Crime Continues to Be a Masculine Pursuit - Essay Example

? CRIME CONTINUES TO BE A MASCULINE PURSUIT Introduction Throughout history, it has been an indisputable fact that crime has always been and continues to be a predominantly male pursuit (Coote 1994, p. 1). This is quite different from the assumption that crime is and continues to be a masculine pursuit. Even so the sustained characterization of crime as a masculine pursuit has occupied researchers for some time. Over the last few decades the connection between crime and masculinity has become increasingly significant in criminology studies (Summer 2004, p. 285). Despite reports that females are committing crimes at an increased rate, males continue to commit the vast majority of crimes (Anthony 2008, p. 94). The prevailing view is therefore that crime continues to be a masculine pursuit despite modest increased in female offending. The question then is, whether or not crime is and continues to be a masculine pursuit. Theories and assumptions that attempt to explain the disproportionate rate of male offending help to answer the question of whether or not crime continues to be a masculine pursuit. The prevailing view is that, if male offending can be attributed to masculine theories rather than traditional criminology theories, then we might be able to state that crime continues to be a masculine pursuit. Some explanations include the role of gender socialization, the perceptions of police, and the independence and opportunities that men are accorded (Browne 2011, p. 249). However, with the exception of gender socialization, the other explanations and theories are not gender specific. For instance, perceptions of police can be entirely related to education or exposure. Similarly, independence and opportunities are likewise linked to both men and women. This paper analyses those theories and generally agrees that it is a combination of a number of factors that do not necessarily support the contention that crime continues to be a masculine pursuit. It is argued that females do commit crimes and that female crimes have increased casting doubt on the presumption that crime continues to be a masculine pursuit. It is also argued that theories seeking to explain why crime is regarded as a masculine pursuit do not really support the contention that crime is and continues to be a masculine pursuit. This paper is therefore divided into three parts. The first part of this paper provides a factual basis for the contention that males are more predisposed to commit crimes than females are. The second part of the paper analyses the various theories, assumptions and explanations relative to the male propensity to commit crimes. The third part of the paper examines the rise in female crimes and concludes that the rise in female crimes do not change the disproportionate number of male crimes. However it does indicate that crime is not and does not continue to be a masculine pursuit. It does indicate that crime is not specific to males and therefore can not be characterized as a continuing to be a masculine pursuit. The objective is to analyse masculinity theories with a view to demonstrating how crime is perceived to be a masculine pursuit and then to look at the increase in female offending to demonstrate how crime cannot be perceived as a masculine pursuit. Although crime was perceived to have been a masculine pursuit, developments in female offending inform that it is impractical and unreasonable to continue to view crime as a masculine pursuit. I. Males and Crime The latest statistics released by the UK Office for National Statistics reveal that as of October 2006, 4 out of every five offenders were male. Moreover, man “outnumber women” in all of the most serious crimes (Office for National Statistics 2006). For instance between 84 and 95 per cent of burglary, robbery, drugs-related offences, criminal damages and violent crimes are committed by males. 98 per cent of all sexual offences are committed by males (Office for National Statistics). In the US there is evidence that the female/male criminal conviction gap has been narrowing since the 1990s. However, the gap has only narrowed in property and drug offences. Even so, man continue to have a lead on women. With respect to the more serious offences, such as burglary and robbery and violent offences, men continue to hold a sizeable lead on women (Heimer and Kruttschnitt 2006, pp. 117-118). There is a global trend indicative of the contention that “crime and criminality are the domain of the male” (Herrington and Nee 2005, p. 1). This contention is statistically supported. Global trends indicate that official statistics and studies alike have long reflected that males are have a greater propensity to commit crimes than females are in a wide variety of crimes (Herrington and Nee 2005, p. 1). These trends have captured the attention of criminologist who have been trying to explain why men are so overwhelmingly in contact with the criminal justice system. II. Why Males Commit Crimes at a Greater Rate than Females Do: Theoretical Perspectives A. Overview Spohn (2008) argues that incarceration is not a reliable indicator of gender criminal disparities. Gender however, had a lot to do with whether or not a judge would impose a custodial sentence. Spohn (2008) conducted a study of felonies committed in Cook County Chicago in 1993. The study found that males were twice as likely to be sentenced to incarceration than women despite that fact that they were convicted of the same felony and had no antecedents (Spohn 2008, pp. 151-152). Despite Spohn’s (2008) study, a vast majority of the research does not support the hypothesis that the higher rate of male rate of conviction is a result of judges’ leniency with respect to females. The general consensus is that the explanation for the higher ratio of male convicts is quite simply because men commit more serious crimes and more crimes in general than their female counterparts (Herrington and Nee 2005, p. 2) B. Sex Role Theorists Conventional gender roles and the expectations attached to gender roles are perceived as a