What do you think?
Rate this book
The Feminist War on Crime: The Unexpected Role of Women's Liberation in Mass Incarceration
Many feminists grapple with the problem of hyper-incarceration in the United States, and yet commentators on gender crime continue to assert that criminal law is not tough enough. This punitive impulse, prominent legal scholar Aya Gruber argues, is dangerous and counterproductive. In their quest to secure women’s protection from domestic violence and rape, American feminists have become soldiers in the war on crime by emphasizing white female victimhood, expanding the power of police and prosecutors, touting the problem-solving power of incarceration, and diverting resources toward law enforcement and away from marginalized communities.
Deploying vivid cases and unflinching analysis, The Feminist War on Crime documents the failure of the state to combat sexual and domestic violence through law and punishment. Zero-tolerance anti-violence law and policy tend to make women less safe and more fragile. Mandatory arrests, no-drop prosecutions, forced separation, and incarceration embroil poor women of color in a criminal justice system that is historically hostile to them. This carceral approach exacerbates social inequalities by diverting more power and resources toward a fundamentally flawed criminal justice system, further harming victims, perpetrators, and communities alike.
In order to reverse this troubling course, Gruber contends that we must abandon the conventional feminist wisdom, fight violence against women without reinforcing the American prison state, and use criminalization as a technique of last—not first—resort.
Deploying vivid cases and unflinching analysis, The Feminist War on Crime documents the failure of the state to combat sexual and domestic violence through law and punishment. Zero-tolerance anti-violence law and policy tend to make women less safe and more fragile. Mandatory arrests, no-drop prosecutions, forced separation, and incarceration embroil poor women of color in a criminal justice system that is historically hostile to them. This carceral approach exacerbates social inequalities by diverting more power and resources toward a fundamentally flawed criminal justice system, further harming victims, perpetrators, and communities alike.
In order to reverse this troubling course, Gruber contends that we must abandon the conventional feminist wisdom, fight violence against women without reinforcing the American prison state, and use criminalization as a technique of last—not first—resort.
304 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2019
32 people are currently reading
908 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
August 21, 2020
I excitedly bought this book after hearing Gruber on a podcast and finding myself impressed by what she had to say. Unfortunately, this book left me with more mixed feelings on Gruber's analyses than that brief podcast appearance did.
The first analysis that I found odd was in the introduction, where the author conflates feminists who have a "Bernie Sanders, AOC-style commitment to labor rights" with Elizabeth Nolan Brown, founder of 'Feminists for Liberty', a conservative organisation. In the same chapter, she explains that millennial feminists participate in "slut walks" while simultaneously calling the commercial sex trade "modern-day slavery". In my experience, the liberal and left-wing feminists behind the majority of "slut walks" do not significantly overlap with the radical feminists who rally against the sex work industry. These bizarre conflations of distinct groups of millennial feminists made me wonder how much research Gruber had actually done into feminism as it's practiced by women younger than her, and left me with a bad impression before the book had even properly begun. Other generalisations about feminists, such as the idea that most would be unlikely to hire a male babysitter, are scattered throughout the book with no data or even anecdotal evidence to back them up.
This book is at its best when detailing the history of various feminist movements and how they have contributed to mass incarceration. Unfortunately, the language used by Gruber throughout leaves one with the impression that Gruber does not believe or particularly respect many women who have been victims of sexual violence. I understand the need to combat narratives used to incarcerate scores of people, but I believe others have done a better job of balancing this need with the need to afford survivors of sexual violence the respect they deserve. Remarks such as, "Years later, as [Brock] Turner is a registered sex offender banished from society and his victim enjoys professional success and public acclaim" only reinforce the impression that Gruber sees women who come forward about sexual violence as women set on destroying men's lives and not women in pain seeking justice in a broken system who should be treated with compassion.
Overall, I would still recommend this book for the detailed history of the ways feminism has intertwined itself with the issue of incarceration, but I would suggest that, particularly for those newer to the issue of carceral feminism and transformative justice, readers look elsewhere for analysis and suggestions for alternatives. In addition, I would feel uncomfortable recommending this book to anyone with a history of sexual violence.
