BerandaFeminism may be perceived to be a sociological movement established and framed by an empirical application that addresses gender, social opportunity, and policy change (Kraska, 2004). In other words, perceptions and beliefs are consequences or effects of what an individual knows and this knowledge is based on their social context. Maier (2008) stated that the term feminist is a rather complex classification that is often applied to various circumstances that are political or sociological.
Although gender conflict is a social threat, it is not perceived to be physically ailing or as socially harmful as economic, political, or racial disparities (Liska & Messner, 1999). The feminist theory in the realm of criminal justice considers the level of inequality prevalent within the justice system that operates from a predominantly masculine approach. Feminist criminology was established during the 1970’s with concentration placed on the delinquent acts that were being committed by women (Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
Feminist theory is not considered to be one approach but rather a combination of varied criticisms (Brittan & Maynard, 1984) relating to the viewpoint of women (as cited in Simpson, 1989). Feminist theories are categorized as being a critical perspective representing a social response to (a) crime, (b) power, (c) inequality, (d) social class/role, (e) race, (f) ethnicity, and (g) gender (Barkan, 2009). There are five classifications of the feminist theory (a) liberal feminism, (b) radical feminism, (c) Marxist feminism, (d) socialist feminism, and (e) postmodern feminism (Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
Criminological Perspective of the Feminist Theory
The feminist theory may be considered a derivative of radical criminology in that theory is utilized and applied to the enforcement of social change (Vito et al., 2007). Feminist criminology was established when liberal feminist researchers observed the elimination of gender being integrated into the study of crime, perpetration conviction, and the results of being sentenced were areas that were being somewhat neglected from a criminological perspective (Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
The two prominent ways (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988) that the feminist perspective directly relates to the study of criminology is in (a) the relationship of theory of crime, and (b) the degree to which theory explains gender disparity in the examination of crime commission (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). From a traditional standpoint, criminological theory was framed by crime and delinquency that was utilized to explain criminality among males (Einstadter & Henry, 1995; Leonard, 1982; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004) versus that of females (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009).
Feminist theories apply to the study of criminology (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988) by providing a female’s perspective to knowledge while explicating the differences associated to gender throughout society and the judicial system (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). The application of feminism offers the opportunity to investigate the importance that one’s gender or role is to society (Gelsthorpe & Morris, 1990) with concern afforded to the characteristics that encourage dominance and females being the population that is primarily discriminated against (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009).
Adler (1975) researched the progressive rate of crime committed by females, purporting that the disparity between male and female crime commission was decreasing in regards to criminality (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Such a decline was attributed to the women’s movement and the modifications of traditional and customary roles of women. The women’s movement provided the opportunity for women to expand their social roles and unfortunately such growth provided the option for females to participate in deviant behavior (Adler, 1975) at a rate that was higher than normal (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Simon and Ahn-Redding (2005) categorized this criminological advancement as the “masculinity thesis” in which the prediction of equality among women and men in regards to crime commission was perceived to be a sociological inclination (Adler, 1975) towards opportunity (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009).
The nature of violence is cyclical (Rochefort, 1986) due to the social expectations and the evolution of problems from a sociological, political, and historical perspective. Barkan (2009) explored the social and structural conceptualization of masculinity and reported that behavior motivates criminality which makes elevated participation in deviant behavior a naturalistic element that is directly associated with the process of male socialization. Additionally, Butler (1990) noted the theoretical connotation of gender being constructed from social interaction and West and Zimmerman (1987) reported that gender dynamics are associated to the customary routines that are expected of each sex (as cited in Anderson, 2005). Naffine (1987) claimed the female socialization accompanies a sense of constructive features as well as a sense of reliance upon others (as cited in Barkan, 2009). However, this concept is not empirically supported (Archer, 2000; Sugerman & Frankel, 1996) because of the weak association that violent perpetration is a form of individuality for males (as cited in Anderson, 2009).
The objective in applying the feminism perspective is considered to be “deconstructive” as the aim is to confront and overturn the oppositions related to gender (Barrett & Phillips, 1992, p. 1). The next section presents an evaluation of both liberal and radical feminism and describes the application of both categories to sociopolitical and criminological research.
An Evaluation of Liberal and Radical Feminism
Liberal feminism embraces the role of gender and social status or expectations as being the basis of “oppression” or domination for women (Burgess-Proctor, 2006, p. 29). The liberal feminism approach is the most recognized perspective of feminism (Beasley, 1999). Eisenstein (1981) claimed that liberal feminism centered on the examination of “opportunity and freedom of choice” (as cited in Kraska, 2004, p. 235). Liberal feminists are also referred to “sameness or rule-equality feminists” (Eichner, 2001) with the concern of equality between the sexes being the goal to conquering gender neutrality (as cited in Hopkins & Koss, 2005). Liberal feminists assert that males are socially awarded power in ways that were also politically and economically unequal. Liberal feminism applies the “sameness and difference” models (Barak et al., 2001; MacKinnon, 1991; Sokoloff, Price, & Flavin, 2004) to investigate the relationship between gender and opportunity (as cited in Burgess-Proctor, 2006, p. 32).
From the liberal feminism approach, gender disproportion derived from the divergent roles and customary standards which encourage women and men to adapt (Pateman, 1987) to these expectations (as cited in Kraska, 2004). As a result, gender connotations are further perceptible within the political, occupational, social, and educational arenas. Bem (1974) claimed that liberal feminism activists encourage the unification of both genders to operate collectively with the goal of eliminating the discriminatory approach towards women throughout society (as cited in Kraska, 2004). It was the liberal feminists that had the most persuasion on the women’s movement with prominence on the reexamination of how “cultural arrangement” and “sex-role socialization” influences the subordination of females versus that of males
(Vito et al., 2007, p. 227). One criticism of liberal feminism (Simpson, 1989) is associated to gender discrimination and the negligibility associated to racial disparity between classes.
Radical feminists are categorized as critical feminists with importance placed on the structural elements of sexuality, meaning: (a) power, (b) violence, (c) authority, and (d) control (Vito et al., 2007). Radical feminism attributes male supremacy being the fundamental principle and cause of oppression for women (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Such subjugation is perceived to be the result of the social inequity that is oftentimes stimulated by authority and opportunity.
