap. Second, we review the "genderequalityhypothesis" as well as severalrecentdevelopmentsin theorizingaboutgenderdifferences in crime. Third,we expandon a genderedparadigmfor explainingfemale crime for futurework. first sketchedelsewhere. We conclude with recommendations
INTRODUCTION
The principalgoal of this articleis to advancetheory and researchby reviewing selected issues in the gender and crime literature;by advancing a genderedparadigmof female offendingwhich builds on existing theoryand on the growingbody of workon gender;andby proposinga series of recommendations for furtherresearch. 459
0360-0572/96/08 15-0459$08.00
460
& ALLAN STEFFENSMEIER
on genderandcrime, No singlearticlecan do justiceto the vastliterature wereever -If criminologists to boththe old andespeciallythe new writings. profound thecasenolonger.Although it is certainly crime, tofemale indifferent andcrimethanis knownabout about gender moreis known remain, questions raceandcrime. age andcrimeorabout the utility mayalso welcomethe solidevidencethatconfirms Sociologists crimeby womenas of crimein explaining theories sociological of traditional in crime-at leastforthe differences gender well as by men,andin explaining dataon crime. Much bothofficialandunofficial minorcrimesthatdominate in differences gender hasto do withtheprofound of whatwe stillneedto learn in differences thanthe less consequential rather of seriousoffending, patterns of minor-crime. patterns femaleandmalepatterns between anddifferences Wefirstassesssimilarities andof the of thosepatterns reviewexplanations Nextwe briefly of offending. thatgender hypothesis equality" "gender theso-called gap,particularly gender as maleandfemalerolesbecomemoresimilar. in crimeconverge differences on a in the fieldby expanding theoryandresearch We thenseek to advance & Allan1995)thatcan (Steffensmeier begunelsewhere paradigm "gendered" betweengenderandcrimeandby setting the criticalrelationship illuminate work. forfuture of recommendations fortha number
OF OFFENDING FEMALEAND MALE PATTERNS

similarities fortheir both arenotable bywomen bymenand of offending Patterns in Bothmenandwomenaremoreheavilyinvolved andfor theirdifferences. likerobbery crimes in serious than offenses abuse andsubstance minor property forallcrime thanwomen rates atmuch higher menoffend However, ormurder. for serious Thisgender gapin crimeis greatest exceptprostitution. categories crimes. property suchas minor crimeandleastformildformsof lawbreaking offendofmaleandfemale that comparison permit data provide sources Many of Justice1990)formen (US Department statistics ing. WereviewFBIarrest fromthe National information andwomen,andwe drawalso uponoffender Survey,andon findingsfromsurveyson self-reported CrimeVictimization gangs,andfromcase anddelinquent careers crime,fromstudiesof criminal contextsof dataon the differing studiesthatprovidea wealthof qualitative maleandfemaleoffending. drawnfrom male and fea varietyof information Table 1 summarizes exceptrape(a malecrime)and datafor all FBIoffensecategories malearrest and curfew(juvenileoffenses): trendsin male and femalearrests runaway of (columns1-6), trendsin the femalepercent ratesper 100,000population of malesandfemales(columns profile 7-9), andtheoffending arrests (columns
GENDERAND CRIME
461
Table 1 Male and female arrestrates/100,000,male andfemale arrestprofiles,andfemale percentage of arrests. (1960-1990, uniformcrime reports) Offender-Profile Percentage Females Males
Offenses
Female Percentage (of arrests) 1990 1975 1960 1975 1990 1960 1975 1990 1960 1990 1960 1990 1960 Male Rates Female Rates (1) (2) 16 (3) 16 (4) 2 16 4 29 4 9 2 (5) 3 (6) 2 (7) .1 1 1 4 1 4 .3 (8) .2 3 2 6 1 3 1 10 2 .5 .2 1 2 .3 (9) (10) (11) .2 2 .5 4 .5 1 .2 9 2 1 .1 2 .7 5 .5 1 .5 20 7 1 .1 1 1 .1 17 14 4 10 5 3 8 17 15 16
-
(12) 14 13 8 13 7 5 10 30 34 28 28 7 8 11
(13) 11 13 7 15 8 8 11 30 43 34 37 9 10 14
Against Persons Homicide Aggravated assault Weapons Simple assault
101 200 317 69 137 165 265 354 662
28 50 11 14 54 129 10 27 12 12 32 17
MajorProperty 65 131 124 Robbery 274 477 319 Burglary Stolen Property 21 103 121 Minor Property Larceny-Theft Fraud Forgery Embezzlement 391 749 859 70 114 157 44 46 51 8 7
74 321 402 6 12 59 133 1 8 18 28 .5 53 9 16 2 18 2 282 -
Melicious Mischief 5 121 128 158 Auto theft - 187 224 Vandalism 15 13Arson Drinking/Drugs Public drunkeness DUI Liquorlaws Drug abuse Sex/Sex Related Prostitution Sex offenses Disorderly conduct Vagrancy Suspicion Miscellaneous Against family Gambling OtherExc. traffic Total
1
-
2573 1201 624 212 344 971 1193 21 183 276 428 28 8 49 523 815 15 81 18 55 30 78 37 17
87 71 36 81 176 5 43 102 3 79 166 1 45 5 62 7 .2 1
8 15 5 7 .4 1
25 3 4 1 4 2 14 3 3 1 2 19
4 9 5 6 3 .3 6 .2 .1 .5 .2 20
8 6 13 15 73 17 13 8 11 8 8 15 11
7 5 14 13 73 8 17 14 13 10 9 15 15
9 11 17 14 65 8 18 12 15 16 15 15 19
5 749 597 499 115 116 119 11 .3 7 4 4 265 45 26 23 5 3 3 .1 222 31 13 28 90 202 57 60 51 14 8 19 7 6 12 2 1 3 13 .5 .2 23
871 11392109 150 197 430 7070 7850 9211 831 1383 2122
462
STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN
10-13). All calculationsin Table 1 adjustfor the sex compositionin the population as a whole and are based on ages 10-64 (i.e. the populationmost at risk for criminalbehavior).
ArrestRates, 1960, 1975, 1990

For bothmales andfemales, arrestratesarehigherfor less seriousoffenses, and both male and female rates trendedupwardduringboth periods (1960-1975, 1975-1990) for many offense categories. Large increases are found mainly for petty propertycrimes like larceny and fraud, for substance abuse (DUI, drugs, and liquorlaw violations),andfor assault. A numberof the public order offense categoriestrended downward, especiallypublicdrunkenness, gambling, and many of the sex-relatedoffenses. The similarityin male and female trends suggests that the rates of both sexes are influencedby similar social and legal forces, independentof any conditionuniqueto women or men.
ArrestProfiles
The similaritiesareeven more evident in the profilesof male and female arrest patternsdisplayed in columns 10-13. These profiles reflect the percentageof total male andtotal female arrestsrepresented by each crime categoryfor 1960 and 1990. The homicide figures of 0.2 for men in 1990 and 0.1 for women mean, respectively, that only two tenths of 1% of all male arrests were for homicide, and only one tenth of 1% of all female arrestswere for homicide. For both men and women, the threemost common arrestcategoriesin 1990 are DUI, larceny-theft,and "otherexcept traffic"-a residualcategorythat includes mostly criminal mischief, public disorder,local ordinanceviolations, and assorted minor crimes. Together,these three offense categories account for 48% of all male arrestsand 49% of all female arrests.Note, however,that larceny arrestsare the most numerouscategory (20% in 1990) for females; but that for males, DUI arrestsare more important(15%). Arrestsfor murder, arson, and embezzlementare relativelyrare for men and women alike, while arrestsfor offenses such as liquor law violations (mostly underagedrinking), simple assault, and disorderly conduct represent"middlingranks" for both sexes. The most important genderdifferencesin arrestprofiles involve the proportionately greater female involvement in minor propertycrimes (collectively, about 28% of female arrestsin 1990, comparedto 13% of male arrests),and the relatively greaterinvolvementof males in crimes againstpersons and major propertycrimes (17% of male arrests,but only 11% of female arrests). Ironically,men and women were slightly closer in theirprofiles in these more "masculine"categories in 1960, when they represented11.4%of male arrests and 8.4% of female arrests.
GENDERAND CRIME
463
Female Percentageof Arrests

Although some authorsprofess to see majorchanges over time in the female percentageof arrests(e.g. Adler 1975, Simon 1975), the numbersfor 1960, 1975, and 1990 are perhapsmore remarkable for their similaritythan for their differences. Forall threeperiods,the female shareof arrestsfor most categories was 15%or less andwas typicallysmallestfor the most seriousoffenses. Major change is found principallyfor the female share of arrestsfor minor property crimes such as larceny and fraud, which averagedbetween 15% and 17% in 1960, butjumped to between 30% and 43% by 1990.
National CrimeVictimization Survey(NCVS)

