How might feminist criminologists critique modern-day victimization theories, such as activities theory and lifestyle theories?

Question

How might feminist criminologists critique modern-day victimization theories, such as activities theory and lifestyle theories?

Answer 1

Routine activities theory suggests that in order for a crime to occur there must be three elements present: a suitable target, a motivated offender, and the lack of a capable guardian. While the first two are mostly self explanatory, the third refers to a person or environment that is protective of the potential victim and creates a higher level of difficulty for the offender to commit the crime against that specific target. Routine activities theory argues that a crime will occur when the three elements come together at a specific time and place when the reward is great enough. It can be thought of as a triangle where each element is one leg of the triangle; remove any one of the legs and the triangle falls apart.

Lifestyle theory suggests that an individual's lifestyle will make them either more or less susceptible to becoming a victim of a crime. Those who live a riskier lifestyle and place themselves in more dangerous situations are more likely to fall victim to a crime whereas those who avoid dangerous situations or environments are less likely to be victimized. For example, people who live in high crime neighborhoods or associate with known criminals are more likely to become a victim than a person who lives in a low crime neighborhood, avoids contact with criminals, and avoids alcohol/drug use.

Each theory attempts to explain crime from the victim's standpoint. The feminist school of criminology seeks to understand crime from the female perspective in that women have different factors that lead them into offending or cause them to become a victim. In the case of sexual assault for example, women are often viewed differently than men with respect to their "suitability" as a target.

Feminist criminologists will argue that routine activities theory fails to take into account the gender role in offending. Male and female offenders are motivated differently and come to offend for different reasons. Males and females also come to be victims for different reasons according to the feminist school of criminology. Whereas a male is generally seen by society as more capable of protecting himself from someone who intends to do him harm and women are generally seen as less capable of protecting themselves from criminals, the routine activities theory does not address this gender inequality. Further, routine activities does not address the reasons which drive an offender's motivation. Female and male offenders are motivated by similar, but not exactly, the same reasons. Routine activities theory only states that an offender must be motivated; however, it fails to address that under certain circumstances or the presence of certain conditions will motivate an offender of one gender but not the other. Therefore the gender of the offender plays an important part in whether a crime will be committed in any given circumstance or situation.

Lifestyle theory, like routine activities theory, also does not appropriately incorporate the role gender plays in crime. For example, people are generally considered to be more safe at home than when they are outside their homes and interacting with other members of their community. Women however, have been found to be less safe at home than their male counterparts. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is more frequently carried out against female victims than males and the offender is frequently an intimate partner or household member. So, whereas the lifestyle theory suggests that people are more safe at home, that isn't always the case when the gender of the person in question is taken into account. Lifestyle theory also does not account for the type of crime committed. Women tend to be targeted for different crimes than their male counterparts. Women are exponentially more likely to be sexually assaulted than men and often it is the woman's so-called guardian who is the offender. Such is the case for spousal rape, domestic violence, and other crimes of the sort.

While many other arguments can be made to show that the lifestyle and routine activities theories may not be as accurate as once thought when the influence of gender is introduced, the examples above provide a brief glimpse into the perceptual foundation upon which the feminist school of criminology can be applied to challenge certain theoretical perspectives.