Men Are Aggressors And Women Are Victims Criminology Essay
‘Men are attackers and adult females are victims ‘ is a really stereotyped position might be held by the bulk of society and by some of the first criminologists ; nevertheless criminology has evolved to seek and understand how this stereotype has come to be seen as the norm within offense. They besides try researching whether this stereotype is in fact true or whether there are assorted differences.To understand the portion of this stereotype that adult females are victims we must first look into the function of a victim.
The function of a victim is indispensable in originating the condemnable justness procedure as the bulk of offenses which come to the attending of the constabulary are reported to them by victims of these offenses ; their two functions within the condemnable justness system are that of describing the offense and supplying evidenced that the offense has been committed. This function of the victim is different than in yearss gone by when the offense was controlled by single and community self-regulation, as offenses were seen to be a private affair between wrongdoer and victim and so it was up to the victim and their household to make up one’s mind if they went to tribunal or non and would play the function of prosecuting officer instead than victim.Nothings Christie ( 1986 ) explained how in the function of victim there is an ideal victim such as an aged adult female or a kid, both seen as an ideal victim as they are seen as weak and deserving of aid and attention, on the other manus immature work forces are seen every bit non as deserving of aid and sympathetically and so are non as likely to be seen as true victims. This shows that the stereotype of lone adult females as victims and work forces as attackers is non true as it may merely be that work forces are non seen as much of victims of an offense than a adult female might be.There are many societal variables which determine a individual ‘s likeliness to be a victim, one of which is gender.
It has been shown from offense studies that work forces are in existent fact more likely to be victims of violent onslaughts but that adult females are more likely to be victimised in the place. This shows how work forces can be victims and non merely the attackers who commit the Acts of the Apostless, but it besides shows how adult females can besides still be victims and that possibly different genders are victims of different types of onslaughts. For illustration “ work forces aged between 17 and 32 make up 7 per cent of the population but 25 per cent of all slaying victims ” ( Dorling, 2012 ) this is a greater per centum than adult females between these ages that are murdered turn outing how work forces can be more likely to be a victim than a adult females in certain offenses. This is true besides by the fact that adult females are more likely to be the victim of reported and unreported sexual offenses and are more likely to see repeated unwanted attending such as stalking than work forces. However when it comes to a whole figure of offenses it can be hard to do opinions as to whether work forces or adult females are more likely to be victims as there are many signifiers on gendered offense such as forced harlotry and sex trafficking which are more likely to hold female victims.
A survey conducted by the NSPCC in 2009 on people aged between 13-18 found that a 3rd of misss and merely 16 % of male childs had experienced sexual force ( Barter et al. , 2009 ) This shows how misss are more likely to be a victim of this type of offense ; although this statistics may non be wholly accurate because some people particularly male childs may non desire to acknowledge to being raped as it is more demeaning because of their gender. The survey besides showed how 12 % of male childs and merely 3 % of misss reported perpetrating sexual force against their spouses ( Barter et al.
, 2009 ) ; so this could be used to demo how work forces are more likely to be attackers ; nevertheless these statistics are related to specific offenses and non all reported offenses and so are non proof of the ‘men are attackers and adult females are victims ‘ stereotype.Work force as victims challenges the victim stereotype about who can be a victim, the deficiency of apprehension of possible impacts on work forces this deficiency of sensed victimhood can hold points to the deficiency of large-scale studies on male exploitation, although these studies may non be answered right as work forces could comprehend being known as a victim as a menace to their maleness. This means work forces may non reply studies right as they do non desire to be seen as a victim or they do non see themselves as a victim such as in instances of domestic maltreatment as if they were attacked by their female spouse they may non see it as a existent offense as no existent harm was done to themselves.There has been a kind of gender nearsightedness within criminology in which early criminologists did non look into offenses committed by adult females, Heidensohn ( 1968 ) how this exclusion of adult females from criminology excluded half of society in understanding aberrance and that other facets of adult females and their lives are of involvement to societal scientific disciplines and that as gender differences are good reported in offense such as work forces perpetrating more offense on the whole so adult females why so where they non good investigated. When criminologists did look into female piquing they did non travel as in deepness with male criminology.Cesare Lombroso was an early rationalist criminologist who used countenance to explicate why some people commit offenses making and anthropological criminology in which offense was thought to be inherited and that felons could be identified from their physical characteristics and that all felons had certain physical characteristics in common such as a little or weak mentum and long weaponries. Lombroso penned a book with Guglielmo Ferrero in 1895, The Female Offender in this they tried to explicate female felons. They stated how when a adult female does turn to offense how she is a “ monster ” and that “ her evil must hold been tremendous before it could prevail over so many obstructions.
