Applying material from item A, analyse 2 reasons why men commit crime. [10 marks]
When looking to explain male crime, we can see ‘a clear link between crime and masculinity’ as Item
A suggests. This is the view taken by Messerschmidt (1993) who manages to explain how a variety of
attempts at hegemonic masculine expression, from different groups of society, lead to men
committing crime. For example, whilst the white middle-class youths face an accommodating
masculinity in school (e.g., through subordination to teachers) they are able to showcase an
oppositional masculinity outside of school with activities such as vandalism or shoplifting. This differs
to what we see in white working-class youths and black lower working-class youths since all face a
different opportunity to display their masculinity. White working-class youths demonstrate an
oppositional masculinity both inside and outside of school and black lower working-class youths
often turn to violent or property crime when denied of material opportunities. However, whilst it is
true that masculinity and the patriarchy that instils these ideas may contribute to male crimes, we
cannot ignore that such crimes also take place in the context of capitalism and as Marxists may
claim, the decision by black lower working-class youths to commit property crimes comes more out
of necessity of survival in the oppressive Capitalist society they inhabit rather than an attempt to
display masculinity. Therefore, whilst Messerschmidt does create a compelling argument for male
crime, he arguably over-emphasises the extent to which masculinity plays a part in relation to other
factors.
As Item A suggests, a second reason for why men commit crime may be due to ‘changes over time in
the economy and employment structure’. As globalisation has become more apparent, there has
been a shift into a postmodern de-industrialised society. With this change, whilst traditional
working-class and manual jobs have taken a hit, new jobs in the service sector have opened up
which offer legal employment, criminal opportunities and an opportunity at expressing masculinity.
For example, Winlow (2001) conducted a study of bouncers in the north-east of England, an area of
great de-industrialisation. He found that taking on this job gave working-class men paid work,
opportunity into illegal ventures of drug-dealing and allowed them to act violently and demonstrate
masculinity. Winlow even goes as far as to suggest that masculinity becomes a commodity in
postmodern society since men must ‘look the part’ so to deter competitors from challenging them.
However, it can be argued that this view fails to recognise that not all working-class males chose to
take on such jobs that offer these criminal opportunities, not all want to assert their masculinity and
not all will have the chance to get into such employment positions in the first place. Nevertheless,
Winlow’s study does raise an interesting consideration over why the crime rate may be on the up in
our postmodern society and this is worth investigating especially in relation to male crimes.
When looking to explain male crime, we can see ‘a clear link between crime and masculinity’ as Item
A suggests. This is the view taken by Messerschmidt (1993) who manages to explain how a variety of
attempts at hegemonic masculine expression, from different groups of society, lead to men
committing crime. For example, whilst the white middle-class youths face an accommodating
masculinity in school (e.g., through subordination to teachers) they are able to showcase an
oppositional masculinity outside of school with activities such as vandalism or shoplifting. This differs
to what we see in white working-class youths and black lower working-class youths since all face a
different opportunity to display their masculinity. White working-class youths demonstrate an
oppositional masculinity both inside and outside of school and black lower working-class youths
often turn to violent or property crime when denied of material opportunities. However, whilst it is
true that masculinity and the patriarchy that instils these ideas may contribute to male crimes, we
cannot ignore that such crimes also take place in the context of capitalism and as Marxists may
claim, the decision by black lower working-class youths to commit property crimes comes more out
of necessity of survival in the oppressive Capitalist society they inhabit rather than an attempt to
display masculinity. Therefore, whilst Messerschmidt does create a compelling argument for male
crime, he arguably over-emphasises the extent to which masculinity plays a part in relation to other
factors.
As Item A suggests, a second reason for why men commit crime may be due to ‘changes over time in
the economy and employment structure’. As globalisation has become more apparent, there has
been a shift into a postmodern de-industrialised society. With this change, whilst traditional
working-class and manual jobs have taken a hit, new jobs in the service sector have opened up
which offer legal employment, criminal opportunities and an opportunity at expressing masculinity.
For example, Winlow (2001) conducted a study of bouncers in the north-east of England, an area of
great de-industrialisation. He found that taking on this job gave working-class men paid work,
opportunity into illegal ventures of drug-dealing and allowed them to act violently and demonstrate
masculinity. Winlow even goes as far as to suggest that masculinity becomes a commodity in
postmodern society since men must ‘look the part’ so to deter competitors from challenging them.
However, it can be argued that this view fails to recognise that not all working-class males chose to
take on such jobs that offer these criminal opportunities, not all want to assert their masculinity and
not all will have the chance to get into such employment positions in the first place. Nevertheless,
Winlow’s study does raise an interesting consideration over why the crime rate may be on the up in
our postmodern society and this is worth investigating especially in relation to male crimes.