From a criminological viewpoint, radical feminists concentrate on the crimes that are committed against the female population by males (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Radical feminism implies that power and dominion are features that mold gender roles (Barak et al., 2001; MacKinnon, 1991) with concern placed on social inequities (as cited in Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
Simpson (1989) argued that radical feminism addresses the oppression associated to the sexuality of women and the authority that men have within relationships. Early radical feminists (Atkinson, 1974; Barry, 1979; Firestone, 1970; Rich, 1970) asserted sex more so than gender to be of concern with political (Millett, 1971) aspects associated to the oppression and subordinate positioning of women throughout society (as cited in Simpson, 1989). Dworkin (1989) claimed that “Radical feminists argue that patriarchy precedes capitalism and that gender relations are more important than class relations” (as cited in Barkan, 2009, p.250). There are similarities and differences between liberal feminism and radical feminism with both models utilized in the implementation of social and policy change (Beasley, 1999).
Liberal feminism is different from radical feminism in that the approach to investigating gender is fueled from an approach that is grounded on social opportunity while radical feminism is driven by the notion of domination and authority. With that being said, both forms of feminism are similar in that the concentration of oppression for women is at the forefront of concern and inequity is perceived to be political, social, and opportunistic (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). While liberal feminism is perceived to be a model for reformation, radical liberalism is revolutionary. Liberal feminism is associated with a welfare or political perspective with primary concern attributed to the reallocation of opportunity (Beasley, 1999).
Radical feminism is similar to liberal feminism in that concern on the oppression of women pertaining to that of social order is at the forefront of policy implementation. However, radical feminism is distinctly different from liberal feminism in that the perspective of oppression is sexually instigated with women sharing common characteristics with other women (Beasley, 1999). Although liberal feminism is the form of feminism that is most credited for the women’s movement, radical feminism may be perceived to be more profound and reflective of the oppression of women due to the sexual nature of inequality and gender.
Another distinctive characteristic between the two types of feminism is that liberal feminists embrace the equality of rights between men and women and radical feminists investigate the male domination and subordination in the form of violence, sex, or even occupational and physical opportunities. Beasley (1999) revealed that radical feminists encourage lesbianism as a method of emancipation from sexual domination and subordination that may be experienced in heterosexual relationships.
The Explanatory Power of Feminism in Regards to Criminology
Warren (1980) argued that a radical feminist desires for sexual equality to be attained through innovative strategies in modifying the structure of society (as cited in Shibles, 1989). It is implausible to examine the explanations of criminal behavior without consider the role that gender plays (Miller & Mullins, 2006) to the occurrence of crime (as cited in Barkan, 2009).
The application of the feminist theory to the incident of female violence (Davis & Hagen, 1992) may be referenced as: “(a) family violence, (b) marital violence, (c) spouse abuse, (d) wife assault, (e) wife beating, and (f) battered women” (as cited in Yick, 2001, p.548). The feminist psychoeducation approach became popular as time evolved in which women’s shelters and programs for batterers developed onto the forefront (Feder & Dugan, 2002). Akers and Sellers (2009) stated that the National Crime Victimization Survey and the American Correctional Association Survey report that nearly half of all female offenders in the prison system have a history of physical or sexual abuse. Much research using the feminist perspective embraces discrimination, victimization, and gender inequality.
Lancaster (1998) asserted that due to the social organization of male dominance within society in general, this authority is oftentimes transferred over into relationships, as males desire to express power or control over women with the purpose of maintaining their identity or engendered role.
Stark (2007) proposed a coercive control theory to convey the structural inequities associated to the power and control that men display over women (as cited in Anderson, 2009). The explanations regarding the motivation for violence and control can be examined from a cultural and structural perspective; however, violence committed against women from a patriarchal standing does not adequately explain why all men are not violent (Dutton, 1994) with women (as cited in Anderson, 2009). Patriarchy is perceived to be the prominent explanation (Schecter, 1982) for male power and control, due to the economic, social, and political aspects associated to the reinforcement of authority (as cited in Yick, 2001).
Dutton and Nicholls (2005) conducted a research study on the application of the feminist theory to the occurrence of domestic violence and the accuracy of reporting such incidents. From the feminist perspective of domestic violence, females are abused in relationships more than males and this is a concept that is culturally sustained; however, any violent behavior expressed by females is not based on cultural expectations but rather is perceived to be reactive and protective action against the controlling and dominating male (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005).
This conceptualization is confirmed in previously conducted research studies (Frohman & Grossman, 2001; Bograd, 1992) as approximately 91 to 95 % of all cases of domestic violence are perpetrated by males against females (as cited in Corvo & Johnson, 2003). Therefore, the concern was on males committing intimate partner violence rather than on females participating in violence (Corvo & Johnson, 2003). Theoretically, batterers that participate in domestic violence are perceived to be males, with aggressive tendencies that are culturally authorized (Dobash & Dobash, 1978) to conduct themselves in this manner (as cited in Dutton & Nicholls, 2005). Ehrensaft et al., (2004) argued that research conducted on only one gender in the examination of domestic violence in relationships should not be empirically validated due to the dynamics associated to the social, behavioral, and cultural elements of this form of violence.
The majority of the research pertaining to the application of the feminist theory to domestic violence has encompassed American social standards versus that of other cultures. Yick (2001) applied both the feminist perspective as well as the family violence perspective to investigate the Chinese population, representing 22.6 % (Uba, 1994) of Asian Americans. Domestic violence among the Asian population is more prevalent than realized (Kim, 1973) with approximately 25% reporting physical abuse (Yick, 1999) and 42% reporting psychological abuse (cited in Yick, 2001).
Data obtained from Asian women who are battered is oftentimes underreported (Huisman, 1996) due to the level of hopelessness associated to the situation and a sense of entrapment (O’Herron, 1993) is experienced (as cited in Yick, 2001). Culture plays a vital role in social positioning. For example, Honig and Hershatter (1988) reported that Chinese males develop with the understanding that they are much more highly valued than that of their female counterparts (as cited in Yick, 2001).
Maier (2008) applied the feminist theory to conduct research on rape crisis centers in which liberal and radical feminists purport rape to be the result of gender inequality. However, such a statement does not directly support the occurrence of same gender rape. Brush (1997) stated that the National Violence Against Women Act modified the perception of violence committed against females in certain jurisdictions. Feminist criminologists are accredited for addressing the gender disparities among both offenders and victims of crime. The application of the feminist perspective has been beneficial in the investigation of female perpetration patterns and crime rate, as well as describing the causes of female crime and how these explanations differ to that of the male population (Haney, 2003). In summation, feminist theories are utilized to explore the issues of female oppression in which culture, family systems, socialization, economic status, and gender role/expectations are evaluated with the goal of addressing policy change and empowering the female population to have equal opportunity and not perceived as being the inferior gender.
