READINGS IN DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

SIXTH EDITION

ALEX THIO
Ohio University

THOMAS C. CALHOUN
Jackson State University

ADDRAIN CONYERS
The College at Brockport, State University of New York

Allyn & Bacon

Boston • New York • San Francisco
Mexico City • Momreal • Tom/lfo • London • Madrid • Munich • Paris
Hong Kong • Singapore • Tokyo • Cape Town • Sydney
 CHAPTER 10

FEMINIST THEORY
KATHLEEN DALY

The [feminist] research literature on women and
gender differences in lawbreaking can be divided
into two categories. The first is concerned with
aggregate patterns and trends from a variety of
data sources, and the second addresses the quali-
ties of offenses committed and the life worlds of
lawbreakers.
PATTERNS AND TRENDS
[OF LAWBREAKING]
First, self-report studies of lawbreaking show
higher rates of prevalence (committing an of-
fense) and incidence (number of times) for boys
than girls. From the Denver Youth Survey
(1976-1980), boys' prevalence rates were higher
than girls' for eighteen of twenty offenses. Girls'
prevalence rates were slightly higher for "running
away from home" and "hitting a parent"
(Chesney-Lind and Shelden 1992; Tripplet and
Myers 1995). In general, as offense seriousness
increases, the gender gap widens in measures of
prevalence and incidence. A 1988-1991 survey of
self-reported crime by Denver youths in "high-
risk" neighborhoods (Esbensen and Huizinga
1993) found higher prevalence rates for nongang
boys than nongang girls for street crime, drug
sales, and "serious offenses" but not for minor of-
fenses or alcohol or drug use. (Incidence rates
were also higher for the boys than the girls for
street crime, drug sales, and alcohol use.) Not sur-
prisingly, for both groups, prevalence rates were
greater for those boys and girls who were in-
volved in gangs, and especially so for the girls.
This "gang effect" in enhancing crime involve-
ment was stronger, however, for the boys than for
the girls in reported incidence rates.
Second, arrest data show larger gender ratios
of lawbreaking than self-report studies, although
a similar structure of offending is apparent.
Specifically, gender gaps in lawbreaking are
largest for the more serious offenses (such as vio-
lent offenses) and smaller for minor forms of
property offenses. The structure of offenses for
which men and women are arrested is similar: the
most typical are substance abuse offenses (alco-
hol or drug-related) and larceny-theft (Steffens-
meier and Allan 1996).
Third, trend data for arrests from 1960 to
1990 show that the female share of all arrests rose
from 10 to 20 percent; these shifts are evident for
younger (under eighteen) and older women. For
both age-groups, increases were greatest for
larceny-theft; for older women, increases were
also apparent for fraud and forgery (Steffens-
meier 1993). For the thirty-year period, Darrell
Steffensmeier (1993) sees a shift in the offenses
for which both men and women are arrested:
today a larger share are arrested for driving under
the influence, larceny-theft, and drug law viola-

Source: Kathleen Daly, "Gender, Crime, and Criminology," in Michael Tonry (ed.), The Handbook of
Crime and Punishment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 85-108. © 1998 by Oxford Uni-
versity Press, Inc. Used by permission of Oxford University Press, Inc.