The first analysis that I found odd was in the introduction, where the author conflates feminists who have a "Bernie Sanders, AOC-style commitment to labor rights" with Elizabeth Nolan Brown, founder of 'Feminists for Liberty', a conservative organisation. In the same chapter, she explains that millennial feminists participate in "slut walks" while simultaneously calling the commercial sex trade "modern-day slavery". In my experience, the liberal and left-wing feminists behind the majority of "slut walks" do not significantly overlap with the radical feminists who rally against the sex work industry. These bizarre conflations of distinct groups of millennial feminists made me wonder how much research Gruber had actually done into feminism as it's practiced by women younger than her, and left me with a bad impression before the book had even properly begun. Other generalisations about feminists, such as the idea that most would be unlikely to hire a male babysitter, are scattered throughout the book with no data or even anecdotal evidence to back them up.
This book is at its best when detailing the history of various feminist movements and how they have contributed to mass incarceration. Unfortunately, the language used by Gruber throughout leaves one with the impression that Gruber does not believe or particularly respect many women who have been victims of sexual violence. I understand the need to combat narratives used to incarcerate scores of people, but I believe others have done a better job of balancing this need with the need to afford survivors of sexual violence the respect they deserve. Remarks such as, "Years later, as [Brock] Turner is a registered sex offender banished from society and his victim enjoys professional success and public acclaim" only reinforce the impression that Gruber sees women who come forward about sexual violence as women set on destroying men's lives and not women in pain seeking justice in a broken system who should be treated with compassion.
Overall, I would still recommend this book for the detailed history of the ways feminism has intertwined itself with the issue of incarceration, but I would suggest that, particularly for those newer to the issue of carceral feminism and transformative justice, readers look elsewhere for analysis and suggestions for alternatives. In addition, I would feel uncomfortable recommending this book to anyone with a history of sexual violence.
July 10, 2023
That women's advocates inadvertently (but sometimes advertently) contributed to mass incarceration in the U.S. is an uncomfortable thesis, but one that Gruber argues convincingly. The tone of the book can be jarring to many unfamiliar or unsympathetic readers. However, this remains an important contribution for those who care about gender, violence, and meaningful criminal justice reform.
August 12, 2020
Shameful gaslighting of sexual assault victims. There are numerous anecdotes in this book of falsely accused men. 0 stories of women falsely accused pf lying by the cops. 0 of women wrongfully convicted of lying by prosecutors. 0 of substantiated claims of rape being dismissed by the courts. I would give 0 stars if I could. Men's rights activists will love this book.
November 9, 2020
In this deeply researched recounting of feminism's involvement with mass incarceration, Aya Gruber reveals the destructive underside of turning to criminal law and policing to improve the lives of women. Far from attacking the women who frequently suffer from gendered violence, Gruber's analysis--grounded in history and supported by her big-picture perspective--is a call to caution for scholars and activists alike. Police and prisons are not stops on the road to liberation, she suggests. To eliminate gendered violence and heal people and communities who suffer from it, she urges an abolitionist stance willing to reimagine our commitment to each other.
June 28, 2023
feminist abolitionist mommmy
August 5, 2020
I get the impression the author wants women to rebel (if at all!) in a more palatable, muted way, much like how white people criticize riots against racist oppression as "uncivil" and demand the marginalized fight back without inconveniencing their oppressors. "Protest rhetoric veered toward the punitive—punishing and exposing "serial rapists". This quote is a good example of this unfortunate sentiment.
I have too many thoughts to fit in a review but here are some, in no particular order. To start, the BJS stats are cherrypicked and don't tell whole story, like that on average less than half of all assaults are prosecuted and that the percentage is much lower for sexual assaults, which have a higher decline-to-prosecute rate than all other felonies. The BJS, from my searching also does not track cops and prosecutors who falsely accuse and charge women with false reporting and toss their rape kit into an abandoned warehouse. Rape myths are real, cultural, global, and exist outside of the legal system, where laypeople are not making inferences about evidence. Shooting victims, for all their pain and suffering, do not bear the soul crushing burden of being branded as liars, for being told they secretly wanted to be shot, for tempting the shooter, or for not understanding the "gray area" of their victimization. Caitlin Flanagan's racist erasure of women of color, her assumption that Grace was white, was critiqued by many on Twitter. Due process is a trial right *not* a right of rich, powerful politicians and Hollywood actors to not be considered rapists by the general public.