Criminological Perspective of Liberal and Radical Feminism
Criminology was established as a social science to investigate the problematic areas of control and organization from a sociological perspective (Messerschmidt, 1993). At one time, the feminist perspective of criminology was related to Marxism in that the explanation of a segregated society is framed by domesticated roles within the workforce. Marxist theorists believed that women experienced oppression in relation to their roles and rights within society; however, there are feminists that opposed the fundamental purpose of oppression being directly associated to production versus the classification of subordination regarding gender (Messerschmidt, 1993). Regarding the criminal justice system, Marxist theorists evaluate the relationship between those individuals of power and authority to the “political state, including its law and justice system (Akers, 1999, p. 185).
Female criminality may be the result of many factors of which feminist theorists have interpreted to be the result of social patterns that initiate with the label of gender. Feminist criminologists describe the stereotypical aspects associated to gender within the justice system in addition to class or racial elements that influence status (Haney, 2003). From a criminological perspective, liberal feminists differ from radical feminists. Liberal feminists view the causation of crime to be predominantly associated to the result of inequality among gender, power, and race (Moyer, 2001).
In the investigation of the social structure of deviant behaviorisms, Akers’s General Theory of social disorganization can be related to the feminist perspective through the examination of socialization, gender patterns, values, attitudes, and exposure to deviant delinquent behavior (Morash, 1999). Therefore, the feminist theory in conjunction with other theories offers an integrative approach in recognizing the dynamics that influence and shape behavior, whether it is conventional or unconventional. Adler and Simon (1975) applied the concept of liberal feminism to the field of criminology during the women’s movement to further examine the educational and occupational opportunities as well as the types of crime that was being committed by females (as cited in Moyer, 2001).
Radical feminists view the occurrence of crime to be the result of female oppression with an emphasis placed on sex, race, and society. Research conducted on a radical approach to criminology suggests that women are victimized by males more so than males victimized by females and further evaluation of the diversity associated to offending disparities is necessary to better understand the subordinate role of the female population (Moyer, 2001). Feministic research is related to activism; furthermore, the application of this perspective to the study of criminology has been most efficient in the area of victimization (Britton, 2000). Another focal point for feminist criminologists is to identify the disparities among gender regarding treatment from the criminal justice system.
Radical feminists believe that the authority of males dominates societal structure in such a manner that frames the socialization of power. Supremacy is therefore transferred in the operation of organizations and permits males to objectify women to being mere sex objects available for maltreatment (Solomon, 1992). Therefore, one may argue that gender does play a much stronger role in socialization more so than race or class and that the feminist perspective is pertinent to addressing the disparities among men and women. The radical feminism approach to criminology attributes sexual victimization and abuse to be the result of male power and authority within the family and society alike (Solomon, 1992). Radical feminists evaluate the diversity of treatment between males and females within the prison system as a result of male domination of female sexuality (Simpson, 1989).
Therefore, gender appears to be a significant factor pertaining to sentencing disparity versus that of race. The concerns of sentencing disparity for liberal feminists encompass fair and similar punishments received. From the liberal feminism perspective of criminology, females rarely participate in acts of delinquency in comparison to men and this is primarily based on the level of social engagements or commitments that prohibit the opportunity for crime commission (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Nevertheless, research (Daly, 1989) regarding sentencing disparity due to gender relations appears to be uncertain and the sentence given may in fact be affected by family status and the expectation of acquiring a sexual role that is familial (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). The female inmate population is comprised of less that 10% of all incarcerated prisoners (Vito et al., 2007).
The investigation of the disparate treatment of male to female offenders confirms that there is an advantageous feature for females versus that of males. This association is classified as the gender effect (Daly, 1989) in which punitive decisions are not as severe for females; furthermore, Figueira-McDonough (1985) characterized such patterns as the chivalry hypothesis or to even be a paternalistic approach (Akers & Sellers, 2009) to perceiving disparate sentencing between genders.
Bishop and Frazier (1992) investigated the treatment of juveniles, discovering that leniency was afforded to female delinquents versus male delinquents only in situations in which harsh crimes were committed; however, for offenses that were not serious, there was no discrepancy evident in the treatment received. Historically, empirical assessments were not developed to explicate female offending patterns but rather the criminality associated to the male population governed the scope of research that was conducted by criminologists (Vito et al., 2007). Additionally, concentration on female criminality was not a common phenomenon until after the women’s movement. Feminist theories are utilized to conduct both quantitative and qualitative research; furthermore, feminism is an efficient approach in the examination of social structure by providing an explanation to the social behaviors that permeate the dynamics pertaining to power and status (Bean, 2003).
Criticisms of Feminist Theory
Feminism presumes that the causes of oppression experienced by women are identified through social aspects pertaining to structure, roles, and opportunity (Barrett & Phillips, 1992). The feminist perspective is often related to issues and circumstances associated to oppression that is experienced by females. However, it may be argued that this viewpoint addresses the subordination in such a way that societal standards are consistently examining the inequality associated to gender versus the modification of certain elements that may be perceived to be unfair or problematic (Brush, 1997). Such a concept is dichotomous in that the feminist perspective at times may even authenticate the division between genders in a manner that further hinders constructive changes that could be implemented throughout society.
In other words, the feminist perspective at times nullifies the productive elements by concentrating on the vulnerable aspects pertaining to the female population. Denfeld (1995) examined the application of feminism to address issues and claimed that more often than not, the feminist perspective imposes a victim mind set while underwriting the concept of double standards associated to gender (as cited in Brush, 1997). Burgess-Proctor (2006) identified a blanketing effect that occurs when applying the feminist approach to research in which assumptions reduce the amount of diversity throughout society and consider all women to experience oppression in the same manner.
Daly and Stubbs (2006) reported that violence is a phenomenon experienced in an incongruent fashion, not a concept directly related to gender alone. Therefore, the feminist approach to conducting research limits the experiences of women as a whole and assumes that all women throughout society in various circumstances experience oppression. It may be argued that this perspective is not even a realistic concept in addressing the sociological elements pertaining to strain experienced throughout society that is completely unrelated to gender altogether. With that being said, the end result of feminist studies is oftentimes disputed to represent a “false universalism” (Zinn & Dill, 1996) of gender in relation to inequality and diversity (as cited in Burgess-Proctor, 2006, p. 35).