50

tions, with a comparatively smaller share arrested
for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct.
Trends from the National Crime Victimization
Survey (1975-1990) for the perceived sex of of-
fenders in robbery, simple and aggravated assault,
burglary, and motor vehicle theft show that the fe-
male share has remained the same over time
(Steffensmeier and Allan 1996).
Fourth, arrest data suggest that in societies
and groups where there are high male arrest rates,
sur- there are high female arrest rates; where there are
vere low male rates, there are low female rates. Over
in- time, male and female arrest rates will rise and
iris. fall in parallel fashion, suggesting roughly similar
!ve- responses to broader socioeconomic and legal
for forces (Steffensmeier and Allan 1996). With such
a pattern, we would expect that the profile of men
ios and women accused, prosecuted, and imprisoned
1gh for crime would have a similar class- and race-
nt. based structure. And indeed the profile is similar:
u-e compared with their proportions in the general
lO- population, criminalized men and women are
of more likely to be economically marginalized and
or to be members of racial/ethnic minority groups;
he they are less likely to have completed high
O- school.
S- Fifth, gender differences in arrest rates can-
not be understood apart from race, ethnicity, and
.0 class. Analyses of victimization, self-report, and
e arrest data show major racial differences in the
•r likelihood of involvement in crime, especially in
if violent offenses. For example, arrest rates for
r black, white, and Hispanic women for three vio-
lent offenses in New York City during 1987-1990
show significant differences: 1,670 per 100,000
for black women compared with 503 and 126, re-
spectively, for Hispanic and white women (Som-
mers and Baskin 1992). These racial/ethnic
differences may be explained, in part, by where
the women lived: those who lived in high-poverty
neighborhoods had the highest arrest rates for vi-
olent crime compared with those who lived in
low- or moderate-poverty areas. Substantially
higher proportions of arrested black women lived
in high-poverty neighborhoods (69 percent) than
did arrested Hispanic or white women (20 and 11
10 DALY FEMINIST THEORY 51
percent, respectively; Sommers and Baskin
1992).
QUALITIES OF OFFENSES AND LIFE
WORLDS OF OFFENDERS
First, female involvement in gangs is more varied
than earlier research (from the 1940s to the
1960s) had revealed . . .. In surveys of gangs, es-
timates of female involvement range from 10 to
38 percent (Miller 1996). Esbensen and Huizinga
(1993) say that their survey-based estimate-girls
or women constitute 25 percent of gang mem-
bers-is consistent with the gender composition
of gangs in other research on urban areas in the
late 1980s. But saying that you are "in" a gang
and that you participate in criminal activities may
not mean the same thing for male and female
gang members. Esbensen and Huizinga (1993)
found that offending rates were twice as high for
gang boys as for gang girls across a range of
delinquent acts; the differences were greatest for
serious forms of delinquency. It should be em-
phasized that even in "high-risk" areas in Denver,
recent surveys suggest that the percentage of
youths reporting gang membership is small, rang-
ing from 3 to 7 percent (Esbensen and Huizinga
1993).
Second, little is known about women's in-
volvement or gender differences in white-collar
crime. Beginning with Edwin Sutherland ([1949)
1983), researchers have assumed that the white-
collar offender is male (e.g., Mann, Wheeler, and
Sarat 1980), a not unreasonable assumption when
one examines the profile of those convicted of
white-collar crime (Daly 1989). For those of-
fenses considered to be "real" forms of white-
collar lawbreaking (i.e., committed by those in
occupational positions of power, such as antitrust
violations and securities fraud), an analysis of
federal court convictions in the late 1970s shows
the female share of convictions to be very low
(0.5 to 2 percent). The female share of convic-
tions for bank embezzlement was higher (45 per-
cent); but when the specific job that convicted
embezzlers held was examined, few women were
52 PART THREE CONSTRUCTIONIST THEORIES