I have too many thoughts to fit in a review but here are some, in no particular order. To start, the BJS stats are cherrypicked and don't tell whole story, like that on average less than half of all assaults are prosecuted and that the percentage is much lower for sexual assaults, which have a higher decline-to-prosecute rate than all other felonies. The BJS, from my searching also does not track cops and prosecutors who falsely accuse and charge women with false reporting and toss their rape kit into an abandoned warehouse. Rape myths are real, cultural, global, and exist outside of the legal system, where laypeople are not making inferences about evidence. Shooting victims, for all their pain and suffering, do not bear the soul crushing burden of being branded as liars, for being told they secretly wanted to be shot, for tempting the shooter, or for not understanding the "gray area" of their victimization. Caitlin Flanagan's racist erasure of women of color, her assumption that Grace was white, was critiqued by many on Twitter. Due process is a trial right *not* a right of rich, powerful politicians and Hollywood actors to not be considered rapists by the general public.
June 26, 2025
"Once we see gender violence as part of a complex matrix of intersecting hierarchies, we can move past the instinctive desire to just punish men. The presumption that DV and rape are a matter of what bad men do to innocent women has the effect of rendering 'imperfect' victims—victims who stay with abusers, women who engage in sex work, women with their own criminal histories— unworthy of society’s concern and aid."
"By the late 1970s, DV activists in court had already adopted what Donna Coker terms “crime logic,” involving '(1) a focus on individual culpability rather than on collective accountability; (2) a disdain for policy attention to social determinants of behavior; (3) a preference for narratives that center on bad actors and innocent victims; and (4) a preference for removing individuals who have harmed others as though excising an invasive cancer from the body politic.'"
"By the late 1970s, DV activists in court had already adopted what Donna Coker terms “crime logic,” involving '(1) a focus on individual culpability rather than on collective accountability; (2) a disdain for policy attention to social determinants of behavior; (3) a preference for narratives that center on bad actors and innocent victims; and (4) a preference for removing individuals who have harmed others as though excising an invasive cancer from the body politic.'"
June 29, 2020
Une lecture certainement confrontante pour moi même si je suis définitivement abolitionniste de prison, féministe et bien au courant du penchant vers la judiciarisation la criminalisation de certains mouvements féministes et des conséquences immenses que cela entraîne du côté des personnes racisées qui subissent plus cette répression que les autres.
Je vais être honnête et mentionner que même si ce livre est très référencés, les sources bien identifiées (et viennent souvent contredire certains discours féministes dominants), le recours à l'anecdote unique pour avancer/prouver des points revient souvent. Plusieurs exemples apparaissent tout au long de l'ouvrage, j'aurais bien aimé tous les noter, mais je retiens ces deux là surtout: l'utilisation des paroles d'une activiste complètement random "When the sex war is won, prostitutes should be shot as collaborators for their terrible betrayal of women." (p.118) (cette citation est toutefois nuancée par une note de fin d'ouvrage qui explique que l'opinion de MacKinnon diffère de manière assez importante de celle-ci, il faut toutefois que les gens aillent consulter les sources pour le voir) L'autre est dans le chapitre à moitié consacré au traitement féministe de Brock Turner et des dérives engendrées par un travail d'escalade selon l'autrice. Parmi les conséquences que le violeur doit faire face (et montré comme un exemple de dérive) est la présence d'une photographie de Turner dans le livre "Introduction to criminal justice" à l'entrée "Viol" (p.178), mais ça n'a aucun rapport avec le féminisme! Même si l'autrice pouvait montrer la mainstreamisation des discours féministes carcéraux dans les médias, politiques et l'académie, ce qu'elle démontre avec brio lorsqu'elle parle des politiques d'incarcération sous Bill Clinton et les changements introduits dans les lois depuis les années '70, il s'agit vraiment d'une anecdote. J'en ai montré deux, il y en a beaucoup plus (ce sont les deux seules que j'ai retrouvé vite pour écrire ceci) et c'est ce qui m'a vraiment le plus dérangé dans ce livre.
Je pense qu'il y autrement un vrai travail très fouillé et avec une démonstration quasi-impeccable de ce que le féminisme à apporter à l'augmentation des peines carcérales.
