Agnew did not present a fully developed theory of crime when he first introduced GST. Rather, he presented a foundation on which such a theory could be constructed. Agnew described several potential sources of strain, modes of coping with strain, and factors that influence whether criminal versus noncriminal coping strategies are employed. GST is used to explain the higher rate of male crime in three ways: (1) males and females tend to experience different strain types, with male strains being more conducive to serious violent and property crimes; (2) males and females differ in their emotional responses to strains; and (3) males may be more likely to respond to a given level of strain or anger with serious violent and property crimes because of differences in coping, social support, opportunities, social control, and the disposition to engage in crime. The authors suggest gender differences in strain types and reactions to strains help understand the gender gap in criminal behavior. They argue several strain types may lead to female crime under certain circumstances and note GST has much in common with numerous accounts that explain female crime in terms of oppression. The authors also emphasize GST does not explain gender differences in crime as a function of differences in the amount of strain males and females experience. 146 references and 3 notes