The History, Evolution, and Current State of Female Offenders

Recommendations for Advancing the Field

Alana Van Gundy, Shauntey James

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• eBook ISBN: 9780429675287
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

The History, Evolution, and Current State of Female Offenders: Recommendations for Advancing the Field summarizes what the field has learned about females and crime; details the status of legislation and criminological research focused on female criminality; and provides recommendations for advancing the field. Van Gundy and James present the material from a gendered approach with the goal of analyzing the current understanding of the relationship between gender and crime.

Tracing the intellectual history of feminist criminology from its foundations to the present time, the authors follow four primary themes: What do we know about the relationship between gender and crime? What special needs do female offenders have? What works and doesn't work for female offenders? What can or should we do from here? Reaching back to Carol Smart's seminal 1976 book, Women, Crime and Criminology: A Feminist Critique (available through Routledge Revivals), the authors note that in some ways, modest progress has been made, but large gaps in research and policy still exist.

This much-needed book provides an overarching view of the history and evolution of the understanding of the relationship between gender and crime, detailed analysis of seminal work and criminological studies, an exploration of incarceration, reentry and programing, and concrete recommendations for future research. These recommendations focus on the importance of creating and utilizing theoretical models that measure the role of gender and identity, inclusion of female-specific variables when examining and responding to criminality, and the necessity of policymakers and legislators to address female criminality from a gendered lens.

The book will appeal to those who are interested in females and criminality, race and ethnicity, policy and evaluation, criminal behavior, criminology, and students in courses in sociology, psychology, women and gender studies, social justice, black world studies, gerontology, and criminology/criminal justice, as well as policymakers and practitioners in the field. It will inspire researchers to ask the kinds of questions that will advance the field of feminist criminology in the future.

1

The History of Feminist Criminology

DOI: 10.4324/9780429398162-2

“You may hiss as much as you please, but women will get their rights anyway.”

Sojourner Truth

This chapter examines the evolution of feminist criminology, a field that originated in the 1960s and ’70s to address the benign neglect of women as victims, offenders, and employees in the criminal justice system. First, a discussion of the term feminism and the four distinct waves of feminism are presented. This discussion is followed by an examination of the core tenets of traditional criminology and a presentation of how the two fields merge to form the theoretical viewpoint of feminist criminology. The chapter will conclude with a brief discussion of the current state of feminist criminology.

The term feminisme was initially coined in 1837 by the French utopian socialist and philosopher Fourier (1772–1837). The English words feminist and feminism come from Fourier’s original term and have evolved to refer to a person or movement seeking to advocate for and extend the rights of women in society, rights that are equal to that of men. A simple way to define feminism is the belief that women should have equal political, social, and economic rights as men.

Feminism has evolved in four stages, or waves. First wave feminism occurred throughout the 1830s to the early 1900s in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and the Netherlands. This wave was stimulated by a general level of discontent and unrest of women throughout the nation and sought to gain equality for women primarily on legal grounds and issues. Women involved with the initial feminist movement were white women that were traditionally religious, conservative, politically moderate, and focused on working within the current structure to advance the standing of women. This first wave resulted in women’s right to vote, the right to hold electoral office, equal marriage and parenting rights, and equal property and contract rights.

Second wave feminism (1960s to 1980s) initiated the women’s liberation movement. One notable advocate of the rights of women in society during this wave was feminist author and activist, Betty Friedan, with her revolutionary feminist book, The Feminine Mystique (1963). Her work introduced what she called “the problem that has no name,” a problem that developed following World War II in the newly affluent, American society (Napikoski, 2019). The problem as described by Friedan, was the expectation that women should find their fulfillment exclusively in being homemakers whose goal in life was pleasing their husbands and raising their children. Her research indicated that many women were not content with this idealized image of fulfillment. Following the publication of her book, Friedan continued to be one of the most recognized activists in the women’s movement.

Three years later, the initial conference for the National Organization for Women (NOW) was held in Washington, D.C. on October 29, 1966. It was held during an extremely volatile period of American history, a time in which the Civil Rights Movement was gaining moral, emotional, and political momentum throughout society. In a move calculated to identify with the Civil Rights Movement, NOW adopted a Statement of Purpose that borrowed language from the civil rights struggle to highlight the discrimination against women in the workplace. Included in the Statement of Purpose was the belief that “[t]here is no civil rights movement to speak for women, as there has been for Negroes and other victims of discrimination. The National Organization for Women must therefore begin to speak” (NOW, n.d.). The organizing conference along with the adoption of the Statement of Purpose proved to be a significant event in the history of women’s rights.

In the late 1970s, Gilligan (1982, 1987) worked at Harvard with Kohlberg (1976, 1983) who was widely recognized for his research on stages of moral development (obedience and punishment, self-interest, interpersonal accord and conformity, authority and social order maintaining, social contract, and universal ethics). While working as his research assistant, Gilligan criticized Kohlberg’s stages on gender-centric grounds and argued that Kohlberg’s stages of moral development reflect male moral development, not human moral development, and she called for a theory of female moral development. Gilligan’s research later demonstrated that men and women have differing, but equally valid, moral emphases in their developmental stages.