The relativelylow female participation in serious offendingis corroborated by datafrom the NCVS (Bureauof Justice Statistics 1992). In NCVS interviews, victims are asked the sex of offender,and totals turnout to be quite close to those found in UCR data. In 1990, for example, women are reportedto be responsible for about 7% of robberies, 12% of aggravatedassaults, 15% of simple assaults, 5% of burglaries,and 5% of motor vehicle thefts reportedby victims. These percentageshave held unchangedsince the NCVS began in the mid-1970s.
Self-ReportStudies
The patternof a higherfemale shareof offendingfor mild formsof lawbreaking and a much lower share for serious offenses is confirmedby the numerous surveysin whichpersons(generallyjuveniles)havebeen askedto reporton their own offenses (Canter1982). This holds both for prevalenceof offending (the percentof the male andfemale samplesthatreportanyoffending)andespecially for the frequencyof offending(thenumber of crimesan activeoffendercommits in a given period). However, gender differences are less for self-reportdata than for official data (Jensen & Eve 1976, Smith & Visher 1980), and gender differences are smaller still for self-reportprevalencedata on minor offenses such as shopliftingand minordruguse (Canter1982).
Gang Participation
Girls have long been membersof gangs (Thrasher1927), and some girls today continue to solve their problemsof gender,race, and class throughgang membership. At issue is not their presence but the extent and form of their participation.Early studies, based on informationfrom male gang informants, depicted female gang membersas playing secondaryroles as cheerleadersor camp followers, and ignoredgirls' occasionally violent behavior. Recent studies, which rely more on female gang informants,indicate that girls' roles in gangs have been considerablymore variedthanearly stereotypes
464
would have it. Although female gang memberscontinue to be dependenton male gangs, the girls' status is determinedas much or even more so by her female peers (Campbell1984). Also, relativeto the past, girls in gangs appear to be fighting in more arenas and even using many of the same weapons as males (Quicker1974), and the gang contextmay be an important source of initiatingfemales into patternsof violent offending(Fagan1990). The aggressive rhetoricof some female gang membersnotwithstanding, their actualbehavior continuesto display considerabledeferenceto male gang members,avoidance of excessive violence, and adherenceto traditionalgender-scripted behaviors (Campbell 1990, Chesney-Lind& Shelden 1992, Swart 1991). Gangingis still a predominantly male phenomenon(roughly90%). The most common form of female gang involvementhas remainedas auxiliariesor branchesof male gangs (Miller 1980, Swart 1991), and girls are excluded from most of the economic criminalactivity (Bowkeret al 1980).
CriminalCareers
The study of individualcareersin crime-the longitudinalsequence of crimes committedby an individualoffender-has become an increasingfocus of criminology. The researchcomparingmale and female criminalcareersis limited to violent careeroffendersand has found substantialgender variation:(i) Although violent offenses comprise only a small percentageof all the offenses committedby offendersin any population,females participatein substantially less violent crime than males duringthe course of their criminalcareers; (ii) the careersof violent females both begin and peak a little earlierthan those of males; (iii) females arefarless likely thanmales to repeattheirviolent offenses; and (iv) females arefar more likely to desist from furtherviolence (see reviews in Denno 1994, Kruttschnitt 1994, Weiner 1989). Case studies and interviews, even with serious female offenders, indicate no strong commitment to criminal behavior (Arnold 1989, Bottcher 1986, Miller 1986). This findingstandsin sharpcontrastto the commitmentand selfidentificationwith crime and the criminallifestyle that is often found among male offenders (Sutherland1937, Prus & Sharper1977, Steffensmeier 1986, Commonwealthof Pennsylvania1991).
APPLYINGTRADITIONAL THEORYTO THE EXPLANATIONOF GENDEREDCRIMEPATTERNS

A long-standing issue concernswhether femalecrimecan be explained by
theories developed mainly by male criminologiststo explain male crime. Do the macro social conditionsproducingmale crime also producefemale crime? Are the pathways or processes leading to crime similar or distinct across the
GENDER ANDCRIME
465
sexes? A varietyof evidence suggests thatthere is considerableoverlapin the "causes"of male and female crime, and that both traditionaland more recent theoretical perspectivescan help explain both female offending patternsand gender differences for less serious crime. The explanationof serious female crime and of genderdifferencesin serious crime is more problematic.
Similarityin Social Backgrounds

The social backgroundsof female offenders tend to be quite similar to those of male offenders(see reviews in Chesney-Lind& Shelden 1994, Denno 1994, Steffensmeier & Allan 1995). Like male offenders, female offenders (especially the more seriousones) are typically of low socioeconomic status,poorly fromminoritygroups. educated,under-or unemployed,anddisproportionately The main differencein their social profile is the greaterpresence of dependent childrenamong female offenders.
Regressionof Female Rates on Male Rates

The extent to which male rates can predictfemale rates provides indirectevidence of similarityin the etiology of female and male crime (Steffensmeier& Allan 1988, Steffensmeieret al 1989). Groupsor societies thathave high male rates of crime also have high female rates, whereas groups or societies that have low male rates also have low female rates. Over time, when the male rate rises, declines, or holds steady across a specific historicalperiod, the female ratebehavesin a similarfashion. Statistically,when the female ratesfor a given group areregressedon the male rates for the same group,across time or across crime categories, the results for most comparisonsdo not differ significantly from a predictionof no difference(Steffensmeier& Allan 1988, Steffensmeier & Streifel 1992). Such findings suggest that female rates respondto the same social and legal forces as male rates, independentof any condition unique to women or to men (Bortitch& Hagan 1990, Steffensmeier1980, Steffensmeier & Streifel 1992).
AggregateAnalysis
In an aggregate study of structural correlates of female crime rates, Steffensmeier & Streifel (1993) report findings similar to those for comparable aggregatestudies of male rates. For example, rates of female crime tend to be higherin cities with high levels of economic inequalityandpoverty.There studies of female offending. is a majorneed for furthermacro-aggregate
TheoryTestingwith Self-ReportData
datahas identifiedcausalfactors self-report Theorytestingwith individual-level for female offendingthatarequiteconsistentwith those suggestedby traditional
466
theories of crime such as anomie, social control, and differentialassociation (Akers et al 1979, Giordano et al 1986, Hagan 1989, Jensen & Eve 1976, Paternoster& Triplett 1988, Rankin 1980, Smith 1979, Smith & Paternoster controls, 1987, Tittle 1980). Measuresof bonds,associations,learning,parental perceptionsof risk, and so forthhave comparableeffects across the genders. However, such findings apply mainly to minor offending; available selfreport data sets do not lend themselves to the study of serious offendingeithermale or female-due to limitedsamplesize, questioncontentandformat, and other problems. Aggregate methodology is perhapseven less adaptedto the study of gender differences in criminalcareerpaths and in the context of offending. theories are helpTHEORIES The traditional SHORTCOMINGS OFTRADITIONAL ful in explainingoverallpatternsof female and male offending, and they shed some light on why female levels of offending are lower than for males. These approachesare less enlighteningwhen seeking answers for a variety of both subtle and profounddifferencesin female and male offending patterns. For example: Why are serious crimes againstpropertyand againstpersons so much less a in seriouscrimegreatly featureof femaleoffending?Malecriminalparticipation exceeds female involvement,regardlessof datasource, crime type, level of in1994, Steffensmeier1983, (Kruttschnitt volvement,or measureof participation Steffensmeier& Allan 1995). Women are far less likely to be involved in serious offenses, and the monetary value of female thefts, property damage, drugs, injuries, is typically smaller than that for similar offenses committed by men. in or lead criminalgroups? Why arefemale offendersless likely to participate or to be part Females are also more likely than males to be solo perpetrators, crime groups. When female offenders are of small, relatively nonpermanent in more lucrativethefts or othercriminaleninvolved with others,particularly terprises,they typicallyact as accomplicesto males who bothorganizeandlead the execution of the crime (see Steffensmeier1983, for a review). Perhapsthe most significant gender difference is the overwhelmingdominance of males in more organized and highly lucrativecrimes, whether based in the underworld or the "upperworld" (Steffensmeier 1983, Daly 1989, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania1991). Why do women seem to need a higher level of provocationbefore turning to crime, especially serious crime? For example, in comparisonto male offenders, female offenders are more likely to also be victims as children or adults (Chesney-Lind& Shelden 1992, Daly 1994, Gilfus 1992, Widom 1989). In her analysis of the Philadelphiacohort data, Denno (1994) reports that,
GENDERAND CRIME
467
althoughmany factors are as predictiveof female as male criminality,female offendersaremore likely to have hadrecordsof neurologicaland otherbiological or psychological abnormalities.Likewise, Daly (1994) reportsthatfemale offenders (in comparisonto male offenders)in a New Haven felony court had greaterchildhood and adultexposureto abuse, but thatthe female felons were neverthelessmoreconventionalthanthe males in havinggreaterresponsibilities for children,commitmentto education,and legitimatesources of income. Why does female offending often involve relationalconcerns? Situational pressures such as threatenedloss of valued relationshipsmay play a greater role in female offending. Although the saying, "She did it all for love" is sometimes overplayedin reference to female criminality,the role of men in initiatingwomen into crime-especially seriouscrime-is a consistentfinding acrossresearch(Gilfus 1992, Miller 1986, Pettiway 1987, Steffensmeier1983, Steffensmeier& Terry 1986). Such findings also suggest that women are not uniformlyless amenableto risk, butratherthattheirrisk-takingis less violative of the law and more protectiveof relationshipsand emotionalcommitments. These and otherquestionsoften involve subtle issues of context that are not addressed by most traditionaland contemporary theories, and which tend to as we discuss be invisible (or nearly so) to quantitative analyses. Fortunately, to later,contextualissues are illuminatedby a wealthof qualitativeinformation be found both in the traditional criminologicalliterature (Elliott 1952,Reitman 1937) and in the profusionof qualitativeresearchproducedby feminist criminologists in recent years.
THE GENDER GAP AND CRIME