Parfois, j'aurais toutefois aimé un peu moins d'oppositions mouvements féministes vs personnes noires et plus de développement sur la pensée féministe noire (qu'elle aborde super rapidement). L'essai me donne parfois l'impression de tomber un peu dans l'anti-féminisme, bien qu'il s'en défend, pour montrer comment l'encouragement à l'incarcération condamne avant tout des personnes noires. On est d'accord sur toute la ligne, mais justement on ne soulève pas ce qui a été fait pour justement y faire face (on commence à le faire dans la conclusion) ; après, il est possible que ce ne soit pas l'objectif du livre non plus.
En fait, c'est ça qui me tracasse un peu avec ce livre, peut-être est-ce un inconfort qui en dit beaucoup sur ma lecture et ma vision des choses, j'ai l'impression qu'on attaque le mouvement féministe, mais il s'agit de franges dans lesquelles je ne me reconnais pas et qui me font douter de la réelle recherche d'égalité entre toutes les personnes. Arrivé au dernier chapitre, je voulais aussi critiquer le fait que rien n'est proposé pour pallier à l'incarcération en attendant les changements structurels sociaux qui empêcheraient de conduire à l'incarcération en premier lieu, mais c'est un peu adressé dans la conclusion, sous la forme un peu de relance vers d'autres organismes et un espoir en un avenir très très lointain. Il ne s'agit donc pas simplement d'un essai qui critique sans rien proposer (ce qui est parfois un peu facile, mais la recherche historique ici est assez complexe, c'est un plus que d'être amené ailleurs à la fin).
Au niveau de la difficulté de lecture, un niveau universitaire est parfois requis. Je dois avouer m'être complètement perdu quand elle parle de codes pénaux et jurisprudence états-unienne (ce n'est vraiment pas un système avec lequel je suis familier anyway), mais il y a vraiment seulement deux passages complexes là-dessus, mais j'avoue avoir juste fini par sauter parce que je ne comprenais plus du tout ce qui voulait être dit.
En fermant le livre, j'ai songé au fait qu'une discussion entre Sarah Ahmed et Aya Gruber serait vraiment intéressante. Gruber est super super critique des campagnes universitaires et des plaintes pour viol à tous les niveaux et j'avoue que je ne comprenais pas toujours son point sauf que les personnes racisées seraient toujours plus victimes et coupables de celles-ci (et tout le problème de l'incarcération et du besoin de pardon), mais je ne comprenais pas nécessairement ce qui pouvait être fait pour adresser le problème maintenant, au niveau universitaire, même s'il est moindre que ce que les discours semblent penser selon l'autrice. Je dois dire qu'un niveau de l'expérience personnelle dans l'université (j'ai aussi lu l'étude ESSIMU pour la situation au Québec), je suis en pas mal en désaccord avec l'autrice de l'essai sur le sujet: je pense qu'il y a vraiment un problème sur la compréhension du consentement et ce qui constitue des gestes d'agressions (autre énorme point de divergence avec l'autrice qui semble reléguer plusieurs gestes comme de simples désagrément). Encore une fois, j'ai l'impression qu'on oppose les femmes aux personnes racisées et du fait que ces dernières seront immensément plus pénalisées que les premières à plusieurs égards, on devrait minimiser la portée des gestes plutôt que de juste faire monter la criminalisation (ou les reproches) à l'ensemble de la population. D'où mes lectures de Sarah Ahmed qui me semble concilier avec brio les deux plutôt que de les opposer. [Ahmed n'est définitivement pas mentionnée dans l'ouvrage malgré le fait qu'elle a quand même énormément sur les questions de plaintes universitaires, j'ai l'impression qu'il y aurait de la matière pour un livre au complet sur la question par exemple si Gruber s'y mettait].
En tout cas, énormément de réflexions émergent pour moi à cette lecture, de désaccords, d'inconforts, ce que j'adore dans une lecture!!!, j'aimerais vraiment donc en parler avec d'autres pour ne pas en rester là et pousser justement la discussion plus loin.