good indicator for crime and the tendency to commit specific types of crimes. According to sex role theorists, the distinctive gender roles and the socialization process associated with these distinctions dictate that deviance is “learned behaviour” (Flowers 2003, p. 77). This is particularly so with respect to crimes of violence where researchers have consistently found that men are typically more predisposed to aggression than women are. Aggression is said to be learned through the socialization process and is therefore associated with masculinity. Flowers (2003) explains: Differential socialization between males and females makes the latter tend to be less willing to become involved in harmful behaviour, such as violent criminality (p. 77). Masculinity and femininity, according to Flowers (2008), offer an explanation for the differences in gender criminal conduct. Masculinity concepts take the position that men are more prone to commit crimes than women are because it is a manifestation of their the intrinsic male vales, nature, socialization, gender and physical prowess. Males are indoctrinated by virtue of the socialization process to believe that they are stronger, have more power, are violent, aggressive, controlling in a society that is male dominant (Flowers 2003, p. 77). Helfgott (2008) argues that culture codes in which males are perceived as “predators” and females are perceived “as prey” have informed the individualized degree of male criminal conduct (p. 163). Helfgott (2008) explains: Criminal behavior, particularly violent and sex crimes and violent victimization, must be understood within the context of patriarchal society, the male-predator/female prey dichotomy, and the cultural shifts in sex-role socialization practices and ideas about the sorts of behaviors males and females engage in (p. 163). Sex role theories therefore inform that the socialization process and the masculinity that is formed and prescribed as a result of socialization, predisposes males to commit crimes, particularly violent crimes at a greater rate than women do. This theory however, appears to be unsatisfactory and requires deeper probing. Messerschmidt (1993) argues that crime is an expression of power for males and masculinity in terms of sex role theories. Social constructions of masculinity, dictates the degree to which men commit crimes. It is not always for expressing power over females but also for the expression the power relations among males. Essentially, men make tacit undertakings in which they feel compelled to express their masculinity. For males, “the only way” that they can be judged as males is by virtue of their appearances and conduct (Messerschmidt 1993,p. 84). Messerschmidt (1993) goes on to explain: Thus men use the resources at their disposal to communicate gender to others. For many men, crime may serve as a suitable resource for ‘doing gender’ – for separating them from all that is feminine (p. 84). Certain types of crime are committed when the social and economic conditions exist in circumstances where other legitimate sources of masculinity expressions are not available. In this regard certain crimes will provide a substitute for gender expression. There is a heightened propensity to commit crimes when legitimate options are unavailable and the male’s masculinity is being challenged (Messerschmidt 1993, p. 84). Messerschmidt’s (1993) argument is persuasive. He at least provides a rationale for the expression of masculinity by virtue of criminal conduct. It makes more sense that the idealization of masculinity would find expression in crime in situations where the male’s masculinity is challenged and he has no legitimate opportunities for expressing his manhood or masculinity. For instance, a male is without a job nor job prospects. Nor does he have income and he may even question his own masculinity. Since he cannot play the male role in a state of weaknesses, he might turn to crime to reclaim or to express his masculinity. C. Crime Theories Crime theories seeking to explain why men are more prone to commit crimes than women dismiss variables such as poverty, inner city decay and the media. The suggestion is therefore that crime is not a masculine pursuit, but rather a socio-economic pursuit. However, we come back to the fact is women are exposed to the same factors and yet men commit more crimes than women do. Therefore this disproportionate crime rate cannot be explained away by reference to these factors (Marsh and Neville 2006, p. 125). Previously, criminologists looked to the differences in emotions, the physical and the psychological as a means of explaining the disparity in gender crime rates. In 1895 Cesare Lombroso argued that the female’s characteristics in terms of “piety, maternity, undeveloped intelligence and weakness” accounted for lower crime rates among females (Siegel 2008, pp. 52-53). This early theory however, only tried to explain why females did not commit as many crimes as men and while entirely biased and demonstrative of the gender bias of the times, still offered no insight into why men committed more crimes than women. In more recent times criminologists have looked to social and sex role theories for an explanation. In this regard, there is a general perception that males are socialized into being more “aggressive and assertive and less likely to form attachments to others” (Siegel 2008, p. 53). For males, they form the perception that aggression is an appropriate form of male expression to achieve power and status and they will join gangs, or align themselves with “deviant groups” or participate in sports (Siegel 2008, p. 53). This search for power and status through aggression and assertiveness is what makes the male more likely to commit crimes particularly when they choose anti-social or unlawful forms of aggression or assertiveness. When one considers the fact that males are typically freer than females in that the latter is being primed for maternity and eventually is hindered by children and the male remains free of those obligations to a great extent, the male cultivates the freedom to hang around