bank officers or managers (7 percent), whereas
just over half of the men were (Daly 1989).
An obvious explanation for gender differ-
ences in white-collar crime is to say that there are
fewer workplace opportunities for women to en-
gage in such crime. Less obvious but better ex-
planations focus on the gendered structure of
opportunities. Such explanations draw linkages
between men's sexism toward women in the "up-
perworld" and "underworld" that may serve to
exclude women from men's crime groups
(Messerschmidt 1993; Steffensmeier 1983). They
may also include attention to gender-based vari-
ability in motive, the size of the crime group, and
offense roles that would defy a simple "work-
place opportunities" argument (Daly 1989).
Analyses of drug markets suggest that "opportu-
nities" are circumscribed by particular masculine
qualities thought necessary for selling and dis-
tributing drugs (Maher and Daly 1996). Gang re-
search reveals that women themselves ratify
gender hierarchies and female devaluation, even
as they claim to be the equals of men (Miller
1996). Elucidating the gendered [emphasis
added] structures of illegitimate and workplace
opportunities for crime will prove a more fruitful
strategy than one which makes the glib assump-
tion that "men and women will behave in like
manner when occupying similar positions in the
social structure" (Simon and Landis 1991 ). In-
deed, this assumption cannot be sustained in ex-
plaining the lawbreaking of poor or marginalized
men and women, as we have already seen. Why
would we ever assume that gender divisions are
less salient for more affluent men and women or
those in the paid labor force?
Third, women's roles in offenses are varied.
In their review of the literature, Leanne Alarid
and colleagues ( 1996) found that in eleven of
nineteen studies, women played minor or sec-
ondary roles. Alarid et al. also interviewed 104
young women (average age, twenty years) in boot
camp, asking them what part they played in the
crime for which they were incarcerated. They
found that 15 percent of the women said they
acted alone, whereas identical proportions of
about 42 percent each said they had primary (or
equal) and secondary roles. When the women
acted with others, two sources of variability in
their offense roles were noted: the woman's race-
ethnicity and the offense she committed. A some-
what higher proportion of African-American (48
percent) and Hispanic women (45 percent) played
primary or equal offense roles, compared with
Anglo women (36 percent). Women were more
likely to play primary or equal roles (56 percent)
for drug offenses than for property (36 percent) or
violent (31 percent) offenses. The women were
asked who influenced them to become involved in
crime during the past year. While just over half of
the Anglo and Hispanic women said they were
"influenced by men," only 20 percent of the
African-American women said they were influ-
enced by men. But when the women were asked
whether they acted as a "leader or a follower
when with [their] friends," a similar proportion of
both Anglo (38 percent) and African-American
(33 percent) women said they were followers. My
interpretation of these data is that a larger portion
of African-American women are influenced by
other African-American women to become in-
volved in crime than are Anglo women, whose
deviant pathways appear to be related more to
men's influences. Such Anglo and African-
American differences were also found in Lisa
Maher's (1995) research on New York City wom-
en's initiation into drug use.
Fourth, research on gender, offense contexts,
and motives is most developed for homicide (see
reviews by Ogle, Maier-Katkin, and Bernard
1995; Wilson and Daly 1992). From this research
we find that women represent a small share
(about 10-12 percent) of homicide arrests. They
are more likely to kill intimates (spouses or part-
ners) than are men, who are more likely to kill ac-
quaintances or strangers. The victims of women's
homicides are more likely to have initiated the vi-
olence than are the victims of men's homicides.
Women's ~omicides generally occur in their own
or the victim's residence, while men's homicides
occur more frequently outside residential set-
tings. The situational and relational differences in

)f men's and women's homicides can be explained,
in part, by the fact that fewer women's homi.cides
tn occur in the course of robberies, burglaries, or
rapes. Ogle, Maier-Katkin, and Bernard report
that the "consistency of the pattern of homicides
·8 by women, as well as the differences from the
:d patterns of homicides by men, suggests the need
:h for a separate theoretical explanation of female
·e homicide" (1995). I am not persuaded that homi-
t) cide requires a separate theory from, say, aggra-
)f vated or simple assault. More important, it is not
·e clear that homicide patterns for women are "con-
n sistent" when one considers data from other
>f countries. Margo Wilson and Martin Daly ( 1992,
·e p. 191) show that U.S. women (especially black
e women) are far more likely to kill male spouses
l- or cohabitants than are women in Canada, Eng-
d land and Wales, Scotland, Australia, or other
:r countries. They argue against a simple "under-
,f class" or "black" explanation for this pattern and
n instead suggest a focus on structured and situa-
y tional sources of marital conflict: the social and
n economic devaluation of minority group men,
y which [increases] the men's desire to coerce fe-
male paitners; residential and kin patterns, which
e may empower some women to retaliate; and the
D incidence of step-relationships, which may in-
crease the frequency with which women need to
a defend their children.
Fifth, girls' and women's pathways to law-
breaking are many and varied. Drawing from U.S.
., and non-U.S. studies, I identified what I termed
the "leading feminist scenario" of women's law-
j breaking, that of street women (Daly 1994).
1 These women may have run from abusive house-
holds to the street, or they may have been at-
tracted to the "fast money" of a deviant lifestyle.
Once on the street, young women engage in petty
hustles or prostitution. Life on the street may lead
to drug use and addiction, which may lead to
more frequent lawbreaking to support a drug
habit.
Interview studies by Arnold (1990), Chesney-
Lind and Shelden (1992), and Gilfus (1992) have
centered attention on girls' sexual and physical
victimization while growing up, their efforts to
I0 DALY FEMINIST THEORY 53
escape abuse and violence, and the consequent
"criminalizing of girls' survival" (Chesney-Lind
1989) on the streets. Eleanor Miller ( 1986) iden-
tified several routes for Milwaukee street women:
those running away from home to the streets, and
those whose households were connected to the
streets via "domestic networks." In my analysis of
the biographies of forty women prosecuted in the
New Haven felony court, I found that street
women characterized about a third of my sample.
As frequent was a second group I termed "harmed
and harming women." These women had chaotic
and difficult experiences growing up, with violent
or "out of control" behavior evinced in childhood
or adolescence. Other groups of New Haven
women had associates who used or sold drugs
(drug-connected women, about 15 percent) or
were fending off and fighting abusive partners
(battered women, about 10 percent; Daly 1994).
EXPLAINING PAITERNS OF LAWBREAKING
A decade ago, Meda Chesney-Lind and I identi-
fied two related, though distinct, theoretical prob-
lems for . . . the study of women, gender, and
crime. They are the gender ratio problem (why
are men more likely involved in or an-ested for
crime than women?) and the generalizability
problem (do theories of crime based on boys' or
men's lives apply to girls or women?; Daly and
Chesney-Lind 1988). For most nonfeminist
scholars, interest remains in addressing the gen-
der ratio problem, with the working assumption
that a "gender-neutral" theory is preferable. Here
we see a clash in theoretical objectives.
On the one hand, Dan-ell Steffensmeier and
Emilie Allan ( 1996) suggest that "the traditional
gender-neutral theories [derived from male sam-
ples] provide reasonable explanations ofless seri-
ous forms of [crime]" for men and women. Such
thinking is common in nonfeminist and liberal
feminist analyses of gender and crime (e.g.,
Smith and Paternoster 1987; Simon and Landis
1991). On the other hand, feminist scholars, in-
cluding myself, find it illogical to say that tradi-
tional theories derived from male samples are
54 PART THREE CONSTRUCTIONIST THEORIES
gender-neutral. Traditional theories are more ap-
propriately labeled male-specific, not gender-neu-
tral. Such theories may, of course, be relevant to
girls and women: we would expect that elements
of social control, learning, labeling, and opportu-
nity would be applicable in a general sense. How-
ever, even if particular elements are applicable,
they may not be applicable in the same ways or to
the same degree. Likewise, elements from theo-
ries developed from all-female samples may be
applicable to boys and men, but not necessarily in
the same ways or to the same degree.
We should abandon the concept of, and the
quest for, gender-neutral criminological theories.
Instead, we should use terms that better describe
the theoretical enterprise: to identify variables,
factors, or conceptual elements that have similar
and different influences on lawbreaking for
boys/men and girls/women. This is just one po-
tential focus of theoretical work; there are others,
as follows.
Gender ratio of crime. What is the nature of,
and what explains the "gender gap" in, lawbreak-
ing and arrests for crime? What is the nature of,
and what explains variation in, the kinds of of-
fenses that girls/women and boys/men get in-
volved with (or arrested for), in terms of both
prevalence and incidence? What is the nature of,
and what explains gender-based variation in, ar-
rest rates across nations, including developed and
developing countries?
Gendered crime. What are the contexts and
qualities of boys'/men's and girls'/women's ille-
gal acts? What is the social organization of spe-
cific offenses (e.g., drug dealing, prostitution, and
credit frauds)?
Gendered pathways to lawbreaking. What is
the nature of, and what explains the character of,
girls'/women's and boys'/men's pathways to law-
Alarid, Leanne Fiftal, James W. Marquart, Veliner S.
Burston Jr., Francis T. Cullen, and Steven J. Cu-
velier. 1996. "Women's Roles in Serious Of-
breaking? What brings people to the street, to use
illegal drugs, to become involved in workplace
crime, or to be aITested and prosecuted for crime?
How do boys/men and girls/women move in and
out of foster homes, conventional work, jails and
prisons, hospitals, and halfway houses?
Gendered lives. How does gender organize
the ways in which men and women survive, take
care of themselves and their children, and find
shelter and food? How does gender structure
thinkable courses of action and identities?
Researchers may address these thematics
with a focus on class, racial-ethnic, age, regional,
or other sources of variability. Or they may decide
to analyze one particular group, such as black
women. Using Don Gibbons's (1994) categories,
the gender ratio of crime and gendered crime ad-
dress "the rates question," gendered crime and
gendered pathways attend to questions of "why
they did it," and gendered lives examines general
life course trajectories that may or may not in-
clude lawbreaking .... Nonfeminist inquiries on
gender and crime are principally focused on the
gender ratio and gendered crime problems; they
attempt to measure rates of involvement in
crime/delinquency and to explain [gender] "gaps"
in such involvement. Scholars in this tradition
may draw from a nascent understanding of femi-
nist theories, but their guiding metaphors and
concepts come largely from [traditional] crimi-
nology. By comparison, feminist inquiries on
gender and crime are principally focused on
demonstrating the ways in which the social orga-
nization of gender shapes women's and men's
lives on the streets and in neighborhoods, work-
places, and households. [Feminist] research tends
to focus on gendered crime, gendered pathways,
and gendered lives.
fenses: A Study of Adult Felons." Justice Quar-
terly 13:431-454.
Arnold, Regina. 1990. "Processes of Victimization and

Criminalization of Black Women." Social Justice
17:153-166.
Chesney-Lind, Meda. 1989. "Girls' Crime and Wom-
an's Place: Toward a Feminist Model of Female
Delinquency." Crime and Delinquency 35:5-29.
Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Randall G. Shelden. 1992.
Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Pacific
Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.
Daly, Kathleen. 1989. "Gender and Varieties of White-
Collar Crime." Criminology 27:769-794.
- - - . 1994. Ge11de1; Crime, and Punishment. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Daly, Kathleen, and Meda Chesney-Lind. 1988. "Fem-
inism and Criminology." Justice Quarterly 5:497-
538.
Esbensen, Finn-Aage, and David Huizinga. 1993.
"Gangs, Drugs, and Delinquency in a Survey of
Urban Youth." Criminology 31 :565-587.
Gibbons, Don C. 1994. Talking about Crime and Crim-
inals: Problems and Issues in The01y Develop-
ment in Criminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.:
Prentice-Hall.
Gilfus, Mary E. 1992. "From Victims to Survivors to
Offenders: Women's Routes of Entry and Immer-
sion into Street Crime." Women and Criminal Jus-
tice 4:63-89.
Maher, Lisa. 1995. "In the Name of Love: Women and
Initiation to Illicit Drugs." In Gender and Crime,
edited by R. Emerson Dobash, Russell P. Dobash,
and Lesley Noakes. Cardiff: University of Wales
Press.
Maher, Lisa, and Kathleen Daly. 1996. "Women in the
Street-Level Drug Economy: Continuity or
Change?" Criminology 34:465-491.
Mann, Kenneth, Stanton Wheeler, and Austin Sarat.
1980. "Sentencing the White-Collar Offender."
American Criminal Law Review 17:479-500.
Messerschmidt, James W. 1993. Masculinities and
Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization of The-
OI)'· Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.
1. What are the patterns and trends of the gender differences in lawbreaking? How
would you explain these differences?
2. What is the distinctive nature of the offenses committed by females?
3. What does "criminalizing girls' survival" mean?
JO DALY FEMINIST THEORY 55
Miller, Eleanor. 1986. Street Woman. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Miller, Jody. 1996. "Female Gang Involvement in a
Midwestern City: Correlates, Nature, and Mean-
ings." Ph.D. diss., University of Southern Califor-
nia, Department of Sociology.
Ogle, Robbin, Daniel Maher-Katkin, and Thomas J.
Bernard. 1995. "A Theory of Homicidal Behavior
among Women." Criminology 33:173-193.
Simon, Rita, and Jean Landis. 1991. The Crimes
Women Commit, the Punishments They Receive.
Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Smith, Douglas A., and Raymond Paternoster. 1987.
"The Gender Gap in Theories of Deviance: Issues
and Evidence." Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 24: 140-172.
Sommers, Ira, and Deborah Baskin. 1992. "Sex, Race,
Age, and Violent Offending." Violence and Vic-
tims 7:191-201.
Steffensmeier, Darrell. 1983. "Organization Properties
and Sex-Segregation in the Underworld: Building
a Sociological Theory of Sex Differences in
Crime." Social Forces 61:1010-1032.
- - - . 1993. "National Trends in Female Arrests,
1960-1990: Assessment and Recommendations
for Research." Journal of Quantitative Criminol-
ogy 9:411-441.
Steffensmeier, Darrell, and Emilie Allan. 1996. "Gen-
der and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of Fe-
male Offending." Annual Review of Sociology
22:459-487.
Sutherland, Edwin H. [1949) 1983. White Collar
Crime: The Uncut Version. New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press.
Tripplet, Ruth, and Laura B. Myers. 1995. "Evaluating
Contextual Patterns of Delinquency: Gender-
Based Differences." Justice Quarterly 12:59-84.
Wilson, Margo, and Martin Daly. 1992. "Who Kills
Whom in Spouse Killings? On the Exceptional
Sex Ratio of Spousal Homicides in the United
States." Criminology 30: 189-215.