The gender gap in crime-the low level of female offending in relationto that of males-is universallyrecognized by criminologists. Almost as universalis the assumptionthatthe gendergap variessignificantlyby age, race, geographic area, and time. In fact, Sutherlandand other early criminologists cited variations in the ratio of female to male arreststo demonstratethe superiorityof sociological explanationsof crime over biological explanations(see the review in Steffensmeier & Clark 1980): If the gender gap had a biological basis, it would not vary,as it does, across time and space.
The GenderEqualityHypothesis
It also was assumed that variationscould be best explained by differences in 1924, see review genderequalityovertime andamongsocial groups(Sutherland is depicted in Figure 1. in Steffensmeier& Clark 1980b). This interpretation Specifically, the assertionwas that the gender gap in crime is less in social settings where female roles and statusespresumablydiffer less from those of
468
STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN Masculinity &
Gender Equality -FigureI Gender equality andcrime.
Taste for risk --
Higher Female
Shareof Crime
men: thatis, in developed nations, compared to developing countries; in urban, to rural to whites;amongpeople compared settings;amongblacks,compared of olderages,compared to younger; andin timeof war,compared to peacetime. This earlyexplication of the genderequalityandcrimehypothesis became the standard for the gendergap in crime,butit never sociologicalexplanation until the 1970s when severalfeminist attracted widespread public attention in the femaleshareof arrests criminologists suggestedthatincreases couldbe asaresultof thewomen's attributed to gainsingender movement equality (Adler thisinterpretation 1975, Simon1975). Themediaenthusiastically embraced of the "dark side"of femaleliberation. Thegender continues theories of genderand equality hypothesis to influence in the power-control crime,as exemplified approach developed by Haganand his colleagues(1993). According to power-control theory,the gendergap in families "common delinquency" is minimized for girls raisedin "egalitarian" (familiesheaded by womenandfamiliesin whichthemother worksin aposition of authority equalto or greaterthanthatof the father). As with the earliest is assumed of thegender-equality statements hypothesis, greater gender equality the precisemechanisms are to lead to higherratesof femalecrime(although morecomplex). have Recentchallenges to theassumptions of thegenderequality hypothesis questioned(i) whetherthe gendergap in crimevariesas muchas previously womenin fact haveexperienced social equality believed;(ii) whether greater in the specifiedgroupsand times;(iii) whetherthe gendergap in crimeis in factless in thespecifiedgroupsandtimes;and(iv) whether thegenderequality faresbetter thanalternative forexplaining whatever timeapproach hypotheses in the gendergapdo in fact exist. spacevariations The evidence for time-spacevariationsis meagerand often statistically in the gendergapis sometimes flawed.Variation foundforthis or thatoffense, mainlyfor less seriousformsof lawbreaking.But acrossmost offenses,the moresystematic statistics reveal dataandofficialarrest analysesof self-report thatthegender effectis farmorestablethanvariant across race,age,socialclass, rural-urban andin comparisons of less-developed anddeveloped comparisons, & Allan 1988,Tittle1980, Steffensmeier nations(Cantor1982, Steffensmeier et al 1989). Eventhe apparent of the gendergapduringwarlargely narrowing whencontrolsareincludedfor the wartime absenceof youngmen disappears structural factors most at risk for crime(Steffensmeier et al 1980). Further,
GENDERAND CRIME
469
other than gender equality appearto betterexplain those instances where the gender gap is not stable across societies or populationsubgroups.
Movement Recent Trendsin Female Crimeand the Women's

It also is questionablewhetherthe women's movementhas led to a significant narrowingof the gender gap in crime over recent decades. Looking again at UCR data on the female percentageof arrestsfor the periods 1960, 1975, and 1990 (columns 7-9 in Table 1), significant increases across both periods are found mainly for minor propertycrimes (larceny,fraud,forgery,and embezzlement); women averagedaround 15%in 1960 and between 30% to 40% of arresteesfor these crimes in 1990. The largest increases (12% to 19%) in the female share of arrestsfor these categoriesoccurredbetween 1960 and 1975, before the women's movement had gained much momentum. Consistentbut small increases(1%to 3%for each period)arefound for majorpropertycrimes and malicious mischief offenses. However, no clear trends are found for the categories of crimes against persons, drinkingand drugs, and the sex-related crimes. For all three periods, the female share of arrestsfor most offense categories was 15% or less, and was typically smallest for the most serious offenses. It is plausibleto arguethatgreaterfreedomhas increasedfemale participation in the public sphere (work, shopping,banking,driving, and the like), and this could help accountfor some of the increases in the female share of arrestsfor offenses like larceny(shoplifting,employee theft),fraud(misuse pettyproperty of credit cards), or forgery (writing bad checks). But do such behaviors as shopping, banking, or working in shops really reflect female emancipation? Such offense categories do not reflect white collar crimes, as Simon argued, butpetty offenses committedby economicallymarginalwomen (Chesney-Lind 1986, Daly 1989, Steffensmeier1980, 1993).
AlternativeExplanations for GenderGap Differencesand Trends

Of course, for many offense categories,trendsin the female shareof offending are inconsistentwith the genderequalityhypothesis. However,a varietyof alternativeexplanationsprovidemoreplausibleandmoreparsimoniousaccounts for those increasesin the female percentof arreststhat did occur.
GENDER INEQUALITY Some feminists (and others) espouse a position dia-
metricallyopposed to thatof Adler & Simon (Chesney-Lind1989, Daly 1989, Miller 1986, Richie 1995). They point to the peculiarity of considering "a hypothesis that assumed improvinggirls' and women's economic conditions would lead to an increase in female crime when almost all the existing
470
criminologicalliterature stressesthe role played by discrimination andpoverty (and unemploymentor underemployment) in the creationof crime"(ChesneyLind & Shelden 1992:77; see also Steffensmeier1980). Patriarchalpower relations shape gender differences in crime, pushing women into crimethroughvictimization,role entrapment, economic marginality, and survival needs. Nowhere is the gender ratio more skewed than in the great disparityof males as offendersand females as victims of sexual and domestic abuse. The logic of the gender inequality(or marginality)approach, depictedin Figure2, suggests thatgreatergenderequalitywould lead to a lower female shareof crime. The role of inequality may be seen in career paths of female teens who drift into criminalityas a consequenceof runningaway from sexual and physical abuse at home. The struggle to survive on the streets may then lead to other status offenses and crimes (Gilfus 1992, Chesney-Lind1989), including anddrugdealing (English 1993). Especiallywhen drugabuseis inprostitution volved, othercriminalinvolvementsarelikely to escalate (Anglin & Hser 1987, Inciardiet al 1993). Otherfeminist researchershave chronicledhow female vulnerabilityto male violence may drive women into illegal activities (Miller 1986, Richie 1995). Despite histories of victimizationor economic hardship, many of these women display considerableinnovationand independencein their "survivalstrategies"(Mann 1984). The gender inequalityargumentis also supportedby Steffensmeier(1993), who points out that increases in petty propertycrimes are less likely to result from workforcegains than from the economic pressureson women that have been aggravated by heightenedrates of divorce,illegitimacy,and femaleheadedhouseholds,coupledwith greater responsibilityfor children. In addition to increasedeconomic pressures,Steffensmeier(1993) goes on to enumerate several other factors that can help explain increases in the female percentage of arrestsfor propertyoffenses, including the increasedformalizationof law enforcement, increasedopportunitiesfor "female"types of crime, and trends in female drugdependency. Steffensmeier(1993) enumeratesa numberof other alternative explanationsfor increasesin the female
INCREASEDFORMALIZATION OFLAWENFORCEMENT
GenderInequality-
.-
GenderEquality-_
Figure 2
Victimization&Econ. Marginality or Less Victimization&GrtrEcon. Well-Being
HigherFemale Share of Crime

.
Lower Female Shareof Crime
Genderinequalityand crime.
GENDER AND CRIME
471
percent of arrestfor some categories. For example, some increases in female arrestsmay have been an artifactof improvedrecordsprocessingthatprovided more complete tabulationof female arrestsfor some categories of arrest,particularlyduringthe 1960s. The increasedpercentage of arrestsof womenfor pettyproperty crimesreflectsnot only economic marginalization,but also an increase in opportunitiesfor these crime categories (Steffensmeier 1993). Largely excluded from lucrativeforms of crime (Steffensmeier1983), women have increasedtheirshareof arrestsfor economically motivatedcrimeslargelyin thosecategoriesthat(i) requirelittle or no criminal "skill";(ii) haveexpandeddue to changesin merchandising andcredit;(iii) areeasily accessible to women in theirroles as consumersandheadsof families. Together,growing economic adversityamong large subgroupsof women has increasedthe pressureto commit consumer-basedcrimes, which are likewise expanding,such as shoplifting,check fraud,theftof services, andwelfarefraud.
INCREASEDOPPORTUNITIES FOR"FEMALE" TYPESOFCRIME
TRENDS IN FEMALE DRUGDEPENDENCY Risinglevels of
illicit druguse by
women appear to have had a major impact on female crime trends, even though female drug arrestshave not outpacedmale arrestssince 1960. Drug dependency amplifies income-generatingcrimes of both sexes, but more so for women because they face greater constraints against crime and need a greatermotivationalpush to deviate (Anglin et al 1987, Inciardiet al 1993). Femaleinvolvementin burglary androbbery, in particular, typicallyoccursafter addictionandis likely to be abandoned whendruguse ceases (Anglinet al 1987). Drug use is also more likely to initiate females into the underworldand criminalsubcultures andto connectthemto drug-dependent maleswho use them as crime accomplices or exploit them as "old ladies"to supporttheir addiction (Miller 1986, Pettiway 1987, Steffensmeier& Terry 1986). The drug trends also help explainthe small rise in the female percentageof incarcerated felons, fromabout3%in the 1960s to 6%in the 1990s (butcompareto 6%in the 1920s).
Other Criticismsof the GenderEqualityHypothesis

