He Said > She Said

In our society, gender inequality is, and has been, visible in many areas, including politics, religion, media, cultural norms, and even the workplace. Both men and women receive many messages—both blatant and covert—that men are more important than women. This fundamental inequality creates a rationale for humiliation, intimidation, control, abuse, and even murder, and in this context, it becomes easier for a man to believe that he has the right to be in charge and to control a woman, even if it requires violence. Economic situations, racism, sexism, and overall discrimination towards women lead them to encounter dangerous conditions of domestic abuse, sex work, and ultimately, sexual assault and violence, and as Canadian citizens, we rely on our government, law enforcement, and the criminal justice system to protect vulnerable persons and victims of violence. However, with alarming rates of sexual assault still taking place each year, expressed attitudes of little faith in the system to protect victims, and the creation and implementation of laws that have been expressly opposed as promoting dangerous conditions for women; one must question whether the government is doing enough to protect them, or if the same sentiments that lead to sexual violence and abuse are also permeated in our justice system; creating structural discrimination against women and legitimizing their status as victims. Throughout this analysis, I will be exploring how historical conditions of gender inequality have influenced the creation of a Canadian criminal justice system that is male-dominant, subsequently failing to adequately protect women as victims of sexual abuse, and instead, serving to legitimize their suffering through structural discrimination, fueled by stereotypes and socio-economic motives. I will be using the perspective of feminist criminology in order to dissect this phenomenon, which combines conflict theory and a focus on intersectionality with a post modern critical analysis of the criminal justice system and its inadequate protection of women. Bibblings and Nicolson (2003) explain that gender stereotypes underlie the application, and even the formulation, of core criminal law concepts, “yet, until relatively recently, the gender dimension to crime has been ignored” (p 1). Criminal law has often been analyzed as if the gender of both the victims and the perpetrators of crimes is completely irrelevant to the way in which the law is actually applied, even though there are certain crimes that may only be committed by one sex, and other crimes where there are defenses available to a single sex, as well. The problem is that “criminal law has been analyzed and taught as if its rules are gender blind” (ibid). Therefore, feminist criminology examines laws, crimes, and the criminal justice system by critically analyzing how certain laws and practices (especially surrounding sexual crimes and violence) may unfairly discriminate against women. They focus largely on the idea that negative stereotypes towards women and competing socio-economic motives, in the hands of a patriarchal system, has created structural discrimination and unfair treatment towards women as both victims and criminals. Their goal is to introduce a gender aspect of analysis into research surrounding criminology, in order to point out the root causes and flaws in the system, systemically or otherwise, so that meaningful reform can be achieved. Moyer (1985) critiques that the “dominance of men in the criminal justice system parallels men’s dominance in our society, paternalistic attitudes toward women resulting from the continuing socialization of people into traditional sex roles” (p. 2). As a result, studies of both offenders and criminal justice agencies have generally ignored women. Conflict theory explains this phenomenon by focusing on the relationships among groups with different levels of power. “This theory asserts that those with power define criminality so as to perpetuate the existing social order and administer criminal justice agencies to maintain this order (ibid). Feminists believe that people have gendered biases which are perpetuated and enforced across generations by those who benefit from them (Lewontin, 1984, p. 132). Therefore, feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction that can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations, which is exactly what feminist criminologists are attempting to do, as they research the roots of gender bias in the CJS. Finally, feminist criminology as a critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. I will be using this lens to examine the treatment of women as victims of sexual violence as human trafficking, prostitution and rape victims, and as criminals of violent crimes. This evaluation will allow for the critical analysis of the causes of sexual violence, and the treatment of both victims and criminals by the CJS, not only in an effort to understand, but to reform. Women as Victims of the State (Human Trafficking and Prostitution Laws/Process) A young girl from the Czech Republic met her trafficker when she was only 17. At first he was good to her, but the tables turned after illegally bringing her with him to Canada where he would become controlling and abusive. He kept her under lock and key, physically abusing and sexually assaulting her, and selling her body to other men for money. There was no freedom of movement, although a few times she would escape, but only to come right back to him – a common pattern of behavior for a victim of trauma. She eventually escaped for good, and after several months finally overcame her fear of not being taken seriously by Canadian officials because “she was just another Roma girl” as her trafficker had repeatedly told her. She gave a very detailed statement, and her trafficker was charged with sexual assault