'Men are aggressors and women are subjects' is a very stereotypical view might be kept by the majority of society and by some of the first criminologists; however criminology has progressed to try and know how this stereotype has become seen as the norm within crime. They also try exploring whether this stereotype is actually true or whether there are numerous differences.
To understand the part of the stereotype that girls are victims we must first look into the role of your victim. The role of your victim is essential in initiating the legal justice process as the majority of offences which come to the attention of the police are reported to them by subjects of these offences; their two functions within the unlawful justice system are that of confirming the criminal offenses and providing evidenced that the criminal offenses has been determined. This role of the victim differs than in the past when the crime was handled by individual and community self-regulation, as crimes were seen to be always a private matter between offender and sufferer and so it was up to the sufferer and their family to choose if they went to court or not and would play the role of prosecutor alternatively than sufferer.
Nils Christie (1986) described how in the role of victim there is a perfect sufferer such as an seniors woman or a kid, both seen as an ideal sufferer because they are seen as poor and deserving of help and care and attention, on the other side young men are seen as not as deserving of help and sympathetically and are also not as likely to be seen as true subjects. This demonstrates the stereotype of only women as patients and men as aggressors is incorrect as it might just be that men aren't seen as much of victims of the offence than a female might be.
There a wide range of social variables which determine someone's likelihood to be a victim, one of which is gender. It has been shown from criminal offense studies that men are in fact more likely to be victims of violent attacks but that ladies will be victimised in the home. This shows how men can be patients and not merely the aggressors who commit the serves, but it also shows how women can also be victims which perhaps different genders are victims of different kinds of attacks. For example "men aged between 17 and 32 make up 7 per cent of the populace but 25 % of most murder patients" (Dorling, 2012) this is a larger percentage than women between these age range that are murdered demonstrating how men can be more apt to be a victim than a women in certain crimes. That is true also by the fact that women are more likely to be the sufferer of reported and unreported erotic offences and will experience repeated unwanted attention such as stalking than men. However when it involves a whole volume of crimes it can be difficult to make judgements concerning whether women or men will be patients as there are many varieties on gendered criminal offense such as forced prostitution and intimacy trafficking which are more likely to have female subjects.
A study conducted by the NSPCC in '09 2009 on people aged between 13-18 found that a third of girls and only 16% of boys had experienced intimate violence (Barter et al. , 2009) This shows how young girls will be a sufferer of this type of crime; although this reports might not exactly be entirely accurate because many people especially boys might not want to declare to being raped as it is more humiliating because of their gender. The study also proved how 12% of children and only 3% of young ladies reported committing sexual violence against their companions (Barter et al. , 2009); so this could be utilized showing how men will be aggressors; however these reports are related to specific crimes rather than all reported offences and so are not proof the 'men are aggressors and women are subjects' stereotype.
Men as patients challenges the victim stereotype about that can be a victim, the lack of knowledge of potential impacts on men this insufficient identified victimhood can have points to the lack of large-scale research on male victimisation, although these surveys may well not be answered correctly as men could understand being known as a victim as a hazard to their masculinity. This means men might not exactly answer surveys appropriately as they don't desire to be regarded as a victim or they don't see themselves as a victim such such as cases of home abuse as though they were attacked by their female partner they may well not view it as a real criminal offenses as no real damage was done to themselves.
There is a type of gender myopia within criminology where early criminologists didn't look into offences determined by women, Heidensohn (1968) how this exclusion of women from criminology excluded half of population in understanding deviance and that other aspects of women and their lives are appealing to sociable sciences and that as gender variations are well reported in crime such as men committing more criminal offenses on the whole then women why then where they not well looked into. When criminologists performed look into feminine offending they did not go as comprehensive with male criminology.
Cesare Lombroso was an early on positivist criminologist who used physiognomy to describe why many people commit offences creating and anthropological criminology where crime was regarded as inherited which bad guys could be recognized from other physical features and that all criminals acquired certain physical features in keeping such as a little or weakened chin and long forearms. Lombroso penned a reserve with Guglielmo Ferrero in 1895, THE FEMININE Offender in this they tried to explain feminine criminals. They explained how when a woman does choose crime how she actually is a "monster" and that "her wickedness must have been great before it could triumph over so many road blocks. " They also held the notion like many of their time that girls placed lower on the evolutionary size than men, so were more primitive and they also suggested that female criminals would not be as noticeable as male crooks and would show fewer symptoms of degeneracy than males. So Lombroso and Ferrero mentioned how female criminality was right down to their biology and a female criminal is an abnormal girl but also as they were like a man "often more ferocious" (Ferrero and Lombroso, 1895). So although early criminologists were aware of female offenders they put this down to the abnormality of any women being manlier and ferocious it is therefore not simply a man who is definitely an aggressor. Further exploration into any other causes of female criminality pub abnormality and masculine attributes weren't much investigated before next century after The Girl Offender was printed.