Several criticisms of the gender equality hypothesis have focused on powercontrol theory, on contradictoryevidence such as the traditionalgender-role definitions commonly found among female offenders, or on the manner in which gendergap trendsin specific crimes are at odds with the genderequality hypothesis. Perhapsthe most telling criticism is that theory developmenthas been suppressedby the popularityof the genderequalityhypothesis.
CRITICISMS OF POWER CONTROL The power-control versionof
the gender
has been challengedfor its uncriticalacceptanceof the gender equalityapproach
472
equality hypothesis (Morash & Chesney-Lind 1991) and for adding little or nothing to the explanatorypower of control theory (Jensen 1993). Empirical challenges have come from several studies that reportfindings at odds with power-controlassertions(Jensen 1993, Morash& Chesney-Lind1991, Singer & Levine 1988, butsee Grasmick,Bursik& Sims 1993). However,these studies of the independentvariables. employed somewhatdifferentoperationalizations
TRADITIONAL GENDER-ROLEDEFINITIONSOF FEMALE OFFENDERS
The gender equality hypothesis is furtherunderminedby the prevalenceof traditional gender-roledefinitionsassumedby most male and female offenders(Bottcher or masculine 1995). A few studiesreporta relationshipbetween nontraditional but not on other a item given on and female delinquency attitudes role gender The bulk of & 1995). Ellis al Simpson et 1979, items (Heimer 1995, Shover views are than nontraditional studies, however, report that traditionalrather & in associated with greaterdelinquency(see reviews Chesney-Lind Shelden 1992, Pollock-Byrne 1990, Steffensmeier& Allan 1995).
TRENDS ANDBURGLARY HOMICIDE
of thegender equalThebasicirrelevance
ity hypothesisto trendsin the female shareof arrestscan be seen by looking in greaterdepth at the patternsfor homicide (for which the female percentof ar(for which the female percentof arrestsincreased). rests declined) andburglary In the case of murder,the decline in the female share of arrests(from 17% in 1960 to 10%in 1990) is accountedfor not by anysharpdropin female arrestsfor murder,butby the greatincreasesin male arrestsfor felony murdersconnected with the drugtradeand the increasedavailabilityof guns. Similarly, much of the increase (from 5% to 8%) in the female share of arrestsfor burglarybetween 1975 and 1990 resulted from drops in recorded to drugdealing on the part male arrests,partlybecause of a shift from burglary of male offenders,andpartlybecauseof increasedpolice compliancewith UCR that theft from cars be reportedas larceny rather reportingrecommendations than burglary(Steffensmeier1993).
equality onthegender DEVELOPMENTOver-reliance OFTHEORY SUPPRESSION

hypothesis has retardedsociological efforts to develop a multivariateframework for explaingenderdifferencesin crime. In a sense, relianceon the gender equality hypothesiscan be seen as anotherexample of seeking uniqueexplanations where female crime is at issue.
Applicationof TraditionalTheoryto Explanation of the Gender Gap

to abandontraditionalcriminologicaltheories without It is perhapspremature fully exploiting their insights, which would suggest that females offend less
GENDER ANDCRIME
473
than males: because they are less subject than males to the culturalemphasis on materialsuccess (anomie);because they are less exposed to influencefrom delinquentpeers (differentialassociationand/orsocial learning);because they have stronger social bonds and are subjected to greater supervision (social control);and because they are less likely to become involved in gangs (cultural transmission). Findings from a numberof self-reportstudies supportthe ability of traditional criminologicaltheories to partiallyaccountfor the gender gap in crime. These studies show that the relationshipbetween gender and delinquency is significantlyreducedwhen controlsare includedfor friendswho supportdelinquency (Simons et al 1980), parentalcontrols (Hagan 1989), and social bonds (Jensen & Eve 1976). However,as with power-controltheory (but framedexplicitly in terms of "commondelinquency"),the significanceof the traditional theories for explaining the gender gap is limited by the fact that these studies have been confined to minor (mainly male) delinquencies. As alreadynoted, they also lack sensitivityto the mannerin which the criminalbehaviorof women differs from that of men in terms of paths to crime (e.g. prior experience as victims) and in terms of context. thatcan explainnotjust minorbutserious The criticalneed is for an approach female offending, and one that can explain the gender gap not just where it is least, but where it is greatest. Genderdifferences are most robust in both the prevalenceand incidence of serious offending, yet robusttheoreticaltests for these differences are notablefor their absence. Until such tests can be carried out, the relevance of traditionaltheories will remain unknownwith regardto that domain of criminality where gender differences are greatest and where statisticalvariationis sufficientfor theorytesting.
TOWARDA GENDEREDTHEORY
has yet been developed for exNo satisfactorilyunifiedtheoreticalframework plaining female criminalityand gender differences in crime. Criminologists (i.e. traditionaltheories derived from disagree as to whether gender-neutral male samples) or gender-specifictheories(i.e. recentapproachesderivedfrom female samples and positing unique causal paths for female as comparedto male criminality) are better suited to these tasks. We take the position that theories providereasonableexplanationsof less the traditionalgender-neutral serious forms of female and male criminality,and for gender differences in such crime categories. Theirprincipalshortcomingis thatthey are not very informativeaboutthe specific ways in which differencesin the lives of men and women contribute to genderdifferencesin type, frequency,andcontextof criminal behavior. Gender-specifictheories are likely to be even less adequateif they requireseparateexplanationsfor female crime and male crime.
474
Here we build on a frameworkfor a "gendered" approachbegun elsewhere (Steffensmeier& Allan 1995). This approach is compatiblewith the traditional, gender-neutral theories. The broadsocial forces suggested by traditionaltheories exert general causal influenceson both male and female crime. But it is gender that mediates the mannerin which those forces play out into sex differences in types, frequency,and contexts of crime involvements.
KeyElementsof a GenderedApproach
A genderedapproachshould include at least four key elements. First, the perspective shouldhelp explainnot only female criminalitybutmale criminalityas well, by revealinghow the organization of genderdetersor shapesdelinquency by females but encourages it by males. We use the term "organizationof gender"to refer broadlyto things gendered-norms, identities,arrangements, institutions,and relations by which human sexual dichotomy is transformed into somethingphysically and socially different. Second, a gendered perspectiveshould account not only for gender differences in type and frequencyof crime, but also for differencesin the context of offending. Even when men and women commit the same statutoryoffense, the "gestalt"of their offending is frequentlyquite different. Because the gender differences in context are small for trivial or mild forms of lawbreaking,but largefor violent and otherserious forms of crime, contextualanalysis can shed light on the genderdifferencesfor serious offenses-hitherto the most difficult to explain. Third, compared to theories based on male crime, we need to consider severalkey ways in which women's routesto crime (especially serious crime) may differ from those of men. Building on the work of Daly (1994) and Steffensmeier (1983, 1993), such differences include: (a) the more blurred boundaries between victim and victimization in women's than men's case histories; (b) women's exclusion from most lucrative crime opportunities; (c) women's ability to exploit sex as an illegal money-making service; (d) consequences (real or anticipated)of motherhoodand child care; (e) the centralityof greaterrelationalconcerns among women, and the mannerin which these both shape and allow women to be pulled into criminalinvolvementsby men in their lives; (f ) the greaterneed of street women for protectionfrom predatoryor exploitativemales. Fourth,the perspectiveshouldexplorethe extentto which genderdifferences in crime derive not only from complex social, historical,and culturalfactors, but from biological and reproductivedifferences as well (Kruttschnitt1995, Udry 1995). Figure 3 summarizesa genderedparadigmof offending that takes into account the four criteriaenunciatedabove. We sketch here key features of this
GENDERAND CRIME
475
BIOLOGICAL FACTORS
(Physial. Sexual. and Differencesl Affillative
CONTEXT OF OFFENDING
*
(Type-Scrips and Rationale]
. I ~~ \l, ~~~~~MOTIVATION
N~TV,,,,
/
FOR CRIME
[Tastes lor Risk. Shame. Selfcontrol, and Costs veraus Rewardsa
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN CRIME
ORGANIZATION OF GENDER
(Gender norms, moral
development. socal n|r| \ /
CRIMINAL OPPORTUNITIES
Sexism; AcOes to (Underworld Skills,Tutelage.CrimeAsschse and Seeing$; Sexual matxelac; satvtlee1 Spinoffof routIne
line in crime. Broken modelof femaleoffending andgenderdifferences Figure3 Gendered effect. strong weakeffect;solidlinesignifies indicates
paradigmthat affect men and women differentlyin terms of willingness and ability to commit crime.
The Organizationof Gender

The organizationof gender together with sex differences in physical/sexual characteristicscontributesto male and female differences in several types of thatincreasethe probabilityof prosocialand relativelyenduringcharacteristics response altruisticresponse on the partof females but antisocialand predatory on the partof males. In the discussion that follows we elaboratebriefly on five areas of life that inhibitfemale crime but encouragemale crime: gendernorms,moraldevelopment and affiliativeconcerns, social control,physical strengthand aggression, and sexuality. Genderdifferences in these areas condition gender differences as well as gender in patternsof motivationandaccess to criminalopportunities, differences in the type, frequency,and context of offending. These areas are not discrete,but ratherthey overlapand mutuallyreinforceone another.
476
STEFPENSMEIER & ALLAN
The greater taboosagainst femalecrimestemlargelyfrom GENDER NORMS focalconcerns to women:(i) nurturant twopowerful ascribed roleobligations andsexualvirtue.In varied these settings or situations, and(ii) femalebeauty andopportunities of girls' andwomen'sillicit concerns shapethe constraints activities. fortheirability Women arerewarded to establish andmaintain relationships from andto acceptfamilyobligations, andtheiridentity tendsto be derived husband). Derivative identity constrains key malesin theirlives (e.g. father, devianceon the partof womeninvolved withconventional malesbutencourinvolvements of husbands agesthecriminal of thosewhobecomeaccomplices female or boyfriends.Greater child-rearing responsibilities further constrain criminality. nurtudomestication, Femininity stereotypes (e.g.weakness,submission, arebasically valued and"ladylike" incompatible withqualities rance, behavior) between what in the criminal underworld 1986).Thecleavage (Steffensmeier feminineandwhatis criminal whilethe dividingline is considered is sharp, is oftenthin.Crime andwhatis criminal between whatis considered masculine forfemales, costto life chances andits potential is almostalwaysstigmatizing thanformales. is muchgreater andphysical reinforce greater sexuality appearance Expectations regarding andhusbands. surveillance by parents femaledependency as well as greater also shapethedeviant rolesavailable to women(e.g. sexTheseexpectations fear of sexualvictimization diverts ual mediaor serviceroles). Moreover, locations andreduces their womenfromcrime-likely (bars,nighttime streets) &Hagan tocommit crimes 1983). 1992,Steffensmeier opportunities (McCarthy differences ANDAMENABILITY TOAFFLIATION Gender DEVELOPMENT MORAL inherent readiness inmoral 1982)andanapparent greater (Gilligan development & Marini andnurturing of womento learn (Beutel 1995,Brody1985, parenting women an"ethic of care" thatrestrains womentoward Rossi 1984)predispose to others. Womenare behavior fromviolenceand othercriminal injurious to the needsof othersbut also to socializednot only to be moreresponsive concerns inhibit fearthe threat of separation fromlovedones. Suchcomplex and criminal activities thatmightcausehurt to others womenfromundertaking whentheydo offend. of theircriminality shapethe "gestalt" toward Incontrast, menwhoareconditioned status-seeking, yetmarginalized anamoral world viewinwhich the"takers" fromtheworld of work, maydevelop attheexpense of the"givers." stance status Suchamoral obviously gainsuperior of thosewho thelikelihood of aggressive criminal behavior onthepart increases ina game that areateachother's throats become "convinced increasingly people rules" of life thathasno moral 1986,p. 66). (Messerschmidt
GENDERAND CRIME
477
SOCIAL CONTROL Social controlpowerfullyshapes women's relativewilling-
ness and ability to commit crime. Female misbehavioris more stringently monitoredand correctedthroughnegativestereotypesand sanctions(Simmons & Blyth 1987). The greatersupervisionand controlreducesfemale risk-taking to parents,teachers,and conventionalfriends, which and increases attachment in turn reduces influence by delinquentpeers (Giordanoet al 1986). Encapsulation within the family and the productionof "moralculture"restrictsthe freedom even of adultwomen to explore the temptationsof the world (Collins
1992). AND AGGRESSIONThe demands of the crime environSTRENGTH PHYSICAL
ment for physical power and violence help account for the less serious nature and less frequentincidence of crimes by women comparedto those by men. Women may lack the power, or may be perceived by themselves or by others as lacking the violent potential, for successful completion of certaintypes of crime or for protectionof a major"score."Hustling small amountsof money or propertyprotectsfemale criminalsagainstpredatorswho might be attracted can also help accountfor feby largeramounts. Real or perceivedvulnerability or accomplices as to or to roles subordinate partners solo roles, male restriction in crimegroups. This can be seen in a varietyof female offense patterns,includrelationship(James 1977). ing the exigencies of the dependentprostitute-pimp Together,physical prowess and muscle are useful for committingcrimes, for protection, for enforcing contracts, and for recruitingand managing reliable associates. differences(especially when combinedwith SEXUALITY Reproductive-sexual sexual taboos and titillations of the society as a whole) contributeto the far greater sexual deviance and infidelity among males. Women, on the other hand, have expandedopportunitiesfor financialgain throughprostitutionand related illicit sexual roles. The possibilities in this arenareduce the need to involve males. commit the serious propertycrimes that so disproportionately Although female offenders may use their sexuality to gain entry into male criminal organizations,such exploitationof male stereotypesis likely to limit their criminalopportunities within the groupto roles organizedaroundfemale attributes. The sexual dimension may also heighten the potential for sexual tension which can be resolved only if the female aligns herself with one man sexually, becoming "his woman." Even prostitution-often considereda female crime-is essentially a maledominatedor -controlledcriminalenterprise.Police, pimps, businessmenwho employ prostitutes,and clients-virtually all of whom are male-control, in variousways, the conditionsunderwhich the prostituteworks.
478
Access to CriminalOpportunity
The factorsabove-gender norms,social control,andthe like-restrict female access to criminalopportunity, which in turnboth limits andshapesfemale participationin crime. Womenarealso less likely thanmen to have access to crime opportunitiesas a spin-off of legitimate roles and routine activities. Women are less likely to holdjobs as truckdriver,dockworker, or carpenter thatwould provide opportunitiesfor theft, drug dealing, fencing, and other illegitimate activities. In contrast,women have considerableopportunityfor commission, and thus for surveillanceand arrestfor petty forms of fraudandembezzlement. Females are most restrictedin terms of access to underworldcrimes that are organized and lucrative. Institutionalsexism in the underworldseverely limits female involvementin crime groups,rangingfrom syndicatesto loosely structured groups(Steffensmeier1983, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania1991). As in the upperworld, females in the underworld are disadvantaged in termsof selection and recruitment, in the range of careerpaths and access to them, and in opportunitiesfor tutelage, skill development,and rewards.
Motivation
Gender norms, social control, lack of physical strength, and moral and relational concerns also limit female willingness to participatein crime at the to genderdifferencesin tastes for risk, likelisubjectivelevel-by contributing hood of shame or embarrassment, self-control, and assessmentof costs versus rewardsof crime. Motivationis distinct from opportunity,but the two often intertwine,as when opportunityenhances temptation. As in legitimate enterprise, being able tendsto makeone morewilling,just as being willing increases the prospects for being able. Like male offenders, female offenders gravitate to those activities that are easily available, are within their skills, provide a satisfactoryreturn,and carrythe fewest risks. Criminalmotivationsandinvolvementsarealso shapedby genderdifferences in riskpreferencesandin styles of risk-taking (Hagan1989, Steffensmeier1980, Steffensmeier& Allan 1995). Forexample, womentakegreaterrisks to sustain valued relationships,whereas males take greaterrisks for reasons of status or competitiveadvantage.Criminalmotivationis suppressedby the female ability to foresee threatsto life chancesandby the relativeunavailability of type scripts thatcould channelfemales in unapproved behaviors.
Contextof Offending
Many of the most profound differences between the offenses committed by men and women involve the context of offending, a point neglected by quantitative studies based on aggregate and survey data. "Context"refers to the characteristics of a particular offense, includingboth the circumstancesandthe natureof the act (Triplett& Myers 1995). Contextualcharacteristics include,
GENDER ANDCRIME
479
for example, the setting, whetherthe offense was committedwith others, the offender'srole in initiatingand committingthe offense, the type of victim, the victim-offenderrelationship,whethera weapon was used, the extent of injury, the value or type of propertydestroyed or stolen, and the purpose of the offense. Even when males and females participatein the same types of crimes, the "gestalt"of their actions may differ markedly(Daly 1994, Steffensmeier 1983, 1993). Moreover,the more seriousthe offense, the greaterthe contextual differences by gender. A powerfulexample of the importanceof contextualconsiderationsis found in the case of spousal murders, for which the female share of offending is quite high-at least one third, and perhaps as much as one half. Starting with Wolfgang's classic study of homicide, a numberof writerspropose that husbandsandwives haveequalpotentialfor violence (Steinmetz& Lucca 1988, Straus& Gelles 1990). However,Dobashet al (1992) point out thatthe context of spousal violence is dramatically differentfor men andwomen. Comparedto women are far more to likely kill only aftera prolongedperiod of abuse, men, in fear when they are for their lives and have exhausted all alternatives. A numberof patternsof wife-killing by husbandsare rarelyif ever found when wives kill husbands:murder-suicides, family massacres,stalking,and murder in response to spouse infidelity. In common delinquency,female prevalenceapproaches thatof-malesin simple forms of delinquencylike hitting othersor stealing from stores or schools, but girls are far less likely to use a weapon or to intend serious injuryto their victims (Kruttschnitt1994), to steal things they cannotuse (Cohen 1966), and to steal from buildingsites or breakinto buildings(Mawby 1980). they Similarly,when females commit traditionalmale crimes like burglary, are less likely to be solitary (Decker et al 1993), more likely to serve as an accomplice (e.g. drop-off driver), and less likely to receive an equal share of proceeds (Steffensmeier & Terry 1986). Also, female burglariesinvolve less planning and are more spontaneous,and they are more likely to occur in daytime in residences where no one is at home and with which they have prior maid, or the like (Steffensmeier1986, 1993). familiarityas an acquaintance,
Applicationof GenderedPerspectiveto Patterns of Female Crime

The utility of a genderedperspectivecan be seen in its ability to explain both female and male patternsof criminalinvolvementas well as genderdifferences is highest in crime. The perspectivepredicts,andfinds,thatfemaleparticipation normsand for which females for those crimes most consistent with traditional have the most opportunity,and lowest for those crimes that diverge the most from traditionalgender norms and for which females have little opportunity.
480
Let us briefly review some examples of property,violent, and public order offendingpatternsthatcan be betterunderstoodfrom a genderedperspective. In the area of propertycrimes we have alreadynoted that the percentageof female arrestsis highest for the minor offenses like small thefts, shoplifting and passing bad checks-offenses compatiblewith traditionalfemale roles in making family purchases. The high shareof arrestsfor embezzlementreflects female employmentsegregation: women constituteabout 90% of lower level bookkeepersand bank tellers (those most likely to be arrestedfor embezzlement), but slightly less thanhalf of all accountantsor auditors.Further, women tend to embezzle to protect their families or valued relationships,while men tend to embezzle to protecttheir status(Zeitz 1981). Despite Simon's (1975) claim thatfemale involvementin white collar crime was on the increase,in fact it is almostnonexistentin moreseriousoccupational and/orbusinesscrimes,like insidertrading,price-fixing,restraint of trade,toxic waste dumping,fraudulent productcommerce,bribery,and official corruption, as well as large-scalegovernmental crimes (for example, the Iran-Contra affair andthe Greylordscandal). Even when similaron-the-jobopportunities for theft exist, women are still less likely to commit crime (Steffensmeier1980). The lowest percentageof female involvementis found for serious property crimes whether committed on the "street"such as burglaryand robbery or in the "suite" such as insider tradingor price-fixing (Steffensmeier& Allan 1995). These sorts of offenses are very much at odds with traditional feminine stereotypes,and ones to which women have very limited access. When women act as solo perpetrators, the typical robberyis a "wallet-sized" theft by a prostitute or addict(James 1977, see also Covington1985, Pettiway 1987). However, females frequentlybecome involved in such crimes as accomplices to males, in roles that at once exploit women's sexuality and reinforcetheir particularly traditionalsubordinationto men (American CorrectionalAssociation 1983, Miller 1986, Steffensmeier& Terry1986). Female violence, although apparentlyat odds with female gender norms of gentleness and passivity, is also closely tied to the organizationof gender. Unlike males, females rarelykill or assaultstrangersor acquaintances; instead, the female's victim tends to be a male intimateor a child, the offense generally takes place within the home, the victim is frequentlydrunk,and self-defense or extreme depression is often a motive (Dobash et al 1992). For women to kill, they generallymust see their situationas life-threatening,as affecting the physical or emotionalwell-being of themselves or theirchildren. The linkage between female crime and the genderedparadigmof Figure 3 is perhapsmost evident in the case of certainpublic orderoffenses with a high percentage of female involvement, particularlythe sex-related categories of
GENDERAND CRIME
481
prostitutionandjuvenile runaways-the only offense categorieswhere female arrest rates exceed those of males. The high percentage of female arrests in these two categories reflects both gender differences in marketabilityof sexualdoublestandard.Although sexual servicesandthe continuingpatriarchal customers must obviously outnumberprostitutes, they are less likely to be sanctioned. Similarly,althoughself-reportstudiesshow male ratesof runaways to be as high as female rates, suspicion of sexual involvementmakes female runawaysmore likely to be arrested(Chesney-Lind& Shelden 1992). Female substanceabuse(as with otherpatternsof female crime) often stems from relationalconcernsor involvements,beginningin the context of teenage dating or following introductionto drugs by husbandsor boyfriends(Inciardi et al 1993, Pettiway 1987). Womentend to be less involved in heavy drinking or harddruguse-those drugsmost intimatelytied to drug subculturesand the of Health & HumanServices 1984). underworldmore generally (Department criminal involvements prior to to have other addicts are less likely Female the of income-oriented crime is greaterfor female amplification addiction,so reselling narcoticsor drugusers. Female addictcrimes aremainly prostitution, assisting male drug dealers, and propertycrimes such as shoplifting, forgery, and burglary(Anglin & Hser 1987).
Advantagesof Paradigm
A gendered approachhelps to clarify the gendered nature of both female and male offending patterns. For women, "doing gender"preemptscriminal involvementor directs it into scriptedpaths. For example, prostitutiondraws on and affirmsfemininity,while violence drawson and affirmsmasculinity. roles for women will conAt present it is unclear whether nontraditional roles constrain tributeto higheror lower ratesof female offending. Traditional most women from crime but may expose others to greaterrisks for criminal relationshipsapinvolvement. Wives playing traditionalroles in patriarchal and for committing spousal pear to be at greatest risk both for victimization homicide. Similarly,women emotionallydependenton criminalmen are more easily persuadedto "do it all for love." (Note, nevertheless,that men are also differencescomplicatethe moreeasily persuaded by othermen.) Cross-cultural genderroles prevailand issue further.For example, among gypsies, traditional male dominanceis absolute. Yet, because gypsy women do practicallyall the work and earn most of the money,theirculturedictates a large female-to-male involvementin thievery(Maas 1973). A genderedapproach can also help explainbothstabilityandvariabilityin the gender effect. A growing body of historicalresearchindicatesthat the gender differencesin qualityandquantityof crimedescribedhereclosely parallelthose thathave prevailedsince at least the thirteenth century(Beattie 1975, Hanawalt
482
1979). Even where variabilitydoes exist across time, the evidence suggests that changes in the female percentageof offending (i) are limited mainly to minorpropertycrimes or mild forms of delinquency(Hagan& Simpson 1993, Steffensmeier1980) and(ii) aredue to structural changesotherthanmoreequalitariangenderroles such as shifts in economic marginality of women, expanded availabilityof female-typecrimeopportunities, andgreaterformalizationof social control (Beattie 1995, Steffensmeier 1993). The considerablestability in the gendergap for offendingcan be explainedin partby historicaldurabilityof the organization of gender(Walby1990). Certainlyforrecentdecades,research suggests thatthe core elements of genderroles and relationshipshave changed little, if at all (for a review, see Steffensmeier& Allan 1995, see also Beutel & Marini 1995). Underlying physical/sexual differences (whether actual or perceived)may also play a part. Humangroups,for all theirculturalvariation, follow basic humanforms.
SUMMARYAND RECOMMENDATIONS
An examinationof gender patternsin crime reveals that there are both similarities and differences in female and male patternsof offending. Traditional criminologicaltheories deserve more credit than they have received in recent writings in terms of their ability to provide general explanationsboth of female and male offending patternsand of the gender gap in crime. Certainly this is the case with minor acts of crime and delinquency which have been frequentobjects of quantitativeanalysis. Likewise, the mannerin which female and male rates of offending parallel one anotheracross differences in time, race, class, and geography suggests that they are respondingto similar social forces. Such findings suggest that there is no need for gender-specific theories. On the other hand, explanationof serious crimes by males and females is more problematic,partly because the lower frequenciesof offending complicate the task of quantitativeanalyses. Qualitativestudies reveal majorgender differencesin the contextandnatureof offending. Traditional theorieshave not adequatelyexplored such gender differences. Ourgenderedparadigmseeks a middle road that acknowledges both the utility of traditionaltheory and the need to describe how the organizationof gender (and biological/physicaldifferences) specifies the impact of social forces suggested by traditionaltheory. Space limitationspreventus from broachingsome of the most importantareas related to female criminality,such as patternsof female victimization (Price & Sokoloff 1995) and gender differences in criminaljustice processing (for a review, see Steffensineieret al 1993). Even our coverage of patternsand etiology of female offending is selective and cursory. Nevertheless, some
GENDER ANDCRIME
483
recommendations emergefromthis reviewthatcould improvethe yield of future theory andresearch. We need to examinemoreclosely whether variouscriminogenic factors (e.g.family, peers,schooling) varyby gender either in themagnitude orthedirection of effects.Factors generally seenasuniquely relevant totheexplanation of femalecrime(e.g. childhood abuse, personal maladjustment, victimization)
should be exploredin relationto male crime (Bjerregaard & Smith 1993). theorieswere neverdesignedto tapthe encompassingstructure Conventional and repetitiveprocess of genderas it affects the criminalinvolvementsof either
womenor men. Therefore we needto operationalize andtestvariables drawn fromgendered in relation to theexplanation approaches, particularly of serious criminal behavior. andhabitual andresearch needto lookmorecloselyat the inBoththeory development withother dimensions of stratification tersection of gender (Hill& Crawford). variables alsovarybyrace,class,orethniceffectsof causal Do gender-specific to avoidconfusing effectswithothersubgroup ity? Caremustbe taken gender comIdentification of gender effectsmustentailfemale-male effects,however. thefactthatarrest within thesamepopulation Forexample, parisons subgroup. ratesfor whitemalesfor someoffenses ratesfor blackfemalesexceedarrest about raceeffectsbutnothing about effects(Heimer tellsus something gender & Ellis 1995,Sommers 1995,Simpson 1992). So far, the studyof criminal careershas centered almostexclusivelyon has beenpaidto attention maleoffenders.As Gilfus(1992:64)notes,"Little is 'criminal career' such as whether there such a as a female questions thing Inif that career and what its contours." pattern and, so, how begins shapes needto focuson career dimensions depthstudiesof seriousfemaleoffenders andspecialization. suchas onset,frequency, duration, seriousness, Such studiesneed to examineboththe immediate contextof the offense and the largersocial settingof seriousor habitual offending,followingthe fineexamples setbyMiller's (1986)studyof street women, Campbell's (1984) research ongirlsandgangs,Steffensmeier on institu&Terry's (1986)research andBottcher's tionalsexismin theunderworld, male (1995)studyof high-risk andfemaleyouths,andtheirsiblings.Suchstudies revealthe extentto which the lives of delinquent to be powerfully influenced girlsandwomencontinue of life. conditions by gender-related Someof themostprofound contributions to ourknowledge concerning genderandcrime(including thestudies citedin theprevious havecome paragraph) fromothersociofromcriminologists whohaveexploited andresearch theory in thestudyof network logicalspecialities (e.g. family, organization, analysis) is of a life course to femalecriminality. Also needed application perspective
484
female offending,as Sampson& Laub (1993) have done so effectively in their study of male offending. of the specific behaviorsinvolvedin particWe need a clearerunderstanding ular crimes committedby women and men, the natureof their criminalroles, leadingto criminalinvolvement,the motivationsfor committhe circumstances ting crimes, and the vocabulariesused to justify their crimes. The same statutory charge applied to women and men may reflect very different behaviors and circumstances,as illustratedin the researchon spousalhomicide described above (reviewedby Dobash et al 1992). Criminalopportunityhas many dimensions that vary dramaticallyby genhow crime opportunitiesare shapedby legitimate der. We need to understand andby changes in productive of the underworld, by the structure opportunities, and routine activities (Steffensmeier 1983, 1993). As already noted, women for lucrative or underworld opportunities have little access to eitherupperworld dominatedby whitecollaror organizedcrime. Professionalcrime,traditionally white males, is on the decline. Over the last three decades, the largest gains in female arrestsrelative to male arrestswere for nonviolenteconomic crimes such as fraudand forgerycrimes now within the reach of virtuallyevery Americancitizen. Changes in female motivationas well as in the social or economic position of females are likely to be less importantthan the natureof societal crime opportunitiesin shapingpatternsof female offending and variationsin the gendergap. This is a neglected areaof researchin criminology,and is one where sociologists with their expertise in broad societal trends can make a major contributionto the study not only of female criminalitybut also to crime more generally. If significant differences in the gender gap are found, all plausible explanations should be explored. Tests of the gender equality hypothesis should than assumed group differences in attemptmore suitable operationalization equality(such as age, race, urbanresidence). On the otherhand, an interesting inquiry into the sociology of knowledge could address the longevity of the genderequalityhypothesis in the face of so much contraryevidence. Ourknowledgeaboutfundamental issues in the studyof genderandcrimehas of studiesover the past severaldecades, expandedgreatlywith the proliferation althoughsignificantgaps still exist. Giventhe relativelylow frequencyand less serious natureof female crime, expandingresearchon female offending may seem hardto justify. But researchon the genderednatureof crime contributes the study of male as well as female crime. Furthermore, to the understanding of gender and crime is a productivearenafor exploring the natureof gender and the organizationof gendermore generally. stratification
GENDERAND CRIME
Any Annual Review chapter, as well as any article cited in an Annual Review chapter, may be purchased from the Annual Reviews Preprints and Reprints service. 1-800-347-8007; 415-259-5017; email: arpr@class.org
485
LiteratureCited Adler F. 1975. Sisters in Crime. New York: McGraw-Hill Akers R, KrohnM, Lanza-KaduceL, Radosevich M. 1979. Social learninganddeviantbehavior:a specifictest of a generaltheory.Am. Sociol. Rev.44:298-310 American CorrectionalAssociation. 1983. Female Inmate Classification:An Examination of theIssues. Natl. Inst.Correct.Washington, DC: US Gov. Print.Off. Anglin D, Hser Y. 1987. Addicted women and crime. Criminology25:359-97 Arnold R. 1989. Processes of criminalization from girlhood to womanhood. In Womenof Color in American Society, ed. M Zinn, B Dill. Philadelphia:TempleUniv. Press Beattie J. 1975. The criminality of women in eighteenth century England. In Womenand the Law: A Social Historical Perspective,ed. DK Weisberg.Cambridge,MA: Schenkman Beattie J. 1995. Crime and inequality in 18th centuryLondon.In Crimeand Inequality,ed. J Hagan,R Peterson.Stanford,CA: Stanford Univ. Press Berger R. 1990. Female delinquency in the Emancipationera: a review of the literature. Sex Roles 21:375-99 Beutel A, MariniM. 1995. Genderand values. Am. Sociol. Rev.60:436-48 Bjerregaard B, Smith C. 1993. Gender differences in gang participation, delinquency,and substance use. J. Quant. Criminol. 9:32956 BoritchH, HaganJ. 1990. A centuryof crime in Toronto:gender, class and patternsof social control, 1859-1955. Criminology28:601-26 BottcherJ. 1986. RiskyLives: Female Versions of CommonDelinquentLife Patterns.Sacramento: Calif. YouthAuthority Bottcher J. 1995. Gender as social control: a qualitativestudy of incarceratedyouths and their siblings in greaterSacramento.Justice Q. 12:33-57 Bowker L, Gross H, Klein M. 1980. Female in delinquentgang activities. In participation Women and Crimein America,ed. L Bowker, pp. 158-79. New York:Macmillan Brody LR. 1985. Gender differences in emotional development:a review of theories and research.J. Pers. 14:102-49 Bureauof Justice Statistics. 1973-1992. CrimiIn The UnitedStates, 1991. nal Victimization Washington,DC: Dept. Justice CampbellA. 1984. The Girls in the Gang. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Campbell A. 1990. Female participation in gangs. In GangsinAmerica,ed. C Huff. Newbury Park,CA: Sage CanterR. 1982. Sex differencesin delinquency. Criminology20:373-98 Chesney-LindM. 1986. Womenand crime: the female offender.Signs 12:78-96 Chesney-Lind M. 1989. Girls' crime and woman's place: towarda feminist model of female delinquency. Crime Delinq. 35:529 Chesney-Lind M, Shelden R. 1992. Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Cohen A. 1966. Deviance and Control.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall Collins R. 1992. Womenand the productionof status cultures. In Cultivating Differences, ed. M Lamont, M Fournier.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1991. Organized Crime in Pennsylvania, The 1990 Report. Conshohocken, PA: Penn. Crime Comm. CovingtonJ. 1985. Genderdifferencesin criminality among heroin users. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 22:329-53 Daly K. 1989. Gender and varieties of white-collarcrime. Criminology27:769-94 Daly K. 1994. Gender,Crimeand Punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press Daly K, Chesney-LindM. 1988. Feminism and criminology.Justice Q. 5:497-538 Decker S, WrightR, Refern A, Smith D. 1993. A woman's place is in the home: females and residentialburglary. Justice Q. 10:1-16 Deisite A. 1989. Maced greeter gives police key evidence. ThePatriotp. B I Denno D. 1994. Gender, crime, and the criminal law defenses. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 85(1):80-180 Department of Health and Human Services. 1984. DrugAbuseand Drug AbuseResearch. Rockville, MD: Natl. Inst. Drug Abuse Dobash R, Dobash RE, Wilson M, Daly M. 1992. The myth of sexual symmetry in maritalviolence. Soc. Probl. 39:71-91 Elliott M. 1952. Crime in a Modem Society. New York:Harper& Brothers
486

a self-reportstudy.Br J. Sociol. 31:525-43 McCarthy B, Hagan J. 1992. Mean streets: the theoretical significance of situational delinquency and homeless youths. Am. J. Sociol. 98:597-627 MesserschmidtJ. 1986. Capitalism,Patriarchy, and Crime: Toward a Socialist Feminist Criminology. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield Miller E. 1986. Street Women. Philadelphia: TempleUniv. Press Miller W. 1980. The molls. In Women,Crime, and Justice, ed. S Datesman, F Scarpitti. New York:OxfordUniv. Press Morash M, Chesney-Lind M. 1991. A reformulation and partial test of the power control theory of delinquency. Justice Q. 8:347-76 Pettiway L. 1987. Participationin crime partnerships by female drug users. Criminology 25:741-67 Pollock-Byrne J. 1990. Women, Prison, and Crime.Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole PriceB, Sokoloff N. 1995. TheCriminalJustice New York:McGraw-Hill Systemand Women. Prus R, Sharper CRD. 1977. Road Hustler. Lexington,MA: Lexington Quicker J. 1983. Homegirls: Characterizing Chicano Gangs. San Pedro, CA: Int. Univ. Press Reitman B. 1937. Sister of the Road: The Autobiography of Box-Car Bertha. New York:Macauley Richie B. 1995. The GenderedEntrapmentof London: Rutledge Battered,Black Women. Rossi A. 1984. Gender and parenthood.Am. Sociol. Rev.49:1-19 SampsonR, LaubJ. 1993. Crimein the Making. Univ. Press Cambridge,MA: Harvard Shover N, Norland S, James J, Thorton W. 1979. Gender roles and delinquency. Soc. Forces 58:162-75 Simmons R, Blyth D. 1987. Moving Into Adolescence. New York:Aldine Simon R.1975.The ContemporaryWomanand Crime. Washington,DC: Natl. Inst. Mental Health Simons R, Miller M, Aignor S. 1980. Contemporarytheories of deviance and female deliquency.J. Res. Criminol.Delinq. 17:4257 Simpson S, Ellis L. 1995. Doing gender: sorting out the caste and crime conundrum. Criminology33:47-77 Singer S, Levine M. 1988. Power-control theory,genderand delinquency.Criminology 26:627-48 Smith D. 1979. Sex and deviance: an assessment of majorsociological variables.Sociol.
English K. 1993. Self-reportedcrime rates of women prisoners. J. Quant.Crimol.9:357-82 FaganJ. 1990. Social processes of delinquency and drug use among urbangangs. In Gangs in America, ed. C Huff. NewburyPark: CA: Sage Gilfus M. 1992. From victims to survivors to offenders: women's routes of entry and immersion into street crime. WomenCrim. Justice 4:63-89 Gilligan C. 1982. In a DifferentVoice: Psychological Theory and Women'sDevelopment. Univ. Press Cambridge,MA: Harvard Giordano P, Cernkovich S, Pugh M. 1986. Friendshipsand delinquency.Am. J. Sociol. 91:1170-203 GrasmickH, Bursik R, Sims B. 1993. Changes in the sex patterningof perceived threatsof sanctions.Law Soc. Rev. 27:679-705 Hagan J. 1989. Structural Criminology.New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniv. Press Hagan J, Gillis A, Simpson J. 1993. The power of control in sociological theories of delinquency.In Advances in Criminological Theory,Vol. 4, ed. F Adler, W Laufer.New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Hanawalt B. 1979. Crime and Conflict in English Communities,1300-1348. Cambridge: HarvardUniv. Press HeimerK. 1995. Gender,race, andthe pathways explanation. to delinquency:an interactionist In Crime and Inequality, ed. J Hagan, R Peterson.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv. Press Hill G, CrawfordE. 1990. Women, race, and crime. Criminology28:601-26 Inciardi J, Lockwood D, Pottieger A. 1993. Womenand Crack-Cocaine.NewYork: Macmillan James J. 1977. Prostitutes and prostitution. In Deviants: Voluntary Action in a Hostile World, ed. E Sagarin, F Montanino. New York: Scott, Foresman vs social-control JensenG. 1993. Power-control theories of common delinquency: a comparative analysis. InAdvancesin Criminological Theory,Vol. 4, ed. F Adler, W Laufer.New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Jensen G, Eve R. 1976. Sex differences in delinquency.Criminology13:427-48 C. 1994. Genderand interpersonal Kruttschnitt violence. In Understandingand Preventing Violence: Social Influences, ed. J Roth, A Reiss, 3:295-378. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Sci. Maas P. 1973. King of the Gypsies. New York: Bantam MannC. 1984. Female Crimeand Delinquency. Birmingham:Univ. AlabamaPress Mawby R. 1980. Sex and crime: the results of
GENDERAND CRIME
Q. 20:183-95 Smith D, PaternosterR. 1987. The gender gap in theories of deviance: issues and evidence. Criminology24:140-72 Smith D, Visher C. 1980. Sex and involvement in deviance/crime: a quantitativereview of the empirical literature. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65:767-82 Sommers I, Baskin D. 1992. Sex, race, age, and violent offending. ViolenceVict.7:191-201 Steffensmeier D. 1980. A review and assessment of sex differences in adult crime, 1965-77. Soc. Forces 58:1080-1108 SteffensmeierD. 1983. Sex-segregationin the underworld: buildinga sociological explanation of sex differencesin crime. Soc. Forces 61:1010-32 Steffensmeier D. 1986. The Fence: In the Shadow of Two Worlds. Totowa, NJ: Rowman& Littlefield Steffensmeier D. 1993. National trends in female arrests, 1960-1990: assessment and recommendations for research. J. Quant. Criminol.9:413-41 SteffensmeierD, Allan E. 1988. Sex disparities in crime by populationsubgroup:residence, race, and age. Justice Q. 5:53-80 Steffensmeier D, Allan E. 1995. Gender, age, and crime. In Handbook of Contemporary Criminology, ed. J Sheley. New York: Wadsworth Steffensmeier D, Allan E, Streifel C. 1989. Modernizationand female crime: a crossnationaltest of alternative explanations.Soc. Forces 68:262-83 SteffensmeierD, Clark R. 1980. Sociocultural vs. biological/sexist explanationsof sex differencesin crime:a surveyof Americancriminology textbooks, 1919-1965. Am. Sociol. 15:246-55 Steffensmeier D, KramerJ, Streifel C. 1993. Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology31:411-46 SteffensmeierD, RosenthalA, ShehanC. 1980. World War II and its effects on the sex differential in arrests: an empirical test of the sex-role equality and crime proposition. Sociol. Q. 21:246-55
487
SteffensmeierD, Streifel C. 1992. Time-series analysis of female-to-male arrestsfor property crimes, 1960-1985: a test of alternative explanations.Justice Q. 9:78-103 Steffensmeier D, Streifel C. 1993. Structural covariates of female as compared to male violence rates. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Sociol. Crim., Phoenix, AZ Steffensmeier D, Terry R. 1986. Institutional sexism in the underworld: a view from the inside. Sociol. Inq. 56:304-23 Steinmetz S, Lucca J. 1988. Husbandbeating. In Handbook of Family Violence, ed. R Hassselt, A Morrison,S Bellack, M Hersen, pp. 233-46. New York:Plenum Straus M, Gelles R. 1990. Physical Violence in American Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Sutherland E. 1924. Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Swart W. 1991. Female gang delinquency: a search for "acceptably deviant behavior." Mid-Am.Rev.Sociol. 15:43-52 ThrasherF. 1927. The Gang. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Tittle C. 1980. Social Sanctions and Social Deviance. New York:Praeger TriplettR, Myers L. 1995. Evaluatingcontextual patternsof delinquency: gender-based differences.Justice Q. 12:59-79 Udry JR. 1995. Sociology and biology: What biology do sociologists need to know? Soc. Forces 73:1267-78 US Department of Justice.1960-1993. Uniform CrimeReports.Fed. Bur.Invest.Washington, DC: US Gov. Print.Off. Walby S. 1990. Theorizing Patriarchy.Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Weiner N. 1989. Violent criminal careers and "violent career criminals." In Violent Crime, ViolentCriminals, ed. N Weiner, M Wolfgang, pp. 35-138. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Widom C. 1989. Child abuse, neglect and violent criminal behavior. Criminology 27:251-71 Zeitz D. 1981. Women Who Embezzle or Defraud. New York:Praeger

Gender and Crime

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender and Crime

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending Author(s): Darrell Steffensmeier and Emilie Allan Source:

GENDERAND CRIME:Towarda GenderedTheoryof Female Offending

& ALLAN STEFFENSMEIER

OF OFFENDING FEMALEAND MALE PATTERNS

Against Persons Homicide Aggravated assault Weapons Simple assault

101 200 317 69 137 165 265 354 662

74 321 402 6 12 59 133 1 8 18 28 .5 53 9 16 2 18 2 282 -

87 71 36 81 176 5 43 102 3 79 166 1 45 5 62 7 .2 1

5 749 597 499 115 116 119 11 .3 7 4 4 265 45 26 23 5 3 3 .1 222 31 13 28 90 202 57 60 51 14 8 19 7 6 12 2 1 3 13 .5 .2 23

STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN

ArrestRates, 1960, 1975, 1990

Female Percentageof Arrests

National CrimeVictimization Survey(NCVS)

& ALLAN STEFFENSMEIER

APPLYINGTRADITIONAL THEORYTO THE EXPLANATIONOF GENDEREDCRIMEPATTERNS

Similarityin Social Backgrounds

Regressionof Female Rates on Male Rates

& ALLAN STEFFENSMEIER

THE GENDER GAP AND CRIME

STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN Masculinity &

Gender Equality -FigureI Gender equality andcrime.

Taste for risk --

Movement Recent Trendsin Female Crimeand the Women's

AlternativeExplanations for GenderGap Differencesand Trends

STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN

Victimization&Econ. Marginality or Less Victimization&GrtrEcon. Well-Being

HigherFemale Share of Crime

Lower Female Shareof Crime

GENDER AND CRIME

TRENDS IN FEMALE DRUGDEPENDENCY Risinglevels of

Other Criticismsof the GenderEqualityHypothesis

has been challengedfor its uncriticalacceptanceof the gender equalityapproach

STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN

equality onthegender DEVELOPMENTOver-reliance OFTHEORY SUPPRESSION

Applicationof TraditionalTheoryto Explanation of the Gender Gap

STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN CRIME

The Organizationof Gender

STEFPENSMEIER & ALLAN

SOCIAL CONTROL Social controlpowerfullyshapes women's relativewilling-

STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN

Applicationof GenderedPerspectiveto Patterns of Female Crime

STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN

STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN

STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN

STEFFENSMEIER & ALLAN

You might also like