Harding (1986; 1987) asserted that feminism opposes objectivity in the realm of empirical research further raising objections to the male prominence associated to social science and behavior (as cited in Bean, 2003).
Through feminist jurisprudence, the law is perceived to be ideological and rather sexist, a result of gender relations (Haney, 2000). The feminist perspective may be viewed as being somewhat tautological in that the examination of bias that women experience throughout society is a bias perspective in conducting research in and of itself (Letherby, 2003). In all, the feminist approach to criminology is radical and controversial with eminence typically placed on the political application to implement social change.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the feminist theory is comprised of many perspectives and approaches in addressing the divergent aspects of dominance and power throughout society. Women and minorities often experience oppression and are considered to be the subordinate population within social, political, educational, and occupational settings (Akers & Sellers, 2009). Such gender differences are perceived to exist because of certain expectations or roles for sexes. Within the criminal justice system, the constraining position of women is prevalent as men continue to overshadow positions of authority.
The parsimonious role of females in the criminal justice system may be the result of the predominantly seeking employment opportunities within law enforcement. The application of the feminist theory entails the examination of social relationships from a gender perspective with centering on the oppression of women from a broader concern of socialization (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005).
Feminists often conduct research on the force and violence that men employ in relationships. Dobash and Dobash (1979) argued that those men who abuse their wives are behaving this way as a means of representing the cultural expectations that are esteemed in Western societies (as cited in Dutton & Nicholls, 2005). The problematic issues of power and control against women in all aspects are consistently placed at the forefront of feminist researchers; furthermore, disappointment pertaining to the structure of social standards regarding gender establishes disparity, value, status, and expectations. Such organization results in disproportionate worth of the inferior gender with investigation on culture, social organization, role progression, gender identification, and the application of theory to endorse policy change.
References
Akers, R.L., & Sellers, C.S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, K.L. (2009). Gendering coercive control. Violence Against Women, 15(12), 1444-1457. Doi: 10.1177/1077801209346837.
Barkan, S. E. (2009). Criminology: A sociological understanding. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Barrett, M., & Phillips, A. (1992). Destabilizing theory: Contemporary feminist debates. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=NgGRGDxEdNoC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Bean, P. (2003). Crime. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=HFeOTY8hMpoC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Beasley, C. (1999). What is feminism? An introduction to feminist theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Bv_9oDv4l38C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=similarities+of+liberal+feminism+and+radical+feminism&ots=frfl7LYiHk&sig=M_wiKwcKSVMoq--PFvFqZfCQc8A#v=onepage&q=similarities%20of%20liberal%20feminism%20and%20radical%20feminism&f=false
Bishop, D.M., & Frazier, C.E. (1992). Gender bias in juvenile justice processing: Implications of the JDP Act. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 1162-1186.
Britton, D.M. (2000). Feminism in criminology: Engendering the outlaw. The American Academy of Political and Social Science, (571 Annals 57). Retrieved from, http://www.lexisnexis.com.library.capella.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T9480248597&treeMax=false&sort=&docNo=1&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=0&treeWidth=0&nodeDisplayName=&cisb=&reloadPage=false.
Broidy, L.M. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39(1), 9-36.
Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3). 275-306. Doi: 10.1177/0022427897034003001.
Brush, L.D. (1997). Harm, moralism, and the struggle for the soul of feminism. Violence Against Women, 3(3), 237-256. Doi: 10.1177/10778010297003003002.
Burgess, R.L., & Akers, R.L. (1966). Social problems. In J.E. Jacoby (Ed.), Classics of Criminology (3rd ed., pp.275-282). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime: Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 27-47. Doi: 10.1177/1557085105282899.
Corvo, K., & Johnson, P.J. (2003). Vilification of the “batterer”. How blame shapes domestic violence policy and interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 259-281. Doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00060-X.
Daly, K. (1989). Neither conflict nor labeling nor paternalism will suffice: Intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, and family in criminal court decisions. Crime and Delinquency, 35¸136-168.
Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Daly, K., & Stubbs, J. (2006). Feminist engagement with restorative justice. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 1362-4806. Doi: 10.1177/1362480606059980.
Dutton, D.G., & Nicholls, T. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1-The conflict theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680-714. Doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2005.02.001.
Ehrensaft, M.K., Moffitt, T.E., & Caspi, A. (2004). Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: Men’s and women’s participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(2), 258-271.
Feder, L., & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward experiment. Justice Quarterly, 19(2).
Figueira-McDonough, J. (1985). Gender differences in informal processing: A look at charge bargaining and sentence reduction in Washington, D.C. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 101-133.
Haney, L.A. (2003). Feminist state theory: Applications to jurisprudence, criminology, and the welfare state. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 641-666. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.641.
Kraska, P.B. (2004). Theorizing criminal justice: Eight essential orientations. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Lancaster, E. (1998). Probation journal. Feminist Theory and Probation Practice, 45, 208-212. Doi: 10.1177/026455059804500403.
Liska, A. E., & Messner, S. F. (1999). Perspectives on crime and deviance. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Maier, S.L. (2008). Are rape crisis centers feminist organizations? Feminist Criminology, 3(2), 82-100. Doi: 10.1177/1557085107310623.
Messerschmidt, J.W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=xo0gTQg5oi8C&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Morash, M. (1999). A consideration of gender in relation to social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Theoretical Criminology, 3(4), 451-462. Doi: 10.1177/1362480699003004005.
Moyer, I.L. (2001). Criminological theories: Traditional and non-traditional voices and themes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=HoyDXRCVtAAC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Shibles, W. (1989). Radical feminism, humanism and women’s studies. Innovative Higher Education, 14(1), 35-47. Doi: 10.1007/BF00889761.
Simpson, S.S. (1989). Feminist theory, crime, and justice. Criminology, 27(4), 606-617.
Solomon, J.C. (1992). Child sexual abuse by family members: A radical feminist perspective. Sex Roles, 27(9/10), 473-485. Doi:10.1007/BF00290004.
Vito, G.F., & Maahs, J.A., & Holmes, R.M. (2007). Criminology: Theory, research, and policy. (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Yick, A.G. (2001). Feminist theory and status inconsistency theory: Application to domestic violence in Chinese immigrant families. Violence Against Women, 7(5), 545-562. Doi: 10.1177/10778010122182596.
Although gender conflict is a social threat, it is not perceived to be physically ailing or as socially harmful as economic, political, or racial disparities (Liska & Messner, 1999). The feminist theory in the realm of criminal justice considers the level of inequality prevalent within the justice system that operates from a predominantly masculine approach. Feminist criminology was established during the 1970’s with concentration placed on the delinquent acts that were being committed by women (Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
Feminist theory is not considered to be one approach but rather a combination of varied criticisms (Brittan & Maynard, 1984) relating to the viewpoint of women (as cited in Simpson, 1989). Feminist theories are categorized as being a critical perspective representing a social response to (a) crime, (b) power, (c) inequality, (d) social class/role, (e) race, (f) ethnicity, and (g) gender (Barkan, 2009). There are five classifications of the feminist theory (a) liberal feminism, (b) radical feminism, (c) Marxist feminism, (d) socialist feminism, and (e) postmodern feminism (Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
Criminological Perspective of the Feminist Theory
The feminist theory may be considered a derivative of radical criminology in that theory is utilized and applied to the enforcement of social change (Vito et al., 2007). Feminist criminology was established when liberal feminist researchers observed the elimination of gender being integrated into the study of crime, perpetration conviction, and the results of being sentenced were areas that were being somewhat neglected from a criminological perspective (Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
The two prominent ways (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988) that the feminist perspective directly relates to the study of criminology is in (a) the relationship of theory of crime, and (b) the degree to which theory explains gender disparity in the examination of crime commission (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). From a traditional standpoint, criminological theory was framed by crime and delinquency that was utilized to explain criminality among males (Einstadter & Henry, 1995; Leonard, 1982; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004) versus that of females (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009).
Feminist theories apply to the study of criminology (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988) by providing a female’s perspective to knowledge while explicating the differences associated to gender throughout society and the judicial system (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). The application of feminism offers the opportunity to investigate the importance that one’s gender or role is to society (Gelsthorpe & Morris, 1990) with concern afforded to the characteristics that encourage dominance and females being the population that is primarily discriminated against (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009).
Adler (1975) researched the progressive rate of crime committed by females, purporting that the disparity between male and female crime commission was decreasing in regards to criminality (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Such a decline was attributed to the women’s movement and the modifications of traditional and customary roles of women. The women’s movement provided the opportunity for women to expand their social roles and unfortunately such growth provided the option for females to participate in deviant behavior (Adler, 1975) at a rate that was higher than normal (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Simon and Ahn-Redding (2005) categorized this criminological advancement as the “masculinity thesis” in which the prediction of equality among women and men in regards to crime commission was perceived to be a sociological inclination (Adler, 1975) towards opportunity (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009).
The nature of violence is cyclical (Rochefort, 1986) due to the social expectations and the evolution of problems from a sociological, political, and historical perspective. Barkan (2009) explored the social and structural conceptualization of masculinity and reported that behavior motivates criminality which makes elevated participation in deviant behavior a naturalistic element that is directly associated with the process of male socialization. Additionally, Butler (1990) noted the theoretical connotation of gender being constructed from social interaction and West and Zimmerman (1987) reported that gender dynamics are associated to the customary routines that are expected of each sex (as cited in Anderson, 2005). Naffine (1987) claimed the female socialization accompanies a sense of constructive features as well as a sense of reliance upon others (as cited in Barkan, 2009). However, this concept is not empirically supported (Archer, 2000; Sugerman & Frankel, 1996) because of the weak association that violent perpetration is a form of individuality for males (as cited in Anderson, 2009).
The objective in applying the feminism perspective is considered to be “deconstructive” as the aim is to confront and overturn the oppositions related to gender (Barrett & Phillips, 1992, p. 1). The next section presents an evaluation of both liberal and radical feminism and describes the application of both categories to sociopolitical and criminological research.
An Evaluation of Liberal and Radical Feminism
Liberal feminism embraces the role of gender and social status or expectations as being the basis of “oppression” or domination for women (Burgess-Proctor, 2006, p. 29). The liberal feminism approach is the most recognized perspective of feminism (Beasley, 1999). Eisenstein (1981) claimed that liberal feminism centered on the examination of “opportunity and freedom of choice” (as cited in Kraska, 2004, p. 235). Liberal feminists are also referred to “sameness or rule-equality feminists” (Eichner, 2001) with the concern of equality between the sexes being the goal to conquering gender neutrality (as cited in Hopkins & Koss, 2005). Liberal feminists assert that males are socially awarded power in ways that were also politically and economically unequal. Liberal feminism applies the “sameness and difference” models (Barak et al., 2001; MacKinnon, 1991; Sokoloff, Price, & Flavin, 2004) to investigate the relationship between gender and opportunity (as cited in Burgess-Proctor, 2006, p. 32).
From the liberal feminism approach, gender disproportion derived from the divergent roles and customary standards which encourage women and men to adapt (Pateman, 1987) to these expectations (as cited in Kraska, 2004). As a result, gender connotations are further perceptible within the political, occupational, social, and educational arenas. Bem (1974) claimed that liberal feminism activists encourage the unification of both genders to operate collectively with the goal of eliminating the discriminatory approach towards women throughout society (as cited in Kraska, 2004). It was the liberal feminists that had the most persuasion on the women’s movement with prominence on the reexamination of how “cultural arrangement” and “sex-role socialization” influences the subordination of females versus that of males
(Vito et al., 2007, p. 227). One criticism of liberal feminism (Simpson, 1989) is associated to gender discrimination and the negligibility associated to racial disparity between classes.
Radical feminists are categorized as critical feminists with importance placed on the structural elements of sexuality, meaning: (a) power, (b) violence, (c) authority, and (d) control (Vito et al., 2007). Radical feminism attributes male supremacy being the fundamental principle and cause of oppression for women (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Such subjugation is perceived to be the result of the social inequity that is oftentimes stimulated by authority and opportunity.
From a criminological viewpoint, radical feminists concentrate on the crimes that are committed against the female population by males (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Radical feminism implies that power and dominion are features that mold gender roles (Barak et al., 2001; MacKinnon, 1991) with concern placed on social inequities (as cited in Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
Simpson (1989) argued that radical feminism addresses the oppression associated to the sexuality of women and the authority that men have within relationships. Early radical feminists (Atkinson, 1974; Barry, 1979; Firestone, 1970; Rich, 1970) asserted sex more so than gender to be of concern with political (Millett, 1971) aspects associated to the oppression and subordinate positioning of women throughout society (as cited in Simpson, 1989). Dworkin (1989) claimed that “Radical feminists argue that patriarchy precedes capitalism and that gender relations are more important than class relations” (as cited in Barkan, 2009, p.250). There are similarities and differences between liberal feminism and radical feminism with both models utilized in the implementation of social and policy change (Beasley, 1999).
Liberal feminism is different from radical feminism in that the approach to investigating gender is fueled from an approach that is grounded on social opportunity while radical feminism is driven by the notion of domination and authority. With that being said, both forms of feminism are similar in that the concentration of oppression for women is at the forefront of concern and inequity is perceived to be political, social, and opportunistic (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). While liberal feminism is perceived to be a model for reformation, radical liberalism is revolutionary. Liberal feminism is associated with a welfare or political perspective with primary concern attributed to the reallocation of opportunity (Beasley, 1999).
Radical feminism is similar to liberal feminism in that concern on the oppression of women pertaining to that of social order is at the forefront of policy implementation. However, radical feminism is distinctly different from liberal feminism in that the perspective of oppression is sexually instigated with women sharing common characteristics with other women (Beasley, 1999). Although liberal feminism is the form of feminism that is most credited for the women’s movement, radical feminism may be perceived to be more profound and reflective of the oppression of women due to the sexual nature of inequality and gender.
Another distinctive characteristic between the two types of feminism is that liberal feminists embrace the equality of rights between men and women and radical feminists investigate the male domination and subordination in the form of violence, sex, or even occupational and physical opportunities. Beasley (1999) revealed that radical feminists encourage lesbianism as a method of emancipation from sexual domination and subordination that may be experienced in heterosexual relationships.
The Explanatory Power of Feminism in Regards to Criminology
Warren (1980) argued that a radical feminist desires for sexual equality to be attained through innovative strategies in modifying the structure of society (as cited in Shibles, 1989). It is implausible to examine the explanations of criminal behavior without consider the role that gender plays (Miller & Mullins, 2006) to the occurrence of crime (as cited in Barkan, 2009).
The application of the feminist theory to the incident of female violence (Davis & Hagen, 1992) may be referenced as: “(a) family violence, (b) marital violence, (c) spouse abuse, (d) wife assault, (e) wife beating, and (f) battered women” (as cited in Yick, 2001, p.548). The feminist psychoeducation approach became popular as time evolved in which women’s shelters and programs for batterers developed onto the forefront (Feder & Dugan, 2002). Akers and Sellers (2009) stated that the National Crime Victimization Survey and the American Correctional Association Survey report that nearly half of all female offenders in the prison system have a history of physical or sexual abuse. Much research using the feminist perspective embraces discrimination, victimization, and gender inequality.
Lancaster (1998) asserted that due to the social organization of male dominance within society in general, this authority is oftentimes transferred over into relationships, as males desire to express power or control over women with the purpose of maintaining their identity or engendered role.
Stark (2007) proposed a coercive control theory to convey the structural inequities associated to the power and control that men display over women (as cited in Anderson, 2009). The explanations regarding the motivation for violence and control can be examined from a cultural and structural perspective; however, violence committed against women from a patriarchal standing does not adequately explain why all men are not violent (Dutton, 1994) with women (as cited in Anderson, 2009). Patriarchy is perceived to be the prominent explanation (Schecter, 1982) for male power and control, due to the economic, social, and political aspects associated to the reinforcement of authority (as cited in Yick, 2001).
Dutton and Nicholls (2005) conducted a research study on the application of the feminist theory to the occurrence of domestic violence and the accuracy of reporting such incidents. From the feminist perspective of domestic violence, females are abused in relationships more than males and this is a concept that is culturally sustained; however, any violent behavior expressed by females is not based on cultural expectations but rather is perceived to be reactive and protective action against the controlling and dominating male (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005).
This conceptualization is confirmed in previously conducted research studies (Frohman & Grossman, 2001; Bograd, 1992) as approximately 91 to 95 % of all cases of domestic violence are perpetrated by males against females (as cited in Corvo & Johnson, 2003). Therefore, the concern was on males committing intimate partner violence rather than on females participating in violence (Corvo & Johnson, 2003). Theoretically, batterers that participate in domestic violence are perceived to be males, with aggressive tendencies that are culturally authorized (Dobash & Dobash, 1978) to conduct themselves in this manner (as cited in Dutton & Nicholls, 2005). Ehrensaft et al., (2004) argued that research conducted on only one gender in the examination of domestic violence in relationships should not be empirically validated due to the dynamics associated to the social, behavioral, and cultural elements of this form of violence.
The majority of the research pertaining to the application of the feminist theory to domestic violence has encompassed American social standards versus that of other cultures. Yick (2001) applied both the feminist perspective as well as the family violence perspective to investigate the Chinese population, representing 22.6 % (Uba, 1994) of Asian Americans. Domestic violence among the Asian population is more prevalent than realized (Kim, 1973) with approximately 25% reporting physical abuse (Yick, 1999) and 42% reporting psychological abuse (cited in Yick, 2001).
Data obtained from Asian women who are battered is oftentimes underreported (Huisman, 1996) due to the level of hopelessness associated to the situation and a sense of entrapment (O’Herron, 1993) is experienced (as cited in Yick, 2001). Culture plays a vital role in social positioning. For example, Honig and Hershatter (1988) reported that Chinese males develop with the understanding that they are much more highly valued than that of their female counterparts (as cited in Yick, 2001).
Maier (2008) applied the feminist theory to conduct research on rape crisis centers in which liberal and radical feminists purport rape to be the result of gender inequality. However, such a statement does not directly support the occurrence of same gender rape. Brush (1997) stated that the National Violence Against Women Act modified the perception of violence committed against females in certain jurisdictions. Feminist criminologists are accredited for addressing the gender disparities among both offenders and victims of crime. The application of the feminist perspective has been beneficial in the investigation of female perpetration patterns and crime rate, as well as describing the causes of female crime and how these explanations differ to that of the male population (Haney, 2003). In summation, feminist theories are utilized to explore the issues of female oppression in which culture, family systems, socialization, economic status, and gender role/expectations are evaluated with the goal of addressing policy change and empowering the female population to have equal opportunity and not perceived as being the inferior gender.
Criminological Perspective of Liberal and Radical Feminism
Criminology was established as a social science to investigate the problematic areas of control and organization from a sociological perspective (Messerschmidt, 1993). At one time, the feminist perspective of criminology was related to Marxism in that the explanation of a segregated society is framed by domesticated roles within the workforce. Marxist theorists believed that women experienced oppression in relation to their roles and rights within society; however, there are feminists that opposed the fundamental purpose of oppression being directly associated to production versus the classification of subordination regarding gender (Messerschmidt, 1993). Regarding the criminal justice system, Marxist theorists evaluate the relationship between those individuals of power and authority to the “political state, including its law and justice system (Akers, 1999, p. 185).
Female criminality may be the result of many factors of which feminist theorists have interpreted to be the result of social patterns that initiate with the label of gender. Feminist criminologists describe the stereotypical aspects associated to gender within the justice system in addition to class or racial elements that influence status (Haney, 2003). From a criminological perspective, liberal feminists differ from radical feminists. Liberal feminists view the causation of crime to be predominantly associated to the result of inequality among gender, power, and race (Moyer, 2001).
In the investigation of the social structure of deviant behaviorisms, Akers’s General Theory of social disorganization can be related to the feminist perspective through the examination of socialization, gender patterns, values, attitudes, and exposure to deviant delinquent behavior (Morash, 1999). Therefore, the feminist theory in conjunction with other theories offers an integrative approach in recognizing the dynamics that influence and shape behavior, whether it is conventional or unconventional. Adler and Simon (1975) applied the concept of liberal feminism to the field of criminology during the women’s movement to further examine the educational and occupational opportunities as well as the types of crime that was being committed by females (as cited in Moyer, 2001).
Radical feminists view the occurrence of crime to be the result of female oppression with an emphasis placed on sex, race, and society. Research conducted on a radical approach to criminology suggests that women are victimized by males more so than males victimized by females and further evaluation of the diversity associated to offending disparities is necessary to better understand the subordinate role of the female population (Moyer, 2001). Feministic research is related to activism; furthermore, the application of this perspective to the study of criminology has been most efficient in the area of victimization (Britton, 2000). Another focal point for feminist criminologists is to identify the disparities among gender regarding treatment from the criminal justice system.
Radical feminists believe that the authority of males dominates societal structure in such a manner that frames the socialization of power. Supremacy is therefore transferred in the operation of organizations and permits males to objectify women to being mere sex objects available for maltreatment (Solomon, 1992). Therefore, one may argue that gender does play a much stronger role in socialization more so than race or class and that the feminist perspective is pertinent to addressing the disparities among men and women. The radical feminism approach to criminology attributes sexual victimization and abuse to be the result of male power and authority within the family and society alike (Solomon, 1992). Radical feminists evaluate the diversity of treatment between males and females within the prison system as a result of male domination of female sexuality (Simpson, 1989).
Therefore, gender appears to be a significant factor pertaining to sentencing disparity versus that of race. The concerns of sentencing disparity for liberal feminists encompass fair and similar punishments received. From the liberal feminism perspective of criminology, females rarely participate in acts of delinquency in comparison to men and this is primarily based on the level of social engagements or commitments that prohibit the opportunity for crime commission (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Nevertheless, research (Daly, 1989) regarding sentencing disparity due to gender relations appears to be uncertain and the sentence given may in fact be affected by family status and the expectation of acquiring a sexual role that is familial (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). The female inmate population is comprised of less that 10% of all incarcerated prisoners (Vito et al., 2007).
The investigation of the disparate treatment of male to female offenders confirms that there is an advantageous feature for females versus that of males. This association is classified as the gender effect (Daly, 1989) in which punitive decisions are not as severe for females; furthermore, Figueira-McDonough (1985) characterized such patterns as the chivalry hypothesis or to even be a paternalistic approach (Akers & Sellers, 2009) to perceiving disparate sentencing between genders.
Bishop and Frazier (1992) investigated the treatment of juveniles, discovering that leniency was afforded to female delinquents versus male delinquents only in situations in which harsh crimes were committed; however, for offenses that were not serious, there was no discrepancy evident in the treatment received. Historically, empirical assessments were not developed to explicate female offending patterns but rather the criminality associated to the male population governed the scope of research that was conducted by criminologists (Vito et al., 2007). Additionally, concentration on female criminality was not a common phenomenon until after the women’s movement. Feminist theories are utilized to conduct both quantitative and qualitative research; furthermore, feminism is an efficient approach in the examination of social structure by providing an explanation to the social behaviors that permeate the dynamics pertaining to power and status (Bean, 2003).
Criticisms of Feminist Theory
Feminism presumes that the causes of oppression experienced by women are identified through social aspects pertaining to structure, roles, and opportunity (Barrett & Phillips, 1992). The feminist perspective is often related to issues and circumstances associated to oppression that is experienced by females. However, it may be argued that this viewpoint addresses the subordination in such a way that societal standards are consistently examining the inequality associated to gender versus the modification of certain elements that may be perceived to be unfair or problematic (Brush, 1997). Such a concept is dichotomous in that the feminist perspective at times may even authenticate the division between genders in a manner that further hinders constructive changes that could be implemented throughout society.
In other words, the feminist perspective at times nullifies the productive elements by concentrating on the vulnerable aspects pertaining to the female population. Denfeld (1995) examined the application of feminism to address issues and claimed that more often than not, the feminist perspective imposes a victim mind set while underwriting the concept of double standards associated to gender (as cited in Brush, 1997). Burgess-Proctor (2006) identified a blanketing effect that occurs when applying the feminist approach to research in which assumptions reduce the amount of diversity throughout society and consider all women to experience oppression in the same manner.
Daly and Stubbs (2006) reported that violence is a phenomenon experienced in an incongruent fashion, not a concept directly related to gender alone. Therefore, the feminist approach to conducting research limits the experiences of women as a whole and assumes that all women throughout society in various circumstances experience oppression. It may be argued that this perspective is not even a realistic concept in addressing the sociological elements pertaining to strain experienced throughout society that is completely unrelated to gender altogether. With that being said, the end result of feminist studies is oftentimes disputed to represent a “false universalism” (Zinn & Dill, 1996) of gender in relation to inequality and diversity (as cited in Burgess-Proctor, 2006, p. 35).