and forced confinement. Efforts to tack on a charge of human trafficking fell through, however, as the officer did not feel the girl’s ordeal met the “ironclad” definition of human trafficking, and subsequently, she was denied a TRP. She ended up filing a refugee claim, but since she was a Roma, she was automatically declined. The denial meant that she would have to wait a year to make another claim, but in that year she could be deported, and this is exactly what happened; sent back into the vulnerable situation in which she was first picked up by the trafficker. Her social worker commented that this young girl was exploited in two ways: “She was exploited by the man who brought her here and she was exploited by the system” (Alliance Against Modern Slavery, 2014, p. 31). “Not infrequently, patriarchal interests overlap with systems that also reinforce class and race privilege, hence, the unique need for feminist criminology to maintain the focus on intersectionality that characterizes recent research and theorizing on gender and race in particular” (Mallicoat, 2011, p. 52). The analysis in this section will focus on human trafficking and prostitution, and the subsequent prohibition/ regulation efforts of the Canadian government and criminal justice system. I will attempt to show how the competing interests of economic fortune, intersectional identifications, motives, and gender stereotypes regarding female sexuality influence the failure of the state to provide for adequate protection of female human trafficking and prostitution victims from sexual abuse and violence. Although human trafficking takes many forms, and negatively affects and enslaves both men and women, Shelley (2011) explains “human trafficking is an important gender issue because it is the only area of transnational crime in which women are significantly represented. Women are disproportionately victims of human trafficking, particularly trafficking for sexual exploitation, domestic servitude and marriage” (p. 35). Kempadoo (1998) furthers this viewpoint, explaining how “within the sex industry, a gendered hierarchy and systematic privileging of the male and the masculine continues to be prevalent” (p. 7). The sex industry provides an expansive market for human trafficking, with poor, and often racialized women as victims in particular. Muftic (2009) adds to this analysis, explaining that other situations in supply countries affected by globalization serve as conditions for human trafficking, including “unsuccessful economic transition, poor governance, corruption, post-conflict situations, low female youth employment, and gender-based discrimination caused by deep-rooted patriarchal structures” (p. 17). This further outlines the importance of an intersectional approach to this analysis, since the majority of victims are not simply women, but women who are also in a certain economic or political situation. If the Canadian government does not have an adequate system to protect victims of human trafficking from sexual violence, this systemically affects women far more than men, since they represent the majority of the persons who are made vulnerable by this criminal activity. The government obviously has acknowledged that human trafficking is a condemnable action, and has made efforts towards prohibition, however, these actions have not been meaningful in terms of adequately protecting women as victims of the sexual violence that stems from their status as trafficked persons or prostitutes in Canada. There are many competing interests when it comes to effectively eliminating human trafficking, especially with regard to the sex industry and prostitution. Friman (2009) explains “society may deem it legitimate to enforce prohibitions against criminalized activity, though the ways in which policy makers do so can challenge societal expectations concerning the legitimate use of state power and can lead to political costs, ranging from losses of electoral support to an erosion of political authority, which policy makers are often unwilling to bear” (p. 57). For example, enforcement can challenge domestic political, economic, and social practices that, though illegal, are selectively tolerated. “Enforcement can run counter to vested political and economic interests that have stake in the continuation of the prohibited activity or are opposed to the structural shifts that may be necessary for its elimination” (ibid). The reliance from businesses for cheap and degrading labour, provided by these trafficked victims, influences the lack of enforcement toward their protection within Canada. Farley (2006) explains that “there is an economic motive to hiding the violence in prostitution and trafficking. Although other types of gender-based violence such as incest, rape, and wife beating are similarly hidden and their prevalence denied, they are not sources of mass revenue” (p. 102). She further emphasizes that “many governments protect commercial sex businesses because of the monstrous profits. Like slavery, prostitution is a lucrative form of oppression. And both slavery and prostitution are rife with every imaginable type of physical and sexual violence” (ibid). New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton was even quoted as having said that the government was actually "pimping for the sex industry” by means of going so far as to actually legitimize their status as victims through the creation of the Exotic Dancer Visa (Hughes, 2005, p. 1). “The business of human trafficking is built on widespread individual human suffering, yet human trafficking is hard to combat because it has financial advantages for many legal businesses” (Shelley, 2010 p. 40). One such legal business that profits from this suffering is that of strip clubs, and bars of similar nature. This ‘insatiable appetite’ for sex in Canada has created a demand and a market within