The absence of qualitative research also intended that women were neglected from criminology, also, they are seen and represented as helpmates alternatively than instigators of serious criminal offense such as Ian Brady and Myra Hindley in the 1960's; he was viewed as the instigator and she as a manipulated helper in killing and covering the murders of several children. Some criminological ideas attempted to make clear female offending like the learning ideas which make clear it by the actual fact male crime was glamorised in the advertising and inspired women to commit crime.
Because of the lack of thought into feminine offenders they were often seen as abnormal to other females as a unlawful cannot be natural when the norm is taken to be male therefore women are measured to the degree to which they deviated from this norm and if indeed they did offend and so would be institutionalised because of their own protection. As a result of this past treatment many think this leniency has continued into the current legal justice system triggering the chivalry debate (Pollak, 1950) in which a female offender might not be cured or judged as harshly as a male counterpart by a for instance a male judge who's sentencing her for a offense. This thinking about feminine offenders being unnatural from the rest of women strengthened the ladies as victims not as the aggressors stereotype and Pollak (1950) discusses this behavior from certain women meaning them being viewed as devious women. Female criminals are seen as doubly deviant as they have gone against the law and also against their recommended gender role; this dual deviance has strengthened the stereotype of women as subjects so therefore they may have not been twice as deviant even though in committing the same functions a guy would only be seen as being deviant by heading illegal and this his gender role is performed along with as deviance sometimes appears as a more male trait and thus males are seen to become more likely an aggressor when compared to a victim.
This silence of female offending in criminology could be described by social gender inequalities, a low public account as female crime could be seen as the 'incorrect' type of crime, and it might also be difficult to accommodate gender perspectives in traditional criminological theories, the original feminisation of victimhood and masculinisation of hostility. There have been several ideas and perspectives as to the reasons women are perhaps committing more crimes such as Simon (1993) "women's better opportunities and skills. . . increased contribution in work force and many years of schooling, have increased their propensity to commit criminal functions, especially property and white-collar offenses. " Adler (1975) talks about how women appear to be becoming more violent and competitive and this perhaps this is excatly why they are really committing more offences.
Because of the insufficient research into feminine offenders, feminist criminology surfaced in the 1960's and 1970's, as it might not be doubted that feminine criminals existed and seem to be increasing as does female delinquency although this could be due to the media sensationalising feminine offenders "there has been a veritable siege of reports stories with fundamentally the same theme - women are in gangs and their behavior in these gangs does not fit the stereotypical and traditional stereotype" (Chesney-Lind, 1997). There are many different sub-sects of feminist theory each dealt with specific problems such as liberal feminism which handles discrimination. This climb of research into girl criminality lead in turn to more exploration and a deeper knowledge of male criminal offenses and masculinity within criminal offense and the differences between women and men and offending; demonstrating that masculinity although regarded as a male legal factor could also be clear in women and that masculinity is not static and can be effected by context. Addititionally there is no clear notion of masculine personal information and therefore although aggression sometimes appears as a masculine trait that it could be noticeable in both sexes and thus the stereotype that only men can be aggressors is bogus.
Feminist criminology's concern is the marginalisation of women as subject matter matters in other criminological ideas, because of the lack of theorising feminine offenders and then the lack of empirical investigations in to the matter. The feminist critique also contains the lack of research into feminine victimisation and male assault against women and they argued that most attention how the criminal justice system impacts male offenders rather than female offenders. They argued that criminology generally held a rather uncritical frame of mind towards gender stereotypes, resulting in the 'doubly-deviant' question (Llyod, 1995). Works such as Dobash and Dobash's (1992) Women, Assault and Sociable Change challenged the mainstream ideas around vicitimology and made the various forms and extent of female subjects more apparent. Feminist critique explores the gender distance apparent within the legal justice system which travelled beyond early on criminologists views such as Pollak's (1950) 'chivalry thesis' which performs upon the existing stereotypical gender assignments and patriarchal ideals to develop a more sophisticated gender examination.
As masculinity sometimes appears in criminology as a male criminal contributor, the feminist criminology critique has allowed for the uncovering of the power that underpins masculinity and its influence on the genders such as how men are obliged to surpass their gender role therefore any unlawful or deviant behavior could be linked to them wanting to fulfil their male role. The feminist methodology shows a fresh part that builds on gender role theory and so helps criminology to go away from rigorous biological explanations such as those by Ferrero and Lombroso. So masculinity can be regarded as an expression of difference from feminism behaviours but masculinity becomes representative of heterosexual electric power in this way and it is normative and appreciated. So the feminist critique helps to explore gender template jobs. However the feminist critique shows how deviant functions committed by males are a good example of men aiming to fulfil their male role, this process also points to a hierarchy of masculine types. This masculinity is not only confined to males but masculinity can transform meaning over time and so there is absolutely no solitary masculinity.