Je vais être honnête et mentionner que même si ce livre est très référencés, les sources bien identifiées (et viennent souvent contredire certains discours féministes dominants), le recours à l'anecdote unique pour avancer/prouver des points revient souvent. Plusieurs exemples apparaissent tout au long de l'ouvrage, j'aurais bien aimé tous les noter, mais je retiens ces deux là surtout: l'utilisation des paroles d'une activiste complètement random "When the sex war is won, prostitutes should be shot as collaborators for their terrible betrayal of women." (p.118) (cette citation est toutefois nuancée par une note de fin d'ouvrage qui explique que l'opinion de MacKinnon diffère de manière assez importante de celle-ci, il faut toutefois que les gens aillent consulter les sources pour le voir) L'autre est dans le chapitre à moitié consacré au traitement féministe de Brock Turner et des dérives engendrées par un travail d'escalade selon l'autrice. Parmi les conséquences que le violeur doit faire face (et montré comme un exemple de dérive) est la présence d'une photographie de Turner dans le livre "Introduction to criminal justice" à l'entrée "Viol" (p.178), mais ça n'a aucun rapport avec le féminisme! Même si l'autrice pouvait montrer la mainstreamisation des discours féministes carcéraux dans les médias, politiques et l'académie, ce qu'elle démontre avec brio lorsqu'elle parle des politiques d'incarcération sous Bill Clinton et les changements introduits dans les lois depuis les années '70, il s'agit vraiment d'une anecdote. J'en ai montré deux, il y en a beaucoup plus (ce sont les deux seules que j'ai retrouvé vite pour écrire ceci) et c'est ce qui m'a vraiment le plus dérangé dans ce livre.
Je pense qu'il y autrement un vrai travail très fouillé et avec une démonstration quasi-impeccable de ce que le féminisme à apporter à l'augmentation des peines carcérales.
Parfois, j'aurais toutefois aimé un peu moins d'oppositions mouvements féministes vs personnes noires et plus de développement sur la pensée féministe noire (qu'elle aborde super rapidement). L'essai me donne parfois l'impression de tomber un peu dans l'anti-féminisme, bien qu'il s'en défend, pour montrer comment l'encouragement à l'incarcération condamne avant tout des personnes noires. On est d'accord sur toute la ligne, mais justement on ne soulève pas ce qui a été fait pour justement y faire face (on commence à le faire dans la conclusion) ; après, il est possible que ce ne soit pas l'objectif du livre non plus.
En fait, c'est ça qui me tracasse un peu avec ce livre, peut-être est-ce un inconfort qui en dit beaucoup sur ma lecture et ma vision des choses, j'ai l'impression qu'on attaque le mouvement féministe, mais il s'agit de franges dans lesquelles je ne me reconnais pas et qui me font douter de la réelle recherche d'égalité entre toutes les personnes. Arrivé au dernier chapitre, je voulais aussi critiquer le fait que rien n'est proposé pour pallier à l'incarcération en attendant les changements structurels sociaux qui empêcheraient de conduire à l'incarcération en premier lieu, mais c'est un peu adressé dans la conclusion, sous la forme un peu de relance vers d'autres organismes et un espoir en un avenir très très lointain. Il ne s'agit donc pas simplement d'un essai qui critique sans rien proposer (ce qui est parfois un peu facile, mais la recherche historique ici est assez complexe, c'est un plus que d'être amené ailleurs à la fin).
Au niveau de la difficulté de lecture, un niveau universitaire est parfois requis. Je dois avouer m'être complètement perdu quand elle parle de codes pénaux et jurisprudence états-unienne (ce n'est vraiment pas un système avec lequel je suis familier anyway), mais il y a vraiment seulement deux passages complexes là-dessus, mais j'avoue avoir juste fini par sauter parce que je ne comprenais plus du tout ce qui voulait être dit.