Harding (1986; 1987) asserted that feminism opposes objectivity in the realm of empirical research further raising objections to the male prominence associated to social science and behavior (as cited in Bean, 2003).
Through feminist jurisprudence, the law is perceived to be ideological and rather sexist, a result of gender relations (Haney, 2000). The feminist perspective may be viewed as being somewhat tautological in that the examination of bias that women experience throughout society is a bias perspective in conducting research in and of itself (Letherby, 2003). In all, the feminist approach to criminology is radical and controversial with eminence typically placed on the political application to implement social change.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the feminist theory is comprised of many perspectives and approaches in addressing the divergent aspects of dominance and power throughout society. Women and minorities often experience oppression and are considered to be the subordinate population within social, political, educational, and occupational settings (Akers & Sellers, 2009). Such gender differences are perceived to exist because of certain expectations or roles for sexes. Within the criminal justice system, the constraining position of women is prevalent as men continue to overshadow positions of authority.
The parsimonious role of females in the criminal justice system may be the result of the predominantly seeking employment opportunities within law enforcement. The application of the feminist theory entails the examination of social relationships from a gender perspective with centering on the oppression of women from a broader concern of socialization (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005).
Feminists often conduct research on the force and violence that men employ in relationships. Dobash and Dobash (1979) argued that those men who abuse their wives are behaving this way as a means of representing the cultural expectations that are esteemed in Western societies (as cited in Dutton & Nicholls, 2005). The problematic issues of power and control against women in all aspects are consistently placed at the forefront of feminist researchers; furthermore, disappointment pertaining to the structure of social standards regarding gender establishes disparity, value, status, and expectations. Such organization results in disproportionate worth of the inferior gender with investigation on culture, social organization, role progression, gender identification, and the application of theory to endorse policy change.
References
Akers, R.L., & Sellers, C.S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, K.L. (2009). Gendering coercive control. Violence Against Women, 15(12), 1444-1457. Doi: 10.1177/1077801209346837.
Barkan, S. E. (2009). Criminology: A sociological understanding. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Barrett, M., & Phillips, A. (1992). Destabilizing theory: Contemporary feminist debates. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=NgGRGDxEdNoC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Bean, P. (2003). Crime. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=HFeOTY8hMpoC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Beasley, C. (1999). What is feminism? An introduction to feminist theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Bv_9oDv4l38C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=similarities+of+liberal+feminism+and+radical+feminism&ots=frfl7LYiHk&sig=M_wiKwcKSVMoq--PFvFqZfCQc8A#v=onepage&q=similarities%20of%20liberal%20feminism%20and%20radical%20feminism&f=false
Bishop, D.M., & Frazier, C.E. (1992). Gender bias in juvenile justice processing: Implications of the JDP Act. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 1162-1186.
Britton, D.M. (2000). Feminism in criminology: Engendering the outlaw. The American Academy of Political and Social Science, (571 Annals 57). Retrieved from, http://www.lexisnexis.com.library.capella.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T9480248597&treeMax=false&sort=&docNo=1&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=0&treeWidth=0&nodeDisplayName=&cisb=&reloadPage=false.
Broidy, L.M. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39(1), 9-36.
Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3). 275-306. Doi: 10.1177/0022427897034003001.
Brush, L.D. (1997). Harm, moralism, and the struggle for the soul of feminism. Violence Against Women, 3(3), 237-256. Doi: 10.1177/10778010297003003002.
Burgess, R.L., & Akers, R.L. (1966). Social problems. In J.E. Jacoby (Ed.), Classics of Criminology (3rd ed., pp.275-282). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime: Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 27-47. Doi: 10.1177/1557085105282899.
Corvo, K., & Johnson, P.J. (2003). Vilification of the “batterer”. How blame shapes domestic violence policy and interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 259-281. Doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00060-X.
Daly, K. (1989). Neither conflict nor labeling nor paternalism will suffice: Intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, and family in criminal court decisions. Crime and Delinquency, 35¸136-168.
Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Daly, K., & Stubbs, J. (2006). Feminist engagement with restorative justice. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 1362-4806. Doi: 10.1177/1362480606059980.
Dutton, D.G., & Nicholls, T. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1-The conflict theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680-714. Doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2005.02.001.
Ehrensaft, M.K., Moffitt, T.E., & Caspi, A. (2004). Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: Men’s and women’s participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(2), 258-271.
Feder, L., & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward experiment. Justice Quarterly, 19(2).
Figueira-McDonough, J. (1985). Gender differences in informal processing: A look at charge bargaining and sentence reduction in Washington, D.C. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 101-133.
Haney, L.A. (2003). Feminist state theory: Applications to jurisprudence, criminology, and the welfare state. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 641-666. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.641.
Kraska, P.B. (2004). Theorizing criminal justice: Eight essential orientations. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Lancaster, E. (1998). Probation journal. Feminist Theory and Probation Practice, 45, 208-212. Doi: 10.1177/026455059804500403.
Liska, A. E., & Messner, S. F. (1999). Perspectives on crime and deviance. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Maier, S.L. (2008). Are rape crisis centers feminist organizations? Feminist Criminology, 3(2), 82-100. Doi: 10.1177/1557085107310623.
Messerschmidt, J.W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=xo0gTQg5oi8C&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Morash, M. (1999). A consideration of gender in relation to social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Theoretical Criminology, 3(4), 451-462. Doi: 10.1177/1362480699003004005.
Moyer, I.L. (2001). Criminological theories: Traditional and non-traditional voices and themes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=HoyDXRCVtAAC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Shibles, W. (1989). Radical feminism, humanism and women’s studies. Innovative Higher Education, 14(1), 35-47. Doi: 10.1007/BF00889761.
Simpson, S.S. (1989). Feminist theory, crime, and justice. Criminology, 27(4), 606-617.
Solomon, J.C. (1992). Child sexual abuse by family members: A radical feminist perspective. Sex Roles, 27(9/10), 473-485. Doi:10.1007/BF00290004.
Vito, G.F., & Maahs, J.A., & Holmes, R.M. (2007). Criminology: Theory, research, and policy. (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Yick, A.G. (2001). Feminist theory and status inconsistency theory: Application to domestic violence in Chinese immigrant families. Violence Against Women, 7(5), 545-562. Doi: 10.1177/10778010122182596.
0 comments:
Post a Comment