Talk:Sex differences in crime/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments

What about women who get off because they are female?

Ie. women who claim they were "battered" and killed in "self defense", despite premeditating the murder and having plenty of other options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfalz (talk • contribs)

This is a pretty serious issue, most commonly raised by masculitsts. Anyone with data should add it. Also, the does the statistic on men incarcerated to women incarcerated refer to the total population of men to women, or the population of men to women convicted of similar crimes?Emmett5 00:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can find some data sure, but this isn't a big deal. There is a lot more interesting information on male violent offenders & testosterone, which is a much more objective subject. JeffBurdges 08:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article seems really biased against women. The fact is men commit more crime than women; for the sake of being "balanced" it talks more and more about when women commit crime and even suggesting that women are more likely to commit domestic violence? That's bullcrap. Get to the point. And stop feeling sorry for men all the time. 93.63.6.231 (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This Article is mostly meaningless because of an excessive amount of Politically Correctness preventing it to state mere facts. To be a good article it should just state two things (with DATA): what percentage of people committing or being victim of a certain crime is of one gender and what percentage is of the other. Period, no lenghty and mostly out of context write up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.71.221 (talk)

I don't see what is politically correct about the current state of the article; it's very clear that men commit the majority of crimes. But as for including commentary from scholars (whether factors or theories), that's because this is an encyclopedia, and why men are more aggressive and/or violent and more prone to risk is addressed by various scholars. While you or others might consider their explanations and theories politically correct, they make up a lot of the literature on this topic. This is not simply an article to list statistics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Social Rejection as a Form of Aggression

I don't see how social rejection is a form of aggression rather than a way to prevent aggression. For example, if someone's always acting rudely towards me I'm not going to invite them to hang out. I'm not excluding them in order to harm them. I'm excluding them because I don't want to be treated badly. It's a way to keep yourself out of a situation where someone will behave aggressively towards you where you'll be forced to choose between just taking it or behaving aggressively back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon4859493 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Rename

I suggest renaming this article to Gender and crime. Any comments? Pendragon39 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sex and crime is more usual english, and more formally correct english. WilyD 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It may be more usual but not as accurate. Gender is a more specific term. Sex and Crime is akin to a title like 'Sex and Chocolate'. There should be no ambiguity. Pendragon39 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Gender in english refers basically to grammar - as a euphanism for sex it's basically slang. WilyD 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Gender refers to biological sex. In language and sociology, gender refers to the masculine and the feminine. Sex has become slang for sexual intercourse or sexuality in general. Pendragon39 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I suppose though that most readers will visit Gender differences before they visit this article. Pendragon39 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Pendragon's proposal. Tazmaniacs 16:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Gender does not mean biological sex. Gender according to Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex". This article should be named Sex and Crime, not Gender and Crime. Disagree Watersoftheoasis (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reversal

I've reverted you, Pendragon, because the statements are very vague ("Most people have recognized...", please see WP:Weasel words) and from one statistics example follows hasty generalizations, without even detailing the place, date, method used for statistics, type of "crime", etc. What about crime of passions? What about white-collar crime? What about prostitution, which is a crime in several countries? Etc. Tazmaniacs 16:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to clean it up. The first paragraph refers to violent crime, which includes a large number of specific crimes. The statistics refer to homicide, to cite as an example. I will check to confirm a similar gender gap in other types of violent crime. The rest of the article touches on white collar crime; there is nothing per se on prostitution. Pendragon39 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your precisions, but a statement such as "Americans have long recognized a relationship among humans between biological sex and tendency to commit crime." is still weasel word and concerns an alleged universal opinion (that is, an opinion shared by everyone). This is most probably false. In any cases, it is not relevant, unless you want to make a section about "Perceived relations concerning sex & crime" or "common prejudices concerning sex & crime". Tazmaniacs 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also use WP:Footnotes as it allows an immediate view of the source used (I don't recommend using WP:Citation templates as they make for difficult editing of the page & are often deleted after link rot. Tazmaniacs 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the statement "men are more agressive" entails a specific conception of agressiveness. Wouldn't it be possible to imagine different types of agressiveness, and consider that women may also be very agressive, in the same way OR another way as men? All in all, there is a very real balancing problem with this article, in that it tries to enforce sociobiological theories that behaviour is determined by biology, which is clearly a strong POV. Henceforth, the move towards Gender and crime which you proposed on the above section is, IMO, a very good idea, as it could also entail cultural and social aspects of gender and would not limit this article to a strict sociobiological point of view. Tazmaniacs 19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's not in English (but an automatic translator machine might work), but you can read here, in Psychologie magazine, an article about "Violence and girls" [1]. Taking the recent case of three girls, aged 15 to 18, which have been accused of torture and rape, the article states that they are not more, or less, violent than boys, but often display a more "crude" violence, use of mobbing and various symbolic violence tactics that may lead to strong depressions and heavily suicide. Some "gangs of girls", however, have made the news from time to time, and have made themselves guilty of robbing, armed assault, rape, etc. A Google search about "girls violence" gives about... 20 000 000 results! A few of them: Violence among girls on the rise, Girls and Violence:

This report suggest that three trends are likely responsible for the increase in arrests of girls' for violent behavior.

• Relabeling of girls' status offense behavior into criminal behavior, which sometimes involves the arrest of girls involved in scuffles with family members for assault.
• Rediscovery of girls' violence by media and policy makers alike. Self-report data has consistently shown that girls engaged in more violence than arrest statistics indicated, in past decades. We simply did not arrest girls for this behavior, but that has now changed, due to policy shifts in enforcement.
• Upcriming refers to policies (like "zero tolerance policies") that have the effect of increasing the severity of criminal penalties associated with particular offenses. Related to "rediscovery," this phenomenon also explains the racialized patterns of enforcement that are observed in the official juvenile justice data. Specifically, when you examine the consequences of labeling girls violent (increased detentions and referrals to court), it appears that certain communities, notably communities of color are being differentially impacted by this new concern about violence among girls.

On the many causes explaining relationship between incarceration and real "criminal behavior"... And also [2]... A Canadian Public Health source states that:

Until recently, males were believed to be more aggressive and violent than females, and therefore few studies of aggression and violence included girls and women. Lately, however, more adolescent girls have been charged with violent crimes than before,1 which has led to increased research on girls who use violent strategies... during the late 1980s and the 1990s: the rate among male youth nearly doubled, and the rate among female youth almost tripled... Some researchers suggest that the increase can be partly explained by the stricter approach to schoolyard fights and bullying in recent years...

The article is then confronted with the constant problem of defining "agression", and distinguish covert, overt, direct and indirect aggressions. It also separates violence from agression (violence being the physical use of force, which is a circular type of definition since force, in particular physical force, is defined as controlled violence). Alevardo Valdez wrote a book titled "Mexican American Girls and Gang Violence" (ISBN 978-1403967220)... All of this suggest that it is not evident at all that men are more "aggressive" than women, and, more importantly, that cultural and social factors are very important (as gang culture clearly encourages violence, which you will not find in the same way in the British upper class — where violence is much more restrained and controlled... wasn't Margaret Thatcher called the "Iron Lady" ? And Isabel Peron has recently been arrested for ordering massive repression during the Dirty War, non-violent behaviour? What about Indira Gandhi, who proclaimed the state of emergency? Non-violence ? It would also be interesting to recall that one of the first presupposition of crowd psychology, made by Gustave Le Bon, was how crowd behavior annihilated individual differences, both class and gender differerences, to reduce everything to a violent mob. Never seen an enfuriated mob of old women? :) Tazmaniacs 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, kudos for expanding the article :) While there are studies that try to answer the question of 'why' or 'how' the relationship occurs, they lack statistical validity. All they do is suggest or cast doubt. Crime victim studies on the other hand have helped in determining actual numbers for unreported crimes. Pendragon39 22:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I doubt you will find anything that can conclusively demonstrate anything about the subject. In particular, they are so many ideological issues in these matters that even loads of "studies" are clearly made under the ideological intent of proving one or another thesis. Another reason for having a very strict criteria of inclusion of studies, and be very wary of fringe websites or fringe positions (such as arguing in favor of castration to reduce crime, a very POV, to say the least, way of putting things). Tazmaniacs 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wallet study

I question the relevancy and reliability of such a study. On the thousands of studies made, why this one out of others? How may it be considered reliable when only 100 persons have been tested? This is a very low scale studies. Tazmaniacs 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What thousands of studies? This is a specific study - are you disputing its results? Pendragon39 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I discuss its relevancy. See WP:RS. You can hardly call a test on 100 persons "conclusive"; I don't dispute the fact that you may find it, personally, interesting, but I do contest the relevancy of including it here. If we included this test, we could as well include a thousand similar tests of the same kind, which have demonstrated a thousand and one things. Tazmaniacs 22:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If the study is unique, it can be included without it being defined as conclusive; if not, then someone should determine if other studies were done and if the results were inconclusive Pendragon39 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Castration

If the aim of that article was to argue the cause of castration, I think a blog would be more appropriate. Thank you, Tazmaniacs 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which article? The Wallet Study? Pendragon39 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was Dabbs & al, ten lines (what a study!) to argue the cause of castration. Sick, IMO. Tazmaniacs 22:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

I have returned the 2nd paragraph of the USDOJ stats. No conclusions have been drawn and the relationship between gender and crime is implicit in the stats themselves. Please convert the references to footnotes, as this is the new style of this page.

I will see if Statistics Canada have their own crime data. Pendragon39 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian stats mirror the USDOJ. Are there countries that show a siginificantly lower or higher gender gap than US,UK or Canada? Pendragon39 02:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph:

In any cases, no direct conclusion can be made from a greater rate of incarceration and possible gender differences concerning behavior, in particular criminal behavior. Many different factors may explain the greater rate of incarceration of men, including more police vigilance, harsher sentences, or arrests for crimes more easily punished by incarceration [4].

No such conclusions are made. Pendragon39 02:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a warning. I don't accuse you of anything, I don't know you, I am just very wary of such issues. Furthermore, if you follow the source given, it precisely spoke about this theme. Read it & tell me what you think... Tazmaniacs 10:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/girls.htm ? (I don't remember what [4] actually referenced) My concern is that this study is not a statistic, so doesn't belong in that section. I don't see any problem in referencing it in other parts of the article and to a limited extent it is touched upon in Aggressivity (sp?) and Gender Pendragon39 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the "gender gap", I think it would be nice to focus on different types of crimes (don't know if stats are easily available). I'm sure you'll find more "female crime" in some specialized sorts of crime, both in organized crime, petty crime and white-collar crime. The articles I've found were focused on "female gangs", it is of course more spectacular. It is true however that, say in business (money laundering, tax evasion, etc.), females generally enjoy less important positions than male, and have thus less easy access to the firm's money. I also wonder about different types of mafias (yakuzas, Korean, etc. - maybe some of these groups have prominent females organizing stuff - definitely not to be found in Machist Sicilian Mafia...) You could perhaps lift the matter of female kamikazes, but that's terrorism. It is a crime though, although politically motivated... Tazmaniacs 10:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We can hopefully find statistics for non-violent crime classed by gender, they are preferable to studies. Some other stats I would wish to include would be the difference between genders with regard to victimization (strangers vs acquaintances); and the rate of unreported violent crime (stats for this might not be easy to find or can be disputed) Pendragon39 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I don't think it is a good idea to overload the Statistical Data section. The stats we have now are essentially the 'core elements' of what prompts people to talk about Crime and gender in the first place. Pendragon39 18:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Scope

I'm wondering about the scope this article should cover. Should it include gender-related information regarding motive (eg. rage or self-defense), and method (eg. male uses weapon, female uses poison)? Pendragon39 18:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If an article is to be made about this subject, then it should be thorough. I do think such info is relevant. The source above is the one I was talking about. Tazmaniacs 22:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the source above and a 2nd one from Canada. The 2nd source is used in statistics from Canada. I have no objection to its use for Canada. Each country could have its own set of notable stats, instead of stats that repeat USDOJ numbers. If there is a UN study that might also be good.

Could also include changes made to the Canadian prison system on behalf of female inmates based on new information. Pendragon39 00:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sociobiological perspective

This section is a bit of a mess. The language is rather POV ("outdated", "certain media") and it is not clear at all where this sudden interest in hypogonadal men on testosterone therapy comes from. It sure doesn't follow from the preceding section. --Crusio (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it provides no verifiable sources. Every claim says "citation needed" and proper journal citations are essential for a supposedly scientific research. I suggest to delete it completely till someone can provide the proper sources. -- Jota Be 13:30, 13 March 2011 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.7.254 (talk)

Category:Sexism

I think adding this article to Category:Sexism could be highly misleading and PoV. Comments? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Article

Does anyone else think this could provide some interesting information to the article? link — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicsColors (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

New Charts

I've created two new charts, worldwide homicides victims by gender, and person crimes in Canada, by gender (2008). For the Canadian chart I made two "types"; more severe and less severe. I feel these "types" are necessary. However if anyone wants to challenge either the necessity of it, or which crimes belong in which types, I am open to it. My reasoning for putting "criminal harassment", "simple assault", and "uttering threats" in less severe is because uttering threats is just that... uttering threats can turn into an aggravated assault, but if it did, it would be marked as such. Simple assault, or assault 1, is not a crime that causes any bodily harm. And criminal harassment I am quite unsure because I hear about stalking cases which turn into tragedy however it doesn't seem like a "it's always violent" crime, whereas a robbery there is always fear and violence aimed at the victim, whether he gets jumped, stuck up, or whatever. In aggravated assaults it always results in physical injury, as do attempted murders. Homicides leave someone dead. Sexual assaults sometimes result in physical injury but the psychological effects it leaves and the fear while being assaulted.

And I think it's necessary to divide them into two categories because it shows in general, which gender is more likely to be victimized, but if you just clump every crime together, it's a way too vague and misleading IMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Aggressivity and Gender

I agree that this article is gender-biased. How can you justify having a section titled "Aggressivity and Gender" and then talk mostly about women, given the bald statistics cited above? And you lead this section with this sentence: "Some researchers have suggested that females are not necessarily less aggressive, but that they tend to show their aggression in more covert and less physical ways (e.g., Passive-aggressive behavior)." 90% of homicides in the U.S. are committed by men, and you begin the section talking about how women are passive aggressive. And why does the rest of the article focus on women, for heaven's sake? Tlinse (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Tlinse, the article suffered from a lot of POV-pushing from editors trying to make women seem as aggressive, violent and as prone to commit crimes as men are, no matter that the literature on all of this generally reports the opposite. This happens with any topic about such sex/gender differences. There is always that one editor wanting to add "But women are just as bad, or worse." That one editor then goes about littering articles with such material...despite the WP:Due weight policy. This is especially seen when it comes to men's rights editors. The current state of the article is significantly different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Minor error

A minor error: it shouldn't say "Some differing explanations include men’s evolutionary tendency toward risk and criminal behavior, sex differences in activity, social support, and gender inequality." The notion of "criminal" is entirely subjective and, well frankly hasn't existed as we know it before the past hundred thousand years, so it cannot be an Evolutionary tendency. I don't know what study this sentence is based on (perhaps it should have a citation as well?), but it should either specify which particular (and arbitrary) society's definition of 'criminal' is being used, or, more preferably, it should be based on something more objective; eg, "violent behavior" instead of "criminal behavior". --RProgrammer (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. Will change. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not Encyclopedic Intro paragraph

"Although the gender differences in the criminality of men and women is often ignored, there is a clear and distinct difference that demands attention and study from professionals." This is surely not the kind of writing we are looking for (even though I agree with it). The statement that it is "often ignored" needs good refs- I don't think it is true - and we are not in the business of deciding which subjects demand attention from anybody, we are an encyclopedia, not a magazine.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

IceDragon64, I saw the "that demands" part a couple of days ago, and it struck me as unencyclopedic as well; I made a mental note to fix it later, since I was busy with another matter at the time. Minutes ago, I went ahead and tweaked that wording (followup edit here). I left in "often ignored," though. Anyone is free to be WP:Bold and take a stab at addressing that text. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)