I made some comments on this paper which you do not see. However, I consider it as a good example of what an A paper reads like.

By Elizabeth Smith

Oppression of a person is a devastating concept. It places limits on one’s capabilities and is unjust in it’s nature. Oppression of a whole segment of a population then can be seen as immoral and harming to a society as a whole. Unfortunately, women have been oppressed for many generations. It appears women were subsiding in a haze of ignorance always to male domination. In the 1960s, an ideology was started which lead to the liberation of women which is still being continued to this day. This was the feminist ideology and it’s manifestations in society have become a common idea in explaining the increase in female criminality.

The feminist ideology was born from the awareness of social roles, which is a major sociological concept. The feminist ideology emphasizes structural and socialization factors rather than biological factors in creating and maintaining masculine and feminine roles (Spilman, 1978, p. 195). A system of unequal roles has been structured on the premise that biologically derived differences between the sexes are major when in actuality they are minor. This paper will first look at the origin of oppression from a feminist and Marxist view, then examine the sociohistorical setting that led to the women’s movement. Finally, I will show the implications that female liberation has on crime committed by females.

The implication that distinguishes a feminist view of oppression from others is that there is a primary contradiction in all societies. This contradiction is seen as the antagonism between the sexes based on biological differences (Ursel, 1977, p. 159). A feminist analysis of oppression believes that women are at a biological disadvantage as compared to men. Their smaller bone structure and muscle strength as well as their reproductive function are seen as physical handicaps. Feminists believe that women have always been dependent on men and therefore have always been oppressed by men (Ursel, 1977, p. 23).

The major single statement of radial feminist theory can be found in Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialect of Sex. Firestone’s contribution to feminist theory was in accepting the traditional view that it was natural for men to rule women and then turn around and say that this was not "right" (Ursel, 1977, p. 8). Her argument begins by stating that since women are at the mercy of their biology and because men have had the advantage of greater strength and mobility, it was "natural" that women were dominated by men. She then challenges the traditional view by stating, "what is natural is not always human" (Firestone, 1971, p. 8). She then supports a feminist revolution which exceeds the limits of biology through the perfection of birth control and artificial reproduction (Ursel, 1977, p. 24).

Firestone then goes on to say that racism or class oppression is only understood by train it to the conflict between the sexes. She does this by analyzing the family and it’s inherently unequal power distribution. The basic characteristic of the family—women dependent upon men, children dependent upon adults—leads to a "power psychology," a "psychological pattern of dominance—submission" that is a motivating force behind oppression (Firestone, 1971, p. 11). From this perspective, Firestone argues that political attacks on outward forms of oppression, such as racism or capitalism, are not going to succeed unless the family structure is also changed. Firestone goes on to say that the historical basis of the inequality between the sexes is not an economic determination of classes, but the natural division of labor which precedes it (Ursel, 1977, p. 23).

Another innovating force in the feminist ideology is Simone de Beauvoir, auther of The Second Sex. She combines her basic feminist ideas with the Marxist view, but is still considered as having a feminist view as opposed to Marxist views. Her strong leaning toward feminism is seen in her acceptance of the inevitability and naturalness of men’s dominance over women.

Simone de Beauvior’s views are different than typical views because she sees the origin of women’s oppression as not only biological, but instilled in human nature itself (Ursel, 1977, p. 25). Therefore, the inevitability of oppression of women by men is given an "existential philosophical explanation in terms of the inherent imperialism of the human spirit" (de Beauvior, 1964, p. 56). The important link between these two feminist thoughts is the assumption that dependence is a necessary and sufficient cause of oppression (Ursel, 1977, p. 25).

A recurrent theme we find present in most all of the feminist ideologies is the idea that women possess a "hysterical" body. This concept sees women as being controlled by their bodies, instead of being in control of their bodies. Most feminist theorists, including de Beauvior and Firestone, believe that women’s reproductive function was the critical inhibiting factor in women’s development.

Three basic principles of radical feminism have been examined: the main contradiction in society is the antagonism between men and women, that this antagonism’s origins are in the biological difference between the sexes, and finally, women were physically weaker and handicapped by their reproductive function, making them dependent and, therefore, oppressed.

The feminist view has several areas in need of some analysis. The first being whether women suffer from a physical disadvantage as compared to men. As far as physical strength is concerned, there has been little, if any, evidence to support the idea that women are at a disadvantage. The far more important aspect of the feminist biological argument is the concept that a woman’s reproductive function was her greatest handicap. "Even in times when humanity most needed births, when maternity was most venerated, manual labor was the primary necessity and women were never permitted to take first place" (Ursel, 1977, p. 27). The meaning here is that because women reproduced, they could not produce. This supposedly occurred because pregnancy and location significantly reduced women’s mobility and, therefore, her potential as a hunter. In early societies, the hunters were necessary for the day to day survival of the community, thus giving them a high status power. Anthropological evidence shows that almost all societies have a division of labor based on sex (Ursel, 1977, p. 27). Women are given more settled, domestic roles while men are given more mobile, defensive roles.

Another problem in analyzing the feminist perspective is the assumption that dependence and oppression are synonymous (Ursel, 1977, p. 28). In other words, because one is dependent does not necessarily mean that they are oppressed. An example of dependence without oppression can be seen in a capitalistic society. Capitalists are totally dependent upon the working class to work their capital. Without the working class, the capitalists would be worthless, thus powerless. However, we know that the capitalists are not oppressed by the workers. To emerge from dominance to oppression involves a process which feminists have failed to detail (Ursel, 1977, p. 29).

One final question the feminists need to consider is that all forms of oppression stem from the conflict between the sexes (Ursel, 1977, p. 28). An obvious limitation of such a view is in it’s application to racism. It has been shown that in highly sexist sectors of the labor market, racism is low and vice versa. If the feminist concept of oppression was to hold true, a sexist division would lead to high racism. Finally, if sexism is the origin of all oppression, it follows that a feminist revolution would be enough for the elimination of all oppression. However, both de Beauvoir and Firestone stress the fact that social revolution would be necessary to obtain a feminist revolution (Ursel, 1977, p. 29).

Unlike the feminist position, the Marxist position sees the origin of women’s oppression as rooted in social relations, particularly in the relations of production rather than biological differences (Ursel, 1977, p. 29). This concept is fundamental to Marxist analysis and was developed in 1884 by Engels in his book, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Engels’ work has been criticized since, but it remains the only major Marxist work on the origin of women’s oppression. The first basic presumption of Engels’ theory was the idea that in primitive or prehistoric cultures, the nature of the economy necessitated a cooperative social organization in order to guarantee the survival of the community (Ursel, 1977, p. 30). At this level of existence, an individual’s labor was capable of only providing for that individual. This condition does not allow for the possibility of exploitation and, therefore, there was no reason or motivation for oppression. Under these conditions, Engels believed that all individuals were equal and men and women lived in harmony and equality (Ursel, 1977, p. 30). This is seen as the period of "primitive communalism," an important concept in Engels’ theory of women’s oppression (Ursel, 1977, p. 30). Engels turns the feminist argument around and recognizes maternity as a source of prestige rather than a handicap in primitive societies. He acknowledges a division of labor, but sees it as leading to harmony and cooperation, rather than antagonism (Ursel, 1977, p. 30). He believes the interdependence between men and women is of equality. The reason for Engels’ emphasis on the primitive communalism was to show that antagonism between the sexes is neither inherent nor inevitable (Ursel, 1977, p. 30). Engels argues that the domination of women can only be understood in an historical analysis of the social and economical forces, which gave way to oppression.

Engels sees the primitive communalism as being undermined by the transition from a hunting and gathering economy to one of agriculture and herding (Ursel, 1977, p. 30). The critical factor in the transition was the inscription of surplus. Because of this surplus, it became possible for the labor of one individual to provide for not only himself, but for others. This existence of surplus made exploitation possible and threatened the cooperative, equal nature of primitive communalism (Ursel, 1977, p. 30). The development of surplus and the destruction of communal sharing led to the concept of private property. It is here that the true Marxist nature of women’s oppression becomes apparent. In order to insure the legitimacy of man’s offspring, monogamy (for women only) was instituted (Ursel, 1977, p. 30). Through the breakdown of communal ties and their increasing concern for the passing on of private property to heirs, men came to view women and children as their property (Ursel, 1977, p. 31).

It is at this point that we should analyze our capitalistic system in terms of oppression. Again, monogamy is seen as one of the foundations for the structure of oppression. Capitalism depends upon this traditional structure and the nuclear family to fulfill it’s economical potential (Rafter, 1981, p. 81). The division of labor, central to the capitalist system, is one that separates those who produce from control over means of production (Rafter, 1981, p. 81). This system dictates men as producers of goods and women serving primarily as the producers of the next generation of producers.

Capitalism will thrive as long as women accept these subordinate roles, especially when supported by other institutions, such as schools and churches, which reinforce women’s compliance to these traditional sex role models (Rafter, 1981, p. 82). If were to reject their non- or low paying jobs, it would be a threat to an economic system whose main goal is maximization of profits (Rafter, 1981, p. 82). It becomes obvious that it is the capitalistic society, and not men, who assign sex roles to yield the greatest profit. "The bourgeois, commerce based mentality which prompts men to exploit women for the sake of economic gains, must overcome if women are to achieve true equality" (Rafter, 1981, p. 82). Recognizing this fact is essential if women are to gain equal rights. As Engels said, "The legal inequality of the two partners (male and female) is not the cause, but the effect of the economic oppression of women" (Engels, 1972, p. 136). The basic assumption of Marxist feminism is that equality and freedom of women will not be fully realized until the capitalist system is undermined and a classless system—an economic and political system in which men and women share equally in production and it’s rewards (Rafter, 1981, p. 82).

With an understanding of the origins of oppression, some basic causes for the liberation of women are needed. From the early part of the century, small progress was made for women. The oppression of women was not seen as a problem. But in 1963, Betty Friedman published her book of the "women’s problem" and it immediately shed light on the once shadowed topic (Spilman, 1978, p. 209). Society began to be seen as institutionally unequal.

Since the 1800s, the life span of the average man and woman has increased while family size has decreased. These factors let the parents be free of their children at an earlier age (Wells, 1973, p. 88). Accordingly, by 1950, when the majority of the members of the women’s movement were in late childhood or early adolescence, the emphasis within the marriage structure had moved from reproduction to husband/wife compatibility and mutual support and companionship; they began to have similar goals and functions within the marital unit (Wells, 1975, p. 88). This tendency is most prevalent in the middle class.

Thus, around 1965, women were marrying later, having fewer children later, and seeking to satisfy emotional rather than purely economical needs in the marital relationship (Spilman, 1978, p. 210). Because of changing social and educational patterns in the middle class, women were encouraged to work outside the home for the first time, except during times of war. Women began to have conflict between general achievement norms and the norms of the female role to which they were socialized. At this time, women began to become more competitive for higher education. Here women are likely to be exposed to many other options, which compete with the traditional female homemaker role. Higher education was giving these women a sense of independence, self reliance, and achievement. The movement toward still fewer and later children, and exposure to alternatives, increased the likelihood that women would seek employment, so self fulfill themselves, in the labor force. It was around this time that women started to expect occupations, outside of being homemakers, as part of their normal lives.

It has been shown that during the years from 1960 to 1975, married women, including those with children, were increasingly entering into occupations as the supply of the traditionally preferred female (young and unmarried) could not keep up with the pace of opening job occupations (Spilman, 1978, p. 211). But women simply entering the work force was not enough to spark the movement. This realization started when women began to have a growing need for equality. Due to increased separation and divorce, many working women found themselves as the head of their households. These women not only deserved equal pay for equal work, but they desperately needed it. In 1972, female workers were earning three fifths of male workers (Spilman, 1978, p. 211).

What was happening was the labor force status gap was the greatest where the ideology of equality within marriage and educational preparation was the greatest for women (Spilman, 1978, p. 201). These status inconsistencies created a sense of frustration for women and increased their awareness of sexual discrimination. This sense of "class sex consciousness"—a sense of women’s inferior socioeconomic position—thus enhanced women’s awareness of broader social roles based on sex. This concept is the whole concept of the feminist movement.

I have explained both the nature of oppression and liberation, but how do they relate to female legal policy and legal structures? Legal policies and structures interact differently with females than they do males. In general, legal policies evolve in response to the particular system of ideologies, which exist in a given society. In a capitalistic system, law reflects a bourgeois ideology code, which constrains women to specific roles within the economic system (Rafter, 1981, p. 83). Women are the property of the dominant males in their lives and women’s work is defined as unworthy of significant praise or pay. If women violate the ideology code defining women’s proper role, they are labeled as deviant and punished by severe sanctions (Rafter, 1981, p. 83). Law forms into an instrument of social control over women and a means of maintaining the economic status quo.

The law oppresses women in two ways. The first way is by paternalism, or the restriction of women through enactment of chivalrous statutes supposedly aimed at women’s protection (Rafter, 1981, p. 84). An example of paternalism is the differential sentencing statutes which permit women to be incarcerated for longer periods of time than men for similar offences (Rafter, 1981, p. 84). These statutes have been justified on the grounds of their rehabilitative potential. Statutes such as these serve to reinforce the stereotype of women as being weak and in need of protection because of their "natural difference" (Rafter, 1981, p. 84).

Chivalrous motives are also the grounds for a distinct discriminatory instrument of women’s oppression, status offenses. Although in theory, status offenses (such as running away) are applied to juveniles of both sexes and all economic levels equally, these laws reflect efforts to maintain bourgeois standards of femininity (Rafter, 1981, p. 84). The bias is seen in higher prosecution rates for females and more severe punishment than that received by males who commit more serious, violent crimes or property crimes (Meda-Chesney, 1973, p. 53). These girls learn that deviance from economically based sex role patterns will result in legal sanctions.

The second way that our legal system oppresses women is through it’s almost total failure to respond to issues that concern women the most (Rafter, 1981, p. 84). Problems such as wife abuse, sexual harassment, rape and so forth are very important issues to women and they are looked over by our legal system to a large degree. Problems such as these have the greatest significance for the poor and working class indicating that class is as important as sex in the effort to obtain legal equality for women (Rafter, 1981, p. 85).

When looking at the female offender, one must keep in mind the subjective nature of crime and deviance as defined by law based on capitalism (Rafter, 1981, p. 91). Women often fall prey to the fact that when they commit a crime, they not only violate a standard social norm based on legality, but they also violate moral and social norms of femininity.

In understanding the liberation of women, one must take notice of the dark side of liberation. In the same way that women are trying to better their position by legitimate means, they are also trying illegitimate means. Equality of women entrenches upon all arenas of the social nature, including equality in the criminal arena. With the breaking down of barriers that once protected male prerogatives and social gender roles looking increasingly alike, it is no surprise that once women are armed with male opportunities they would attempt to gain status, criminal as well as civil (Adler, 1977, p. 102). As women gain entrance into the social, occupational, and professional worlds with all the assets they contain, they are also subjected to the same temptations, frustrations, and stress that men have fallen to (Adler, 1977, p. 102). Social and emotional forces, which accompany emersion into the male world, as powerful equalizers is evident in the changing criminal behavior of women.

The question now seems to be: has there been a significant change in female criminal behavior? In the United States, the total arrest rate among females has been rising nearly four times faster than that of males (Adler, 1977, p. 103). During the years from 1960 to 1970, the number of women arrested for robbery rose by 380%, while the male rate rose by 214% (Adler, 1977, p. 103). Results similar to these have been found in fraud (up 488% as compared to 91% for males), larceny (up 465% as compared to 130%), and burglary (up 298% and 117%) (Adler, 1977, p. 103). So far, these intense accelerated rates of arrests have not been for aggravated assault or murder. This may lead one to believe that women are simply trying to better their financial position because of their new roles as heads of their households.

These increases in female crime can be seen in our juveniles also. Until recently, girls played little part in juvenile delinquency. However, with the greater assimilation of sex roles, girls are participating at an 80% increase from 1974 to 1975 (Adler, 1977, p. 104). The offences with the largest increase are drinking in public, shoplifting, disorderly conduct, and theft (Adler, 1977, p. 104).

What we have seen is a slow, but increasingly strong movement in which females are becoming less distant from males, legitimately and illegitimately. Women have noticed their oppression and are finally trying to liberate themselves from an oppressed society which has it’s roots in male domination. Women are showing that the gap between men and women is narrow and that men and women are quite similar. Whether one believes oppression has it’s roots in the biological difference or in the capitalist social structure, the final consequence is the same. The roles of women have been oppressed throughout history and are just beginning to broaden. With this broadening of the roles, there is a broadening of opportunities. Women are realizing their potential in the social, professional, and economical realms of society. They are also realizing their potential in the criminal realm. In theory, when women become equal to men, so shall their patterns and rates of crime.

Adler, Freda. "Feminist Ideology in the United States: It’s Development From 1966-70 as The Indicator of a General Social Movement" Contemporary Crisis, (1978) vol.2, pp. 104-112.

De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex, New York: Bantam Books (1964) pp. 27-65.

Engels The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, (1884).

Firestone, S. The Dialectic of Sex, New York: Bantam Books (1971) pp. 6-150.

Meda-Lind. "Judicial Enforcement of the Female Sex Role: The Family Court and Female

Delinquency" Issues in Criminology, (1973) pp. 51-69.

Rafter. "Marxist Feminism" Crime and Delinquency, (1981) pp. 81-87.

Spilman, M. "The Interaction Between Women’s Emancipation and Female Criminality:

A Cross-Cultural Perspective" International Journal of Criminology and

Penology, (1977) pp. 101-112.

Ursel, Jane "The Nature and Origin of Women’s Oppression: Marxism and Feminism"

Contemporary Crisis, vol. 1 (1977) pp. 21-30.