Introduction

This essay will assess the view that traditional gender socialisation is the main influence on female patterns of crime. It will explore the key arguments put forward by feminist and functionalist theorists, examining the role of gender roles and expectations in shaping opportunities for, and understanding of, criminal behaviour. It will also critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of this view by examining alternative perspectives, such as feminist liberation theory, biological arguments, Marxist and postmodern interpretations of crime.

Traditional Gender Socialisation and Female Crime

Feminist Perspectives

Many feminist scholars argue that traditional gender socialisation plays a significant role in shaping female patterns of crime. They point to the patriarchal nature of society where girls are socialised to be passive, nurturing, and compliant. This socialisation, according to theorists like Carol Smart, limits their opportunities for deviance, as they are more closely supervised and controlled.

Furthermore, Heidensohn argues that women are socialised to view crime as "role-distorting," as it contradicts the expected role of the nurturer and carer. They also have more to lose than men if they engage in criminal behaviour, including their reputation and liberty, leading to the concept of "double deviance."

Heidensohn and McRobbie further highlight the pervasive control women experience in both the home and public spheres, which restricts their opportunities to commit crime. This control further reinforces traditional gender roles and limits their access to potentially deviant spaces and activities.

Functionalist Perspectives

Functionalist theorists, like Sutherland and Parsons, emphasize the role of sex-role theory in explaining gender differences in crime. They argue that boys and girls are socialised into different roles and expectations, leading to different patterns of behaviour. This socialisation, according to Parsons, creates a division of labour, where men are socialised for public roles and women for domestic roles. This division, in turn, influences their access to criminal opportunities and their perceived risk of engaging in criminal behaviour.

Consequences of Traditional Socialisation

Studies have shown that female offenders who conform to stereotypical views of femininity receive less harsh treatment within the criminal justice system. However, those who defy these stereotypes, such as women who commit violent crimes or crimes against children, can face harsher punishments. This suggests that the criminal justice system perpetuates patriarchal norms and reinforces traditional gender roles, as argued by scholars like Birch, Chesney-Lind, and Lloyd.

Additionally, the court system often takes a woman's role as a mother into account when sentencing, highlighting the ongoing influence of traditional gender expectations on the legal system. (Hedderman and Gunby, Ministry of Justice 2014)

Critical Evaluation: Alternative Perspectives

While traditional gender socialisation undoubtedly plays a role in influencing female patterns of crime, it is not the sole factor. Several alternative perspectives challenge the notion that it is the main influence.

Feminist Liberation Theory

Feminist liberation theory argues that the increase in female crime is a result of women's growing independence and equality. Adler argues that as women gain more opportunities and access to power, they are more likely to engage in traditionally male-dominated criminal activities. This "liberation thesis" suggests that social change, rather than traditional socialisation, is the driving force behind changes in female criminality.

Biological Arguments

Biological arguments, like those put forward by Pollak, suggest that women are biologically predisposed to conceal crime, leading to a "dark figure" of female offending. Pollak also suggests that women manipulate men to commit crimes for them. These arguments are highly contested and lack scientific evidence.

Marxist View

Marxist theorists argue that crime is a product of inequality and social structures. They emphasize the role of capitalism in creating conditions that foster crime, regardless of gender. The "class deal" and "gender deal" theories, as proposed by Carlen, suggest that women engage in crime when the costs of conforming to traditional gender roles outweigh the benefits. These theories highlight the influence of economic and social structures on female criminality, challenging the sole focus on traditional socialisation.

Postmodern View

Postmodern theorists challenge the idea of fixed gender roles and argue that power is fluid and contested. They suggest that gender identities are constructed through social interactions and are subject to change. They reject the notion of a singular influence on female patterns of crime, emphasizing the complexity of multiple factors, including individual agency, social context, and cultural influence.

Conclusion

While traditional gender socialisation has historically played a significant role in shaping female patterns of crime, it is not the only factor. The influence of feminist liberation, economic factors, and broader societal transformations, as well as biological and postmodern perspectives, offer alternative explanations for the evolving nature of female criminality. The relationship between gender socialisation and female crime is complex and multifaceted, requiring a nuanced understanding of the interplay of various social, economic, and cultural factors. Further research is needed to continue exploring the complex interplay of these influences on female crime patterns.