While Kohlberg saw moral development in terms of rights and rules, Gilligan (1993) viewed women’s moral development in terms of responsibilities and connections. She characterized women’s moral development as a morality of care and responsibility while men are characterized by a morality of justice and rights. In other words, men are concerned for rules and the rights of individuals; women are concerned with care and not causing harm to others (p.73). Gilligan’s work was groundbreaking and set the premise for what is now referred to as gender-specificity, or that models must be explanatory and specific to a particular gender.

During the second wave of feminism there were several key moments. The first was The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’s resolution on December 18, 1979. The Convention provided an explicit statement on discrimination:

For the purpose of the present Convention, the term “discrimination against women” shall mean any distinction exclusion, or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on the basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any field.

(United Nations Human Rights, n.d.).

The second was hooks’ book Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center; (hooks, 1984) in which she showcased that while feminism has inched forward “much feminist theory emerges from privileged women who live at the center, whose perspectives on reality rarely include knowledge and awareness of the lives of women and men who live in the margin” (p.10). Therefore, feminist theory has a long distance to go before it encompasses the focus of equality for all women. Lastly, feminism lacked exploration of various factors, such as patriarchy and the oppression of women. So it was, perhaps, doubly discouraging to still hear the echoes of Klein’s (1973) in the Etiology of Female Crime: A Review of the Literature that researchers were within the confines of “biological” theories of female criminality. One such theory concluded that certain traits (e.g., large physical size) might lead to aggressiveness and criminal behavior. Another study at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) proposed a connection between menstrual cycles and women who were prone to violence.

Third wave feminism (occurring between the 1990s and 2000s) rejected the unification of values and goals questioning the characterization of a universal framework for all women. During this time period, Hill Collins (2000) published Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment emphasizing the integrative approach of theorizing multiple oppressions, or intersectionality. Intersectionality was also introduced by black feminist legal scholar Crenshaw (1989) in “Demarginalizing The Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist theory, and Antiracist Politics.” The research of hooks, Hill Collins, and Crenshaw served to introduce race, gender, class, political oppression, and African-centric ways of thinking to broaden the base. The appropriation of intersectionality to only be inclusive of gender and race obscures the origin and the connection to the black feminist argument and perpetuates further divisions within the movement (Carastatis, 2014).

Fourth wave feminism (2008–) encompasses globally digital conversations echoing past tenants of empowerment to create space that is fully inclusive. Unlike the prior three waves of feminism, technology usage and reliance distinctively created and perpetuated global discussions and multiple forms of activism highlighting a cognitive awareness of “diversity of purpose” (intersectionality) as well as movement beyond traditional binary gender norms. Debates then emerged questioning the validity of inclusivity and applicability of the term feminist, creating the dialogue of a modern-day feminist and the likelihood that a woman would define herself as a feminist. A modern-day feminist also questions whether the distinctions within the movement have created an environment that has become toxic and diverged from equality for all. This form of discussion, which some would label the backlash of feminism, is not new.

Despite the positive advancements of the feminist movement, feminism has been criticized on multiple grounds. One primary criticism of feminism is based upon hooks’ and Hill Collins’ premise that feminism has been advanced by middle to upper class white women that do not reflect the status of women everywhere. Their “liberation” from marriage and family obligations to pursue careers has long placed the burden for domestic obligations squarely upon the backs of women of color, who historically have been employed as domestic workers. An additional, and highly voiced criticism is that some forms of feminism have built an anti-male and anti-family philosophy that does more harm than good. Pat Robertson stated in the ’90s that “The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, antifamily political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians” (Schwartz & Cooper, 1992).

In addition, there is an anti-feminist movement that denies that society favors or benefits men and argues that claims of patriarchal oppression are exaggerated. This movement is in opposition to some or all the forms of feminism and argues that the feminist movement is not arguing for equality, but for the oppression of men. Anti-feminists also argue that feminism is responsible for multiple social problems and that the feminist movement has resulted in a social crisis for men (Blais & Dupuis-Déri, 2012). Traditional criminological theory is not outright anti-feminist, but it does not address important arguments by feminist theories or posited by the forms of feminism.

Traditional Criminological Theory

Sutherland (1947) defined criminology as the making of laws, breaking of laws, and society’s response to breaking the law. Criminological theories each posit explanations for criminal behavior and deviant or pro-social behavior in the form of a theoretical model and are focused on specific variables that have been found to be related to both law-abiding and law-breaking behavior.

Beccaria was one of the first major contributors to the discipline of criminology, with his essay, On Crimes and Punishments published in July 1764. At that time in Europe, criminal law was described variously as “barbaric,” “repressive,” “abusive,” and “archaic.” There was no form of due process, and torture was a standard practice for eliciting confessions. In other words, there was no presumption of innocence, judges had a free hand in determining the extent of punishment, and there was little, or no thought given to justice for those suspected of breaking the law.

Beccaria’s essay was a call for reform in the way crime and criminals were dealt with by the government. He based his reformatory suggestions on the pleasure/pain principle, which, briefly stated, says that the pain imposed for committing a crime must be greater than the pleasure experienced by the person wanting to commit the crime. The knowledge of the punishment should be a sufficient deterrent to the person contemplatin...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. The History of Feminist Criminology
• 2. Seminal Works: The Evolution of Viewpoints on Female Offenders
• 3. Evolution of Female Case Law
• 4. Gender and Theoretical Testing
• 5. Female Prisons
• 6. Gender and Reentry
• 7. Gender-specific Programming
• 8. Recommendations for Advancing the Understanding of Female Offenders
• Index