Conflict View of Feminism

Feminism is a conflict perspective because it draws attention to unequal power between women and men. Patriarchy means a system in which men hold greater power and authority. From this perspective, gender patterns in crime cannot simply be explained by assuming that women are naturally more law-abiding. Expectations, restrictions and unequal access to resources matter.

Three explanations address different parts of this issue: Heidensohn explains female conformity through social control; Carlen examines why some disadvantaged women offend; and the chivalry thesis considers how officials respond to female offenders.

Heidensohn: control in a male-dominated society

Frances Heidensohn’s work in 1985 argued that women’s lower involvement in crime could be explained by the stronger social controls placed on them. Social control consists of the processes that encourage or pressure people to follow rules. Conformity means following those rules and accepted expectations.

Heidensohn identified control in three connected settings:

• At home: housework and childcare occupy women’s time and restrict their movement. Financial dependence on men can limit independence. Daughters may be allowed less freedom than sons, while women who reject traditional domestic roles may face criticism or male violence.
• In public: fear of male violence and sexual harassment can discourage women from going out alone, particularly after dark. Gossip and criticism about behaviour considered inappropriate for women can also restrict their freedom.
• At work: male-dominated hierarchies, harassment and intimidation can limit women’s independence and access to powerful positions. Restricted access to senior jobs can also reduce opportunities for some occupational crimes.

The connection to conformity is important. Domestic responsibilities can reduce the time and opportunity available for offending, while fear of violence or damage to reputation can discourage behaviour that challenges expectations. Women may therefore conform because their choices are restricted, rather than simply because they agree with every rule.

Heidensohn’s explanation is valuable because it connects everyday gender inequality to crime. It also shows that control need not involve the police: family relationships and informal expectations can constrain behaviour.

However, women do not all experience the same restrictions. Class, ethnicity, age and family circumstances can make a difference. Women can also resist control and make independent choices. The explanation is therefore useful for understanding a broad pattern of conformity, but cannot by itself explain why some women offend despite these controls.

Carlen: poverty and the breakdown of two deals

Pat Carlen’s 1988 study examined why some working-class women became involved in crime. She used in-depth, unstructured interviews with 39 convicted working-class women aged 15–46. Some were in prison or youth custody. Their offences included shoplifting, burglary, fraud and assault.

Carlen argued that conformity is encouraged by the expected rewards of two ‘deals’. These are not literal contracts; they describe what women are encouraged to believe they will gain from following conventional expectations.

The class deal promises material rewards from legitimate work, such as wages, consumer goods and independence. Poverty, poor pay and limited employment opportunities can undermine this promise. If hard work offers little prospect of security, a woman may see less reason to remain committed to it.

The gender deal promises emotional and financial rewards from family life in return for being a conventional wife and mother. Abuse, neglect or a lack of stable relationships and support can undermine this promise too.

Carlen identified poverty, experiences of residential care, drug or alcohol addiction and a search for excitement among the factors linked to the women’s offending. When the expected rewards of work and family were unavailable, conformity could appear to offer little benefit. Crime could then seem a rational response to restricted opportunities: the women had less to lose by offending. Carlen described their offending as ‘crimes of the powerless’.

This develops the explanation beyond gender alone. Carlen connects gender inequality with class disadvantage, helping to explain why some women offend while others conform. Heidensohn emphasises the restrictions that maintain conformity; Carlen highlights circumstances in which the rewards supporting conformity break down.

Evaluating Carlen’s evidence

The interviews gave marginalised women an opportunity to explain their experiences. Their depth helped Carlen explore how poverty, relationships and turning points were connected to criminal careers.

However, 39 women form a small sample, and all had already been convicted. Their experiences cannot automatically be generalised to all female offenders, let alone all women. The study did not include a comparison group of women who faced similar hardship but did not offend. It therefore cannot establish that poverty or the breakdown of the deals inevitably causes crime. Personal choices and resilience also matter.

The chivalry thesis: different treatment rather than different behaviour

The chivalry thesis, associated with Otto Pollak in 1950, argues that male police officers, judges and juries may treat women more leniently. They may see women as less dangerous and more in need of protection than punishment.

If female offenders are treated more leniently, this could affect who is processed through the criminal justice system and the punishments they receive. It could therefore help explain gender differences in official records without showing an equivalent difference in actual offending.

However, leniency is not universal. The contrasting double deviance thesis argues that women who offend may be judged for breaking both the law and expectations of femininity. Women involved in violence or child cruelty, for example, may be condemned particularly strongly because their behaviour conflicts with expectations that women should be caring and non-aggressive.

These views suggest that gender expectations can produce different responses, not simply favourable treatment for every woman. A difference in sentencing alone also does not prove chivalry: a fair comparison needs to consider factors such as the seriousness of the offence and previous offending.

Reaching a balanced judgement

Feminist explanations show how unequal power can shape conformity, offending and punishment. Together, Heidensohn and Carlen help explain both restrictions on women and the pressures experienced by disadvantaged female offenders. The chivalry debate adds the possibility that official records are influenced by gendered treatment.

Their strongest use is as complementary explanations, not universal rules. Women’s circumstances vary, hardship does not inevitably lead to crime, and criminal justice officials do not necessarily treat every female offender in the same way.