The feminist knowledge of masculinity seeks to go past the simplistic stereotype of men as aggressors and women as subjects and instead shows that male identities are all different and that there surely is variety this way in both genders. This brings about a questioning of past positivist biological solutions such as Ferrero and Lombroso's work and other positivist works which make an effort to use on common explanation for female crime and the thought of criminal offense is maleness as a newbie point. Feminist theory has allowed for the deconstruction of the stereotypical view of men as aggressors or scammers and women as susceptible and conforming to a victim role.
However "the most regular and dramatic results from Lombroso not postmodern criminology is not that criminals are working course but that most crooks are, and will have been, men" (Cain, 1989). So men generally do commit more crimes then women but this does not verify the stereotype of 'men are aggressors and women are patients' as there continues to be room for girls to be aggressors and men to be subjects.
http://crimlinks. data files. wordpress. com/2012/11/population-in-prison-by-gender. png?w=490&h=79
This desk shows the population in prisons by gender 30 June 2007 (MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, 2012). Each year it shows how there is a vast space between amounts of men and women, however this might not indicate men commit more crimes than women but that maybe they will commit more violent crimes and thus end up in prison as it is a harsher sentence and women might just commit as much crimes but of any different sort such as stealing rather than go to prison and become sentenced to community service.
This graph (Office for Country wide Figures, 2013) shows the occurrences of intimate assault within the last year among men and women of both genders aged 16 to 59, in 2011/12. These information help to establish the stereotype that women are the victims aren't always true as more men (2% more) interviewed reported being victims of assault than women. However 2% more women reported themselves as being victims of initiate violence than men.
Literature on female assault usually has two central themes or templates. The first is that even women are equally violent as men this is covered in some sort of conspiracy as women should be observed as passive and men as the violent gender stereotype "a small % of violent crime is definitely dedicated by women" (Pollock and Davis, 2005). This theory has been quashed by many authors such as Pearson (1997) who provides evidence of women who've killed their own children, helped killers and who wiped out their husbands and a great many other examples showing how women are violent and she argues they have always been as violent and predatory as men. This disproves the women as victims rather than aggressors stereotype. There are also statistics which online backup the women as the aggressors and committers of crime and not only men theory "women commit the majority of child homicides in america" (Pollock and Davis, 2005). However Jones (2009) argues that the women criminal offense waves that appear to be evident actually correlates with women's liberation moves and so women may receive different reactions from police then previous resulting in raises of arrests and therefore women crime waves. She also argues that the reason why the women as victims and men as aggressors stereotype is still prevalent is due to men fearing powerful women, however her description ignores that ladies are less likely to murder than men; therefore the stereotype of men being more likely to be aggressors and so commit crime holds true, even though women can too be aggressors. Despite the fact that women "for some reason, they destroy, rob, and assault significantly less often than men" (Pollock and Davis, 2005); this helps it be problematic for feminist criminology to figure out why women are less inclined to be aggressors than men as no clear unanimous reasons seem to can be found.
The second theme is that more women are becoming violent than ever before and that numbers of violent and unlawful acts devoted by women are increasing; reported to be scheduled to women's liberation movements changing socialisation. This notion is based on percentage rises in women committing and being convicted of criminal offenses however as the amounts of women who commit these crimes are so small it will not take many to seem to be as though there's been a big increase Schaffner (1999) is one writer who discusses a growth in violent offense among young females uses these percentage boosts. But she notes that the ratio boosts can be inspired by small volumes; she infers that the climb may be due to females witnessing violence in their own home and on the roads but these factors may well not be any different to times gone by when ladies in the 19th century observed these same factors yet were less likely to commit criminal offenses.
Although 'men are aggressors and women are subjects' is a fairly stereotypical viewpoint it could be the case considering that more men commit offences and are in prison and so are aggressors and this women are more likely to be a sufferer of certain crimes such as rape. However feminist criminologists amongst others have shown how women may also be aggressors and commit crimes, although the reason why for this is much less well known or investigated as it is for men. Additionally it is clear from criminal offense information that men will be subjects than women of certain offences such as murder. So men will be aggressors overall but women can be aggressors too and men can be more likely to be subjects of certain offences. So the stereotype of 'men are aggressors and women are victims' does hold some merit when considered as a sweeping statement for all crime but there are certain problems in this assertion whenever we look closer into gender and criminal offense.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay