NCJ Number
117269
Journal
International Journal of the Sociology of Law Volume: 17 Issue: 1 Dated: (February 1989) Pages: 19-39
Date Published
1989
Length
21 pages
Annotation
After examining the history of criminology regarding its focus on the sex variable in criminality, this article critiques the feminist argument for a separate criminology of women.
Abstract
In view of the central place of men in criminality, historically criminology has not given much consideration to the sex variable in determining criminality. Only a few biogenic and psychogenic theorists have attempted to explain women's low rates of criminality and noncriminality in terms of biological and related psychological characteristics. A distinction between 'masculinity' and 'femininity' began in the 1940's with Talcott Parson's formulation of 'sex roles.' The analysis of criminality through what is now designated 'gender' in this criminological literature obstructs serious investigation of the sex variable. This is evidenced in the work of some of the more influential postwar, post-sex/gender-distinction criminologists: Edwin Sutherland, founder of differential association as a general theory of crime, and Albert Cohen and Walter Miller, theorists of 'masculine' subcultural deviance. The position from which feminism criticizes postwar criminology's 'masculinism' is itself predicated on the same sex/gender distinction that renders mainstream criminology incapable of confronting its own sex question. Instead of adding 'women' as a neglected topic of criminology, gender should be introduced as a significant variable in the study of the deviant behaviors of human beings in society. 9 notes, 51 references.