” They besides held the belief like many of their clip that adult females ranked lower on the evolutionary graduated table than work forces, so were more crude and so they suggested that female felons would non be every bit seeable as male felons and would demo fewer marks of degeneration than males. So Lombroso and Ferrero stated how female criminalism was down to their biological science and a female felon is an unnatural adult female but besides as they were like a adult male “ frequently more fierce ” ( Ferrero and Lombroso, 1895 ) . So although early criminologists were cognizant of female wrongdoers they put this down to the abnormalcy of a adult females being manlier and fierce therefore it is non merely a adult male who can be an attacker.
Further geographic expedition into any other causes of female criminalism saloon abnormalcy and masculine traits were non much looked into until the following century after The Female Offender was published.The absence of qualitative research besides meant that adult females were neglected from criminology, they are besides seen and represented as helpmeets instead than provokers of serious offense such as Ian Brady and Myra Hindley in the 1960 ‘s ; he was seen as the provoker and she as a manipulated assistant in killing and concealing the slayings of several kids. Some criminological theories attempted to explicate female piquing such as the acquisition theories which explain it by the fact male offense was glamorised in the media and encouraged adult females to perpetrate offense.Because of this deficiency of idea into female wrongdoers they were frequently seen as unnatural to other females as a felon can non be impersonal when the norm is taken to be male and so adult females are measured to the grade to which they deviated from this norm and if they did pique and therefore would be institutionalised for their ain protection. Because of this old intervention many think this lenience has carried on into the current condemnable justness system doing the gallantry argument ( Pollak, 1950 ) where a female wrongdoer might non be treated or judged every bit harshly as a male opposite number by a for case a male justice who is condemning her for a offense. This thought of female wrongdoers being unnatural from the remainder of adult females reinforced the adult females as victims non as the attackers stereotype and Pollak ( 1950 ) negotiations about this behavior from certain adult females intending them being seen as oblique adult females. Female felons are seen as twice every bit aberrant as they have gone against the jurisprudence and besides against their prescribed gender function ; this dual aberrance has reinforced the stereotype of adult females as victims so hence they have non been twice as aberrant even though in perpetrating the same acts a adult male would merely be seen as being aberrant by traveling against the jurisprudence and that his gender function is played along with as aberrance is seen as a more male trait and therefore males are seen to be more likely an attacker than a victim.
This silence of female piquing in criminology could be explained by societal gender inequalities, a low public profile as female offense could be seen as the ‘wrong ‘ kind of offense, and it could besides be hard to suit gender positions in traditional criminological theories, the traditional feminization of victimhood and masculinization of aggression. There have been several theories and positions as to why adult females are possibly perpetrating more offenses such as Simon ( 1993 ) “ adult females ‘s greater chances and accomplishments… increased engagement in labour force and old ages of schooling, have increased their leaning to perpetrate condemnable Acts of the Apostless, particularly belongings and white-collar discourtesies. ” Adler ( 1975 ) explains how adult females seem to be going more violent and aggressive and that possibly this is why they are perpetrating more offenses.Because of this deficiency of research into female wrongdoers, feminist criminology emerged in the 1960 ‘s and 1970 ‘s, as it could non be doubted that female felons existed and look to be on the rise as does female delinquency although this could be due to the media sensationalising female wrongdoers “ there has been a regular besieging of intelligence narratives with basically the same subject – misss are in packs and their behavior in these packs does non suit the stereotyped and traditional stereotype ” ( Chesney-Lind, 1997 ) . There are many different sub-sects of feminist theory each dealt with specific jobs such as broad feminism which deals with favoritism.