our borders for sex workers. As Macklin (2003) explained, this demand exceeds the supply of Canadian women willing to perform these tasks, so Canada enacted an immigration policy of sort, which allowed migrant women to enter the country on an Exotic Dancers Visa to fill these job positions, and allow these businesses to continue thriving. The experience of foreign women as "exotic dancers" is related to that of a human trafficking victim. In most cases, these women were told by their traffickers that that they were going to be domestic workers, or just simply dancing. Once these foreign women were in Canada, though, their passports and visas were often seized and their movements and interactions confined (Muftic, 2009, p. 77). Traffickers use various tools to force obedience, such as intimidating them "through physical and sexual violence, retaliation against family members in the home country or by warning the women that they can have them jailed and/or deported by Canadian authorities" (McDonald et al., 2000, p. 25). As exotic dancers, women have to pay daily fees to the club and the disc jockey, as well as additional fees for the use of "VIP rooms" (ibid). Macklin (2003) describes "the pressure to perform sexual acts ranging from masturbation to intercourse arising from their escalating debt load, backed up by threatened or actual physical/sexual coercion" (p. 473). Although the government did eventually abolish the Exotic Dancer Visa, not much meaningful reform has followed. The government attempted to provide legal means for these victims to access assistance through creation of a Temporary Resident Permit; now the only tool for protection of internationally trafficked persons in Canada. The Ontario Women’s Justice Network (2014) explains that a TRP gives the trafficked person up to 180 days in Canada and access to health care, counseling, a work permit and provincial income assistance in some cases. Trafficked persons are not required to testify against the traffickers in order for a TRP to be issued; however, in reality, as many cases have shown, if a trafficked person wants to stay in Canada she must cooperate with the investigation, and in many instances, like the Roma girl, they are sent back regardless. The women are often not regarded as victims, but as part of the problem, with their experiences of violence and abuse brushed under the rug. “Canada’s approach to combatting human trafficking has been criticized for its law enforcement focus and emphasis on the prosecution of perpetrators, rather than a human rights focus with an emphasis on the support and protection of survivors” (OWJN, 2014). Unfortunately, coupled with the stereotypes surrounding sex work as a morally negative ‘profession,’ absent of any meaningful consideration of this path as a last resort due to other factors, these women aren’t necessarily perceived as ‘worthy’ of protection, especially not when other competing interests override their well-being, which allows for the sexualization and abuse of their bodies to continue in the name of profit. Aminath (2007) explains that prostitution is often cited to be the oldest profession on earth, but until today sex work remains a highly stigmatized and taboo topic in modern day America. “Many people perceive sex workers as morally destitute, sex loving and consensual criminals” (p. 1). They don’t recognize, or protect these women as victims, but instead, serve to profit from their victimization, which is justified based on this negative perception of female sexuality and the stereotype that these women “choose to go with the traffickers, or choose to become a prostitute,” rather than placing blame on the conditions that may force them into these situations. “Men who purchase sexual services rarely think about the prostitutes with whom they have sexual relations. Instead, they happily hire the services of a younger woman who is compliant and affordable without thinking of why these services are so accessible” (Shelley, 2011, p. 39) These same sentiments surrounded the support for the implementation of bill C-36 which, instead of working towards supporting women who ‘choose’ a profession of sex work, the government instead created a dangerous situation for them to work. The law claims to recognize the prostitutes as ‘victims’ yet criminalizes any action surrounding the purchase of sex, including having a bodyguard, screening clients, and discussing a transaction. The state is choosing, instead of creating a safe space for these women to ‘work,’ to regulate the use of their bodies, and continue to perpetuate the idea that their actions are morally wrong, and in contrast to the stereotype of a ‘good girl.’ Instead of viewing these women as consenting to being prostituted, and therefore bringing it upon themselves and willingly choosing a ‘criminal’ lifestyle, “the critical question that laws must ask with respect to sex, race, and class-based discrimination in prostitution is not “did she consent?” but “has she been offered the real choice to exist without prostituting?” (Farley, 2006, p. 110). It isn’t enough for the government to simply criminalize the purchase of their services in the name of ‘protecting’ them as victims, without providing meaningful alternatives to their lifestyle, and instead simply making prostitution more dangerous and prone to sexual violence than it already was. Feminist criminology allows us to examine the actions and laws enacted by the state from a perspective that is not gender blind. Through this analysis we are able to identify certain laws and practices, specifically surrounding prostitution and female sexual violence, that do not adequately protect the ‘victims,’ but instead, allow stereotypes and economic motives to override the importance of any action toward meaningful reform and protection for these women. Women as Victims of Gender Stereotypes and Sexual Assault Scully and Marolla (1985) conducted interviews with 114 convicted rapists in an effort to determine the underlying factors leading a man to commit sexual violence; effectively dismissing the popular image of rape as a nonutilitarian act committed by a few “sick” men as too limited a view of sexual violence because it excludes culture and social structure as pre-disposing factors. “Looking at rape from the perspective of rapists, we attempt to discover the function of sexual violence in their lives; what their behavior gained for them in a society seeming prone to rape” (251). Their evidence indicates that rape is not a behavior confined to a few "sick" men, but actually, many men have the attitudes and beliefs necessary to commit a sexually aggressive act (252). By viewing rape as a product of cultural and social construction, rather than simply as the product of mental instability, feminist criminologists are able to analyze and target the overarching factors that lead to rape, and work towards a more meaningful solution to eradicating this abhorrent form of sexual violence. One major consequence of the application of psychopathology to rape is that it leads one to view sexual violence as a special type of crime in which the motivations are subconscious and uncontrollable rather than overt and deliberate as with other criminal behavior. Black (1983) offers an approach to the analysis of criminal and/or violent behavior which, when applied to rape, avoids this bias. From his perspective, much of the crime in modern societies, as in pre-industrial societies, can be interpreted as a form of "self help" in which the actor is expressing a grievance through aggression and violence. “From the actor's perspective, the victim is deviant and his own behavior is a form of social control in which the objective may be conflict management, punishment, or revenge. For example, in societies where women are considered the property of men, rape is sometimes used as a means of avenging the victim's husband or father” (Scully, Marolla, 1985, p. 250). In some cultures rape is used as a form of punishment (ibid). Black's approach is helpful in understanding rape because it forces one to examine the goals that some men have learned to achieve through sexually violent means, and how they view women as an object or outlet (ibid). Thus, one approach to understanding why some men rape is to shift attention from individual psychopathology to the important question of what rapists gain from sexual aggression and violence in a culture seemingly prone to rape. Some of the accounts from the convicted rapists in the study yielded the following sentiments: “The rape was for revenge. I didn't have an orgasm. She was there to get my hostile feelings off on” (255). “I grabbed her and started beating the hell out of her. I did it to get even with her and her husband” (256). “Rape was a feeling of total dominance. Before the rapes, I would always get a feeling of power and anger. I would degrade women so I could feel there was a person of less worth than me” (256). “I decided to rape her to prove I had guts. She was just there. It could have been anybody” (257). “She led me on but wouldn't deliver… I have a male ego that must be fed” (258). “Seeing them laying there helpless gave me the confidence that I could do it . . . With rape, I felt totally in charge. I'm bashful, timid. When a woman wanted to give in normal sex, I was intimidated. In the rapes, I was totally in command, she totally submissive” (259). “We felt powerful, we were in control. I wanted sex and there was peer pressure. She wasn't like a person, no personality, just domination on my part. Just to show I could do it-you know, macho” (260). Feminists see rape as an extension of normative male behavior, the result of conformity or over conformity to the values and prerogatives which define the traditional male sex role. That is, “traditional socialization encourages males to associate power, dominance, strength, virility and superiority with masculinity, and submissiveness, passivity, weakness, and inferiority with femininity” (Scully, Marolla, 1985, p. 253). Males are taught to have expectations about their level of sexual needs and expectations for corresponding female accessibility which function to justify forcing sexual access (ibid). The justification for forced sexual access is buttressed by legal, social, and religious definitions of women as male property and sex as an exchange of goods (Bart, 1979), and furthermore, “socialization prepares women to be ‘legitimate’ victims and men to be potential offenders” (Weis and Borges, 1973). Our present society is largely regarded as a rape culture because both genders are socialized to regard male aggression as a natural and normal part of sexual intercourse (Scully, Marolla, 1985, p. 253). Therefore, rather than regarding rape and sexual violence as a product of psychopathy, and instead seeing it as a product of stereotypes and gender roles that have been reaffirmed through patriarchal societal structures and socialization, feminists are able to combat this issue from a macro, and more practical, standpoint, bringing awareness to the factors and gender stereotypes influencing men to commit these aggressive acts. Of course, identifying this is just the first step in a very complicated mission for reformation, since the attitudes and societal values that are reinforced through structures and everyday socialization are difficult to combat, but one step in the right direction would be to adequately protect women as complainants of sexual assault, as a government, and as a society. Although law and the actions of the CJS may not serve to completely shift the stereotypes and bias of a society, a governing institution that is meant to protect victims making a reasonable effort to understand the unique nature of rape may send the right message to a society that needs to shift they way they perceive this violence. Women as Complainants of Sexual Assault In a 2012 study, University of Ottawa criminology professor Holly Johnson analyzed Statistics Canada data that suggests there are 460,000 sexual assaults annually in Canada, but only a fraction, about 15,000, are reported to police. For every 1,000 incidents, 33 are reported, 12 result in charges, six go to trial and three result in convictions (Charles, 2016). Feminist criminologists have examined the reporting of sexual assaults to police, as well as the court process of these trials, and have outlined specific problems regarding the failure to protect these women. The main issue that has been addressed is that there are negative stereotypes surrounding women as complainants of sexual assault, and coupled with a misunderstanding of how a woman should react to assault, or the nature of assault itself, the procedures in place to protect her are not adequate. This is further exacerbated by the subjective experience of women as victims; specifically how negative stereotypes of being a victim of sexual assault may influence her actions, resulting in her possibly blaming herself for the encounter. Dr. Jan Jordan (2004) conducted a study using both quantitative and qualitative data drawn from detailed analyses of police rape and sexual assault files in order to identify the principal factors affecting police perceptions of rape complainants. She ultimately concludes that Issues of belief and credibility will remain vexed and contentious so long as investigative officers approach rape complainants with a prevailing mindset of suspicion and disbelief. Police suspiciousness regarding rape allegations originates within a social environment characterized by a history of distrust towards women, and is exacerbated within the masculine ethos of police organizations. Achieving significant reform in this area is unlikely while the broader social and political terrain affecting policing continues to be dominated by traditional thinking and sex-stereotypical assumptions (p. 3) She goes on to make the claim that the crime-fighting and offender-oriented focus of policing has not served victims of crime well, with officers typically displaying minimal or flawed understanding of how and why rapes occur, or of the effects of rape on victims (ibid). From this research, it seems that the police, and society in general, perceive sexual assault as a stranger grabbing a woman in an alley and taking advantage of her. Furthermore, the general perception is that a woman who has been sexually assaulted will immediately report the crime to law enforcement. The facts tell us otherwise, though, with nearly 80% of assailants of sexual assault identified as a friend or family member of the victim (sexualassault.ca). Furthermore, it is nearly impossible to predict how a woman will react to such an abhorrent assault on her autonomy, security, and personhood, and even further, it is common behaviour for a woman to lie in order to make herself perceived as a more ‘credible’ victim, in an effort to fit into the stereotype of a ‘good and pure girl’ who’s femininity is worthy of protection. Many women will continue to refrain from reporting rape while some victims’ experiences continue to be erroneously viewed and dismissed as “beyond belief.” For example, the study outlines a case where a woman alleged that a male friend of hers had come to visit when her parents were out, kissed her and made her touch him sexually before inserting his hand into her vagina. When spoken to by police, the alleged offender denied this. A man working nearby told police he had seen this man visit before, and police noted that he “… states that from his observations that there appeared to be no animosity (sic) between the two, [she] even coming to the front door to wave [offender] good-bye when he left, hardly the actions of a woman who has just been violated” influencing the police to drop the case (Jan, p. 9). The burden of proof is put directly on the complainant in these instances, and misconceptions about the ‘actions of a woman who had just been violated’ only work against her, oftentimes leading women to lie about their actions following an assault, as they try to conform to the stereotype surrounding how society believes a victim should react. This doesn’t help her either, though, since even a small inconsistency in her story will influence the police, the CJS, or even society, to view her as a non-credible complainant and dismiss her case. Either way, she can’t win. Apart from the police expressing distrust in the credibility of the victim reporting the crime, this sentiment is continued into the courtroom, where, in a criminal trial, the objective seems to be discrediting the complainant, rather than focusing on consent or the crime in general. Coupled with a failure of the court to consider social facts regarding the ‘normality’ of the behaviour of a woman of sexual assault, and instead relying on stereotypes of victim behaviour, we rarely see justice for these victims. We saw this brought to light in the Gomeshi trial, where the focus was on discrediting the witness, and not necessarily the sexual assault itself. A reporter reflects on the nature of the case, stating that The complainant has to prove her claim beyond reasonable doubt, usually on her own testimony alone. The entire weight of the prosecution’s case rests on her all-too-human shoulders. Should pride or embarrassment lead the complainant to be less than candid about any aspect of the case, it's pretty much game over. The complainant has no status or independent agency at all, and no lawyer represents her in court. She’s a virtual stranger at her own trial, in a system that’s supposed to be about protecting her. She has no power. Legally, she’s an orphan. The state has the power. It’s the state, not the complainant, that we protect the accused from, because being charged with a crime is no walk in the park, either. The danger of wrongful convictions is so great that the courts will never allow wholesale change in sexual assault procedure. Yet minor tinkering won't bring survivors the comfort they seek in a trial (Garossino, 2016). Garossino (2016) also raises the important question; if Gomeshi had been put on the stand, how credible would he be? He’s the one who is being tried for sexual assault, yet his credibility isn’t in question at all. And just as notably, his lawyer, Marie Henein, spent little time cross-examining the complainants on the claims of violence, or even on their consent. “She seemed to veer away from that delicate subject. She was on much stronger ground attacking them for hiding and perhaps lying about their continuing pursuit of Ghomeshi” (ibid). If the women in the trial had been properly represented, by a lawyer who truly understood the nature of sexual assault, the actions that the women reasonably tried to lie about could have been introduced into the discourse in a manner that urged understanding and acceptance of their behaviour as a ‘normal’ reaction to sexual assault, effectively eliminating the reasonable doubt of their credibility as painted by the defense, who was able to take advantage of this information and spin it in a negative light. It wasn’t the facts of the case that discredited them, it was the fact that they lied about the facts in order to paint themselves in a more ‘suitable’ light in line with stereotypes of sexual assault survivirs; to make themselves appear to be more ‘worthy victims.’ It was the fact that the crown, and the system meant to protect them, wasn’t the one to uncover this, and then explain it. Of course it is a noble effort for the state to not want to convict an innocent man, but a more adequate balance must be struck; one that doesn’t dissuade women from also reporting their experiences of sexual assault, that provides a fair trial, and that produces a more justified and concrete decision. There has been suggestion that sexual assault victims should focus more on taking their complaints through civil court, rather than seeking criminal charges, because as lawyer Erin Ellis points out in a civil trial “we have to show that it's more probable than not. A criminal case has to show beyond a reasonable doubt. So it [civil court] is a better balance” (Charles, 2016). Regardless if it’s a criminal or civil court proceeding, though, there won’t be any meaningful reform for the protection of women as victims of sexual assault, or as complainants in the CJS, unless there is a shift in the way we perceive sexual assault and the victims, and face the stereotypes surrounding this unique and delicate subject. If the police, the CJS, and even society, had a fuller and better informed understanding of the trauma induced by rape, they would recognize that victims routinely engage in minimizing behaviour and will often try to avoid disclosing sexual violation. If the police understood the difficulties associated with approaching them to report a sexual assault, they would appreciate why some women tell ‘lies’ to conceal aspects of the offence. They would appreciate how humiliating the process can feel for complainants, and how shame can be a silencing mechanism. If the CJS knew the extent to which victims feared being blamed for what happened, they would not be surprised when complainants did things to try and bolster their credibility in the police’s eyes. Historically, rape discredited a woman and her family like no other crime; today, women must still fight to be seen as credible. Women’s voices and women’s words still struggle to be heard; if heard, to be believed; and if believed, to be understood. (Jan, p. 21). Women as Violent Criminals …and Victims of the Criminal Justice System (Criminalization-Victimization) From the feminist criminology perspective, they view the handling of women as criminals by the CJS in a way that could be described as “adding women and stirring.” The criminal justice system has been created to deal with men, who society has historically viewed as the more violent gender, and therefore, when a woman commits a violent crime there is little consideration regarding the uniqueness of her transgression, or how the criminal justice system may allow gender stereotypes to influence proceedings or impede meaningful solution. Lloyd (1995) explains that “we regard men as "naturally" violent, and women as non-violent; but when they are violent we look for reasons to explain why we punish them, not only for their violence but also for transgressing their sexual identity” (256). The "evil women" hypothesis holds that women often receive harsher treatment than men in the criminal justice system and suggests that this different treatment results from the notion that criminal women have violated not only legal boundaries but also gender role expectations (Chesney-Lind, 1984). One study has noted that, historically, substantial differences in the treatment and behavior of defendants in the courts have been recognized on the basis of gender. As Kruttschnitt (1982) founded, “unmarried women or those in unconventional relationships tended to receive more harsh treatment, confirming a sentencing model based on a cultural need to reinforce gender roles within a framework of heterosexual marriage or family life.” Thus, the degree to which a female offender can be shown to be under informal social control may produce a lighter formal sentence. Women are not expected to be criminals and if they are, they may be described as ‘mad not bad ‘ (Lloyd, 1995). The perception that women may be mad because they ‘dared to go against their natural biological givens such as ‘passivity’ and a ‘weakness of compliance’ appears to originate from the view that women who conform as pure, obedient daughters, wives and mothers benefit society and men (Wesley, 2006). For women to become violent criminals, the assumption is that they are acting less feminine, and taking on a more masculine role. This theory assumes that the same forces that propel men into violence will increasingly produce violence in girls and women once they are freed from the constraints of their gender. The masculinization framework also lays the foundation for simplistic notions of “good” and “bad” femininity, standards that will permit the demonization of some girls and women if they stray from the path of “true” (passive, controlled, and constrained) womanhood. Brushing off women’s violence as unfeminine, breaking gender roles and adopting masculinity, or as a psychotic episode does not allow for a proper analysis of the unique factors that may influence women in particular to become violent. Feminist theories of crime and delinquency must account for the myriad ways that gender matters. It is more than mere insertion of gender as a variable or brief commentary of “girls’ or women’s issues.” Feminist criminology requires a critical consideration of the impact of girls’ structural positions in a gender and racially stratified society. It requires a deep understanding of the strategies girls use to negotiate and resist patriarchy and how these strategies can determine what crimes girls commit. (Chesney-Lind, 2004, p. 21) When engaged as a strategy, women’s violence is still subject to individualized, stereotyped definitions that depoliticize it while also failing to address the larger contexts of gendered inequalities in which this violence is created. Indeed, “crude caricatures around ‘mad or bad’ are unhelpful as these divert attention away from the important processes, traumas and dilemmas that underpin these complex acts” (Wesley, 2006). As a result, productive conversations about women’s violence and how to address it rarely surface. Wesley offers the theory that women who act out violently are not ‘becoming more masculine’ or ‘going mad,’ but rather, are a “product of lived experiences of cumulative victimization characterized by abuse and violence, economic vulnerability, gender inequality, loss and dislocation, degradation, and social exclusion” (ibid). As such, they should not be treated by the CJS, or viewed by society, as having digressed from their gender roles, but rather, as having responded to the lived experience that they have been subjected to as victims of their surroundings, uniquely as women. Bibbings and Nicolson (2003) summarize the issue, stating that we tend to “concentrate on the external appearance of male criminal behaviour – on the assumption that it is rationally chosen – whereas with women, the focus is on their internal motives – on the assumption that their criminality emanates from pathological states of mind” (p. 2). Stereotypes surrounding women as obedient and non-violent, leading to stereotypes surrounding violent women as ‘crazy’ or ‘mad,’ do not lend credibility or focus to the very real socio-economic justifications for their actions. Feminist criminology can make a meaningful contribution to the treatment of women as criminals by drawing attention to this issue. Conclusion Alison Auld (2013) reports that “a majority of sexual assault victims have little to no confidence in the police, the courts or the criminal justice system, according to a new government survey that echoes what advocates have been saying for years.” This perception of the CJS’ inadequate protection of sexual assault victims reaffirms that there is an issue within our society, and ultimately our governing institutions, with regard to how we perceive and address sexual assault and violent crimes against women. At the heart of any feminist theory is the recognition that gender is a basic organizational element of social life and social structure. Feminists maintain that gender is embedded in all social interactions and processes of everyday life, as well as all social institutions (Renzetti, 2013, p. 7). This however, does not mean that feminists do not acknowledge or overlook the markers of sexual difference in the female and male bodies, but instead “acknowledge the importance of both biology and culture in the acquisition of gender” (ibid). Although this may be a contested point, since it may be nearly impossible to separate the precise influences of biology and culture, there is meaningful knowledge to be gained from examining the social construction of gender norms in our institutions under an undeniable patriarchal structure. Given that the academic disciplines exist within this patriarchal structure, it is not surprising that women have historically been systemically excluded from many fields, including criminology, because they are not considered ‘feminine’ or appropriate for women, and because there had been an assumption that what women do, think, or say was unimportant (ibid). Beginning in the 1970s in criminology, feminists drew attention to the gender biases in popular criminological theories and highlighted how women and girls historically have been overlooked in crime and criminal justice research (Chesney-Lind, 2004). They also began to document widespread discrimination against women, both as offenders and victims, and as social scientists and practitioners within this field. Initial attempts to redress this exclusion and discrimination took two forms: first, simply “adding” women to existing theories, to traditional research, and to various professions (police, attorneys, etc), and secondly, showcasing “exceptional” women who had succeeded according to the male standard. “It soon became clear, however, that while these efforts were necessary, they were insufficient and ineffective in shifting “the fundamental parameters and masculinity of criminology” (Renzetti, 