En fermant le livre, j'ai songé au fait qu'une discussion entre Sarah Ahmed et Aya Gruber serait vraiment intéressante. Gruber est super super critique des campagnes universitaires et des plaintes pour viol à tous les niveaux et j'avoue que je ne comprenais pas toujours son point sauf que les personnes racisées seraient toujours plus victimes et coupables de celles-ci (et tout le problème de l'incarcération et du besoin de pardon), mais je ne comprenais pas nécessairement ce qui pouvait être fait pour adresser le problème maintenant, au niveau universitaire, même s'il est moindre que ce que les discours semblent penser selon l'autrice. Je dois dire qu'un niveau de l'expérience personnelle dans l'université (j'ai aussi lu l'étude ESSIMU pour la situation au Québec), je suis en pas mal en désaccord avec l'autrice de l'essai sur le sujet: je pense qu'il y a vraiment un problème sur la compréhension du consentement et ce qui constitue des gestes d'agressions (autre énorme point de divergence avec l'autrice qui semble reléguer plusieurs gestes comme de simples désagrément). Encore une fois, j'ai l'impression qu'on oppose les femmes aux personnes racisées et du fait que ces dernières seront immensément plus pénalisées que les premières à plusieurs égards, on devrait minimiser la portée des gestes plutôt que de juste faire monter la criminalisation (ou les reproches) à l'ensemble de la population. D'où mes lectures de Sarah Ahmed qui me semble concilier avec brio les deux plutôt que de les opposer. [Ahmed n'est définitivement pas mentionnée dans l'ouvrage malgré le fait qu'elle a quand même énormément sur les questions de plaintes universitaires, j'ai l'impression qu'il y aurait de la matière pour un livre au complet sur la question par exemple si Gruber s'y mettait].
En tout cas, énormément de réflexions émergent pour moi à cette lecture, de désaccords, d'inconforts, ce que j'adore dans une lecture!!!, j'aimerais vraiment donc en parler avec d'autres pour ne pas en rester là et pousser justement la discussion plus loin.
January 15, 2023
Finally someone is asking a lot of the right questions that those in the criminal justice sphere need to be asking. Is incarceration the answer to DV and sex assaults? Why are we diminishing due process rights of those accused of these crimes and undercutting other important constitutional protections (probable cause for arrests in a DV case, presumption of innocence for sex assault)?
Unlike other commenters on Good Reads, I found the author well versed in both feminist theory and in criminal justice. The statistics she identifies are spot-on; many headlines (like 50% of all women are sexually assaulted on campuses!) are based on very broad definitions of sex ‘assault’, sometimes even including u wanted verbal sexually-laden comments. Boorish? Yes. ‘Assault’? Not so much.
Most importantly, she asks would-be feminists if they are really empowering women or serving to undermine their own free will by adopting stereotypes like the helpless drunkard reliant on the protection of men or the state?
I hope this is the beginning of a meaningful consideration and dialogue of these issues. Well done for getting the conversation started.
Unlike other commenters on Good Reads, I found the author well versed in both feminist theory and in criminal justice. The statistics she identifies are spot-on; many headlines (like 50% of all women are sexually assaulted on campuses!) are based on very broad definitions of sex ‘assault’, sometimes even including u wanted verbal sexually-laden comments. Boorish? Yes. ‘Assault’? Not so much.
Most importantly, she asks would-be feminists if they are really empowering women or serving to undermine their own free will by adopting stereotypes like the helpless drunkard reliant on the protection of men or the state?
I hope this is the beginning of a meaningful consideration and dialogue of these issues. Well done for getting the conversation started.
July 22, 2021
If feminism was automatically intersectional, people like Kimberly Crenshaw, Angela Davis, and Aya Gruber would be a lot less read, a lot less relevant, and a lot less necessary. Aya Gruber adds to the tradition of accountability in feminist authorship. Her work will likely "trigger" the toxic elements in the feminist community. But if feminists want any people of colour to take their virtue signalling seriously, feminists are going to need to be a lot more willing to recognize past wrongs and accept responsibility for their actions moving forward. I don't think I've met a feminist who wasn't already a person of colour who I believe would truly care if I was murdered for my religion or race. I think most of them would post about on social media, but I don't think I've met one who wasn't already a person of colour who I could see truly caring. I hope that changes for my kids. Books like this make me more hopeful that it will.
February 26, 2021
About half of this book was thoughtful, well-researched arguments on why using the criminal justice system to deal with gendered violence is counterproductive and particularly harmful to survivors. The other half felt like someone told Katie Roiphe that millennials would like her if she just used the word "abolition." Worth reading for the first half, though!
August 6, 2020
This is an important book for anyone working in this field, whether or not you finish it convinced of the author’s premise (and I am). Her perspective is intellectually honest and the history she provides is fascinating.
August 7, 2020
Tough but necessary reading (and reminder)
March 26, 2025
Aya Gruber, a former public defender and current law professor, discusