The emphasis in the article in question ('Women: what they do and don't do') was placed on avoiding the stereotypes about women, crimes by women, and female characteristics. Even though attempt was made to compare men and women in their work roles, the fact remains that according to the existing social structure, women tend to do household work and men to do outside work. The goal was not to establish norms, but to gain insight into deviant and criminal behavior, whether the person in question is male or female. The basis for the study was the interaction model, which holds that behavior results from the interaction of the individual personality structure and the social situation of the environment. Thus, particular forms of deviant behavior can be linked with certain work environments, but individual motivation is the necessary prerequisite for the behavior. No attempt was made in the study to define emancipation, because it is a subjective concept. Emancipation is not deemed necessarily the result of work outside the house; women who do not work outside the house may be emancipated if they participate fully in the meaningful activities of society. Critics of the study are accused of disguising objections to the earlier article's contents in criticism of methodological shortcomings. The objection that the work lacks a theoretical framework is admitted, but excused as a weakness shared with criminological research in general. Finally, arguments are offered in defense of the study's failure to differentiate married from unmarried women, its emphasis on social class rather than women's status, its inclusion of women who do unpaid volunteer work among working women, the nonrepresentative nature of the sample for the whole Netherlands. A 9-item bibliography is supplied.