2013, p. 9). What was needed were new theoretical approaches; studies that uncovered and explained the similarities and differences in women’s and men’s behaviours, attitudes and experiences, arising from their different locations in - and differentially imposed valuing by – the social structure; and a restructuring of institutions, including the legal system and the academy, to make them gender cognizant and gender equitable. (ibid). Thus, feminist criminologists have begun to examine and research the laws and criminal justice systems through a lens that was not gender neutral, and that instead took into account the stereotypes and competing interests overriding gender equality. This essay has outlined a number of areas in which feminist criminology has contributed to recognizing discrimination against women as victims of sexual violence, and subsequently, as victims of laws, practices, and a criminal justice system that has been permeated with gender stereotypes that provide for counterproductive reform and inadequate protection of female victims. Feminist criminology allows for a critical analysis of the historical circumstances, norms, values, and stereotypes that influence how women are treated by society, the state, and the CJS in particular in order to address areas for improvement so that our daughters may live in a society where they are valued, believed, and protected. Works Cited Alliance Against Modern Slavery. (2014) The Incidence of Human Trafficking in Ontario. Ontario Coalition Research Initiative. Aminath, Shauna (2007). It is not Pretty Woman: Rethinking Sex Work Stereotypes. Retrieved from http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/132-it-is-not-pretty-woman-rethinking-sex-work- stereotypes Auld, A. (2013). Most sexual assault victims have little faith in the justice system: survey. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/most-sexual-assault-victims-have-little-faith-in-justice- %09system-survey/article11722891/ Bart, Pauline. (1979). Rape as a paradigm of sexism in society- victimization and its discontents. Women's Studies International Quarterly 2:347-57. Bibbings, L., Nicolson, Donald. (2003). Feminist Perspectives on Criminal Law. Routledge. Charles, Ron (2016). Jian Gomeshi trial could deter women from reporting sexual assault: blaming and shaming in high-profile case could stop women from coming forward. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ghomeshi-trial-sexual-assault-chill-1.3441059 Chesney-Lind, M. (1984). "Women and Crime: A review of the recent literature on the female offender". (Report No. 295). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Youth Development and Research Center. Chesney-Lind, Meda & Pasko, Lisa. (2004). The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Farley, Melissa. (2006). Prostitution, Trafficking, and Cultural Amnesia: What We Must Not Know in Order To Keep the Business of Sexual Exploitation Running Smoothly. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 18. Friman, Richard. (2009) Externalizing the Costs of Prohibition. Crime in the Global Political Economy. Vol. 16. 49- 65 Garossino, Sandy (2016). The cowardly Jian and a better way to conduct sexual assault trials. Retrieved from http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/02/18/opinion/cowardly-jian-and-better-way-conduct-sexual- assault- trials Heidensohn, Frances (1986). Women and Crime. New York: New York University Press. Hughes, Donna M. (2005). The Demands for Victims of Sex Trafficking. Retrieved from http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/demand for_victims.pdf Jordan, Jan (2004). To Believe or Not to Believe? Police Responses to Women Rape Complainants. Retrieved from http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/policewomen3/jordan.pdf Kempadoo, Kamala. (1998). Global Sex Workers. Kruttschnitt, C. (1982). "Women, crime, and dependency: an application of the theory of law". Criminology. Vol. 19, pp495–513. Lewontin, Richard (1984). Not in Our Genes. New York: Pantheon Books. pp. 132–163. Lloyd, Ann (1995). Doubly Deviant, Doubly Damned: Society’s Treatment of Violent Women. Penguin Social Sciences. Louise, Shelley. (2011). Human Trafficking: Why is it Such an Important Women’s Issue? Confronting Global Gender Justice: Women’s Lives, Human Rights, ed. Debra Bergoffen et al. 35. Macklin, Audrey. (2003). Dancing Across Borders: Exotic Dancers, Trafficking, and Canadian Immigration Policy. International Migration. Mallicoat, Stacy (2011). Women and Crime: A Text/Reader. Sage Publications. Marolla, J., Scully, D. (1985). Riding the Bull at Gilly’s; Convicted Rapists Describe the Rewards of Rape. Virginia Commonwealth University. McDonald, L. Moore, B. Timoshkina, N. (2000). Migrant Sex Workers from Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: The Canadian Case. Moyer (1985) Crime, Conflict Theory, and the Patriarchal Society (From Changing Roles of Women in the Criminal Justice System - Offenders, Victims, and Professionals Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=99506 Muftic, Maja. (2009). The Impact of Restrictive Immigration Policies on Human Trafficking in Canada. Ontario Women’s Justice Network. (2014). The Law and Human Trafficking in Canada. Retrieved from http://owjn.org/owjn_2009/legal-information/criminal-law/366-law-human-trafficking Renzetti, Claire (2013). Feminist Criminology. Key Ideas in Criminology. Routledge: Oxon. SexAssault.ca. (2016). Sexual Assault Statistics in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.sexassault.ca/statistics.htm Weis, Kurt., Sandra, Borges (1973). Victimology and rape: the case of the legitimate victim. Issues in Criminology 8:71-115. Wesely, Jennifer K. (2006). Considering the Context of Women’s Violence: Gender, Lived Experiences, and Cumulative Victimization. Feminist Criminology, vol 1, 4. 4 HE SAID > SHE SAID