with peers. According to Siegel (2008) this helps to explain how gender differences are manifested in the difference in crime rates and male delinquency (p. 53). Another crime theory takes the view that females are typically more articulate than males in their youth and as such, females cultivate the social skills necessary for resolving conflicts and difficulties without resorting to criminal behaviour. Females grow up with the view that aggression is a sign of a poor control whereas males grow up believing it is an expression of power. Moreover, females are socialized to respond to difficult and threatening situations with anxiety and depression while boys are persuaded to “retaliate” (Siegel 2008, p. 53). Criminologists have also studied psychological explanations for the differences in male and female crime rates. Of note is the cognitive differences highlighted by psychologists. According to Siegel (2009), psychologists have drawn attention to some very important cognitive differences between boys and girls that can have consequences for the way that they behave. While girls are typically more articulate than boys, boys usually have a higher appreciation for “visual-spatial performance” (Siegel 2009, p. 73). Essentially girls lean languages a lot earlier than boys and will not typically have literary difficulties as often or as prevalently as boys. Boys however, usually perform better than girls in mathematics (Siegel 2009, p. 73). However, Siegel (2009) maintains that these differences in cognitive functioning are very narrow and are more likely attributed to socialization and “cultural expectations” (p. 73). The only significance is that girls are more likely to use their language skills for negotiating rather being passive or aggressive. Whereas boys are conditioned to respond instinctively with aggression (Siegel 2009, p. 73). The presumption is therefore that boys and girls develop differently and by adult hood these habits are either broken or fortified. For boys, if the habit is not broken or outgrown, the boy may be predisposed to aggression as an adult which will invariably lead to violent crimes. Modern criminologists have found the earlier masculinity theories such as Messerschdmit’s theory flawed. The theory tends to use theories of sex roles as a means of “over-determining men’s offending” (McLaughlin and Newburn 2010, p. 238). According to McLaughlin and Newburn (2010): In the famous phrases that echo around the masculinities literature, doing crime is doing masculinity; crime is a resource for doing gender, crime is men’s work. The question remains, however, why is it that only a minority of men need to produce masculinity through crime rather than through other, non-criminal means? Messerschmidt’s theoretical scheme offers no formal mechanism that makes the discrimination (p. 238). Lilly, Ball and Cullen (2010) are equally critical of sex role theories and criminologists theories of the propensity for male crime. According to Lilly, Ball and Cullen (2010), criminology theories do not clarify the issue. This is because they typically avoid making assessments based on gender and crime. There are discussions about gender, but in very limited way. Men are characterized as bad while women are characterised as good. However: This tendency to see men in a unidmensional and stereotypical way ignores both how masculinity actually is linked to crime and equally important, now masculinity actually is linked to crime and equally important, how different types of masculinity are related to different types of offending (McLaughlin and Newburn 2010, p. 238). Vito, Maahs and Holmes (2006) offer some interesting insights into all theories and explanations attempting to explain the male propensity to commit crimes over the female tendency. According to Vito, Maahs and Holmes (2006), all crime theories were developed to take account of all offending including males. The fact is, when one looks at all the variables, they are attributable to human beings generally. In fact, there is very little differences in theoretical perspectives attempting to differentiate crime propensity on the basis of gender. For example, the general strain theory which emphasizes the strain such as unpleasant pressures and events as well as peer pressure is helpful for understanding why both genders commit crimes (Vito, Maahs and Holmes 2006, p. 228). Historically, not much attention was paid to gender related aspects of criminology. It was taken for granted that crime was a male thing for the most part. Feminist criminology began the search for an explanation for male offending. As feminist criminologists drew attention to the masculinity and sex role theories, researchers had something to build on. As a result theories emerging have drawn attention to the concept of masculinity as a prevalent trait among male offenders. Some criminologists have narrowed down masculine identity among different races. For example, the concept of machismo was attributed to Latin American conceptualization of masculinity that invariably fostered criminal conduct. Black male identity was also attributed to violent crimes among black men (Cullen, Wright and Blevins 2006, p. 237). Cullen, Wright and Blevins (2006) argue that sex role theories, particularly masculinity theories leave far too many questions unanswered to offer an explanation for the male tendency to commit crimes. For instance, men who attack women and rob women or assault children are not gaining or retaining masculine status. These kinds of crimes against those whom males regard as weak are better described as “punk” (Cullen, Wright and Blevins 2006, p. 238). III. Increases in Female Offending Heimer and Kruttschnitt (2006) report that over the last few decades female offending has increased in both the UK and the US (p. 118). It is important to identify the factors contributing to an increase in female offending as it will determine whether offending generally is gender specific or a result of socio-economic factors. The rationale is, if offending is a socio-economic outcome, then we can discount the theories that attempt to explain the disproportionate male offending as a continuous masculine pursuit. Liberation theories inform that women became more involved in criminal activities at a time when they gained increasing independence from men. As women increasingly became heads of households, they succumbed to the pressures to take care of their families. This gave way to an increase in female offending (Heimer and Kruttschnitt 2006, p. 118). Moreover, with independence came economic and employment marginalization so that women became economically destitute and like their male counterparts looked to criminal activities to support themselves. This is evidenced by the types of crimes that women have been more frequently known to commit. These crimes include fraud, shoplifting and other crimes of theft and dishonesty (Keimer and Kruttschnitt 2006, p. 118). This is a manifestation of the fact that women, like men will offend if they deem it necessary. In other words, crime is not specifically a masculine pursuit. It is for the most part a socio-economic pursuit. There is no other explanation for why women are increasingly committing crimes. Although there is wide gap between women and men’s offending, the explanation is not found in masculinity theories. Otherwise, there would be no explanation for why women offend at all. Similarly, masculinity theories do not explain why some men offend and why others do not (Essed, Glodberg and Kobayashi 2009, p. 224). Conclusion In the final analysis, there are far too many contingencies and contradictions in crime theories and sex role and social construction theories to devise a single theory. It is therefore impossible to draw conclusions from this fractured discourse in support of a contention that crime continues to be a masculine pursuit. The best that can be deduced from each the various theories explored in this paper, is that a number of variables contribute to male offending. In fact, some of the same variables contribute to female offending as well. For instance, we have seen that women commit crimes for economic reasons that are not attributed to any other external factor. Therefore it makes little sense to argue that when men commit economic crimes it is an expression of masculinity rather than a response to socio-economic factors. While concepts of masculinity and expressions of male power might explain why some men commit crimes, it does not explain why all male offenders turn into criminals. This might be especially relevant in circumstances where men are driven to join gangs. However, females are also joining gangs and no one appears to be claiming that this has anything to do with feminine aspirations. It is therefore unrealistic to differentiate between male and female offending. It would appear that mainstream criminology theories provides the best explanation. If crime is a male thing, the obvious question is: who do some men commit crimes and others do not? The easy answer is, masculine and sex role theories do no adequately explain this outcome. Criminologists place greater weight on conventional theories of crime. These theories take into account observable factors and therefore more reliable. It is not possible to state with any degree of certainty that crime can be satisfactorily defined on the basis of gender. Liberation theories provides the best possible explanation. Women are increasingly liberated and are taking responsibility for their own lives. They are now cast in the non-traditional roles that men occupied: responsibility for themselves and their families. As a result, women are now under the pressures that men have traditionally assumed. The changing dynamics of socio-economic factors are therefore the best predictor of the propensity to commit crimes. While women are not committing crimes to the extent that men are, this does not mean that crime continues to be a masculine pursuit. It simply means that socio-economic factors that traditionally drove males to offend are now relevant to more and more women. Therefore crime is not a masculine pursuit, but rather a socio-economic pursuit for the most part. Bibliography Anthony, T. 2008 The Critical Criminology Companion. Sydney, Australia: The Federation Press. Browne, K. 2011 Introduction to Sociology. New York, NY: Polity. Coote, A. 1994 Families, Children and Crime. Institute for Public Policy Research. Cullen, F.; Wright, J.and Blevins, K. 2006 Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory. New York, NY” Transaction Books. Essed, P.; Goldberg, D. and Kobayashi, A. 2009 A Companion to Gender Studies, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Flowers, R. 2003 Male Crime and Deviance: Exploring its Causes, Dynamics and Nature. New York, NY: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Heimer, K. and Kruttschnitt, C. 2006 Gender and Crime: Patterns of Victimization and Offending. New York, NY: NYU Press. Helfgott, J. 2008 Criminal Behavior: Theories, Typologies, and Criminal Justice. New York, NY: SAGE. Herrington, V. and Nee, C. 2005 “Self-Perceptions, Masculinity and Female Offenders”. Internet Journal of Criminology, 1-30. Marsh, I and Melville, G. 2006 Theories of Crime, New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. McLaughlin, E. and Newburn, T. 2010 The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Theory. New York, NY: SAGE Publications. Messerschmidt, J. 1993 Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization of Theory. New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield. Office for National Statistics 2006 “Gender” .http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=442 (Retrieved 6 May 2011). Siegel, L. 2008 Criminology, Boulder CO: Walden. Siegel, L. 2009 Introduction to Criminology. Boulder, CO: Walden. Spohn, C. 2008 How Do Judges Decide?: The Search for Fairness and Justice in Punishment. New York, NY: SAGE. Summer, C. 2004 The Blackwell Companion to Criminology. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Vito, G.; Maahs, J. and Holmes, R. 2006 Criminology: Theory, Research and Policy. London, UK: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Read More