This rise of research into female criminalism lead in bend to more geographic expedition and a deeper apprehension of male offense and maleness within offense and the differences between work forces and adult females and piquing ; demoing that maleness although perceived as a male condemnable factor could besides be evident in adult females and that maleness is non inactive and can be effected by context. There is besides no clear impression of masculine individuality significance that although aggression is seen as a masculine trait that it can be evident in both sexes and therefore the stereotype that merely work forces can be attackers is false.Feminist criminology ‘s concern is the marginalization of adult females as capable affairs in other criminological theories, because of the deficiency of speculating female wrongdoers and so the deficiency of empirical probes into the subject. The women’s rightist review besides includes the deficiency of research into female exploitation and male force against adult females and they argued that the bulk of attending on how the condemnable justness system affects male wrongdoers and non female wrongdoers. They argued that criminology in general held a instead noncritical attitude towards gender stereotypes, taking to the ‘doubly-deviant ‘ argument ( Llyod, 1995 ) . Works such as Dobash and Dobash ‘s ( 1992 ) Women, Violence and Social Change challenged the mainstream thoughts around vicitimology and made the assorted signifiers and extent of female victims more seeable. Feminist review explores the gender spread apparent within the condemnable justness system which went beyond early criminologists positions such as Pollak ‘s ( 1950 ) ‘chivalry thesis ‘ which plays upon the bing stereotyped gender functions and patriarchal values to develop a more sophisticated gender analysis.
As maleness is seen in criminology as a male condemnable subscriber, the feminist criminology review has allowed for the disclosure of the power that underpins maleness and its consequence on the genders such as how males are obliged to populate up to their gender function and so any condemnable or aberrant behavior could be linked to them seeking to carry through their male function. The feminist attack shows a new side that builds on gender function theory and so helps criminology to travel off from rigorous biological accounts such as those by Ferrero and Lombroso. So maleness is viewed as an look of difference from feminism behaviors but maleness becomes representative of heterosexual power in this manner and is normative and valued. So the women’s rightist review helps to research gender templet functions. Although the women’s rightist review shows how aberrant Acts of the Apostless committed by males are an illustration of work forces seeking to carry through their male function, this attack besides points to a hierarchy of masculine types.
This maleness is non merely confined to males but maleness can alter intending over clip and so there is no individual maleness.The feminist apprehension of maleness seeks to travel past the simplistic stereotype of work forces as attackers and adult females as victims and alternatively suggests that male individualities are all different and that there is diverseness this manner in both genders. This leads to a inquiring of old positive biological attacks such as Ferrero and Lombroso ‘s work and other rationalist plants which try to utilize on cosmopolitan account for female offense and the thought of offense is maleness as a beginning point. Feminist theory has allowed for the deconstruction of the stereotyped position of work forces as attackers or felons and adult females as vulnerable and conforming to a victim function.However “ the most consistent and dramatic findings from Lombroso non postmodern criminology is non that felons are working classaˆ¦ but that most felons are, and ever have been, work forces ” ( Cain, 1989 ) . So work forces in general do perpetrate more offenses so adult females but this does non corroborate the stereotype of ‘men are attackers and adult females are victims ‘ as there is still room for adult females to be attackers and work forces to be victims.
hypertext transfer protocol: //crimlinks.files.wordpress.
com/2012/11/population-in-prison-by-gender.png? w=490 & A ; h=79This tabular array shows the population in prisons by gender 30 June 2007 ( MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, 2012 ) . Each twelvemonth it shows how there is a huge spread between Numberss of adult females and work forces, nevertheless this may non needfully intend work forces perpetrate more offenses than adult females but that possibly they are more likely to perpetrate more violent offenses and therefore stop up in prison as it is a rough sentence and adult females may merely perpetrate as many offenses but of a different kind such as stealing and non travel to prison and be sentenced to community service.
This graph ( Office for National Statistics, 2013 ) shows the incidents of intimate force in the last twelvemonth among grownups of both genders aged 16 to 59, in 2011/12. These figures help to turn out the stereotype that adult females are the victims are non ever true as more work forces ( 2 % more ) interviewed reported being victims of force than adult females. However 2 % more adult females reported themselves as being victims of novice force than work forces.Literature on female force normally has two cardinal subjects.
The first is that even adult females are merely every bit violent as work forces this is hidden in some kind of confederacy as adult females should be seen as inactive and work forces as the violent gender stereotype “ a little per centum of violent offense has ever been committed by adult females ” ( Pollock and Davis, 2005 ) . This theory has been quashed by many authors such as Pearson ( 1997 ) who provides grounds of adult females who have killed their ain kids, helped slayers and who killed their hubbies and many other illustrations to demo how adult females are violent and she argues they have ever been as violent and predatory as work forces. This disproves the adult females as victims and non attackers stereotype. There are besides statistics which back up the adult females as the attackers and committers of offense and non merely work forces theory “ adult females commit the bulk of kid homicides in the United States ” ( Pollock and Davis, 2005 ) . However Jones ( 2009 ) argues that the adult females offense waves that seem to be evident really correlates with adult females ‘s release motions and so adult females may have different reactions from jurisprudence enforcement so old taking to additions of apprehensions and therefore adult females offense moving ridges. She besides argues that the ground the adult females as victims and work forces as attackers stereotype is still prevailing is due to work forces fearing powerful adult females, nevertheless her description ignores that adult females are less likely to slay than work forces ; so the stereotype of work forces being more likely to be attackers and so commit offense is true, even though adult females can excessively be attackers. Even though adult females “ for some ground, they kill, rob, and assault much less frequently than work forces ” ( Pollock and Davis, 2005 ) ; this makes it hard for feminist criminology to calculate out why adult females are less likely to be attackers than work forces as no clear consentaneous grounds seem to be.
The 2nd subject is that more adult females are going violent than of all time before and that Numberss of violent and condemnable Acts of the Apostless committed by adult females are increasing ; said to be due to adult females ‘s release motions altering socialization. This thought is based on per centum additions in adult females perpetrating and being convicted of offense nevertheless as the Numberss of adult females who commit these offenses are so little it wo n’t take many to look as though there has been a big addition Schaffner ( 1999 ) is one author who discusses a rise in violent offense among immature females uses these per centum additions. But she notes that the per centum additions can be influenced by little Numberss ; she infers that the rise may be due to females witnessing force in their ain place and on the streets but these factors may non be any different to clock gone by when adult females in the nineteenth century witnessed these same factors yet were less likely to perpetrate offense.Although ‘men are attackers and adult females are victims ‘ is a instead stereotyped point of view it can be the instance given that more work forces commit offenses and are in gaol and therefore are attackers and that adult females are more likely to be a victim of certain offenses such as colza. However feminist criminologists amongst others have shown how adult females can besides be attackers and commit offenses, although the grounds for this is non every bit good known or researched as it is for work forces. It is besides clear from offense figures that work forces are more likely to be victims than adult females of certain offenses such as slaying. So work forces are more likely to be attackers overall but adult females can be attackers excessively and work forces can be more likely to be victims of certain offenses.
So the stereotype of ‘men are attackers and adult females are victims ‘ does keep some virtue when taken as a sweeping statement for all offense but there are certain mistakes in this statement when we look closer into gender and offense.