Radical Criminology: The Radical Feminist Theory

Feminist theory has contributed to criminology by making obvious its masculinity and hence, its disregard of feminism. Feminist theory is an umbrella term which many variants exist under. Three theories include: radical feminist theory, liberal and neo-liberalist, and black feminist theory. Criminology has focused greatly on masculine-dominant theories without focusing on the minority – women. These theories collectively apply to criminology and each contribute to feminist theory by highlighting criminology’s toxic masculinity. Radical feminist theory does so by making apparent misogyny of criminology within society, supported by empiricism. Liberal feminism reiterates this but rather focuses on female criminality activity during social hardship

Misogyny has existed pre-contemporary times, especially when patriarchy was prime, particularly in the 1970s. This is evident in Lombroso and Ferrero’s theory of Atavism. Atavism expressed a misogynistic view of women by comparing their sex to sex-workers, saying women were “primitive”, and consequently, sex-workers were the same (Smart. C, 1977, p79). Criminology’s masculinity was further evident through its ironic criticism of feminist empiricism. Male criminologists stated, feminist study of women was unscientific whilst criminology was “scientific” due to its “ungendered” focus upon men (Ngaire. N, 1995, pxiv). This toxicity is further pronounced across inequality of the moral code and “labelling” (Ngaire. N, 1995, pxiv). Inequality in “moral code” manifested as men were encouraged for being sexually active, whilst women were restricted to remain chaste; being sexually active would have besmirched her identity due to her apparent infidelity (Smart, C. 1977, p78). Furthermore, expectations of femininity were influenced by the treatment of victims and perpetrators through “labelling”: men who stole cars did so as an act of “virility” and women, “freedom” (Ferrall, Bard R. 2002, p201). Hence, radical feminism has brought into light the unjust reactions and actions of men, hence its masculinity, which is further reiterated in liberal feminist

A major criticism following this theory is, it is composed by white middle-class women; the same women whom in June 2002, undertook a survey reporting they felt dissatisfied within their community by 28%, whilst women-of-colour, 48%, reported their dissatisfaction of the treatment of women within society (Chesney-Lind, M. Morash, M. 2011, p234). Despite the oppression of women, the oppression of women-of-colour is greater (Chesney-Lind, M. Morash, M. 2011, pxv). White-women were regarded over these women-of-colour; hence no action was taken. Women-of-colour are not only oppressed by society but also by members of their own ethnicity, most whom live by the patriarchal norm. The white-washed criticism however was because women-of-colour were restricted from sharing an opinion; by contributing to a theory, they would experience boycotting within the midst of a racist and misogynistic society (Chesney-Lind, M. Morash, M. 2011, p234). Thus, disregarding the treatment white-women received, their voices were much louder and highly regarded over women-of-colour which further explores the notion of intersection of race and gender and its effect upon crime victimisation. Despite the diversity within black feminism, and diverse range of opinion, it has contributed to criminology by highlighting both gendered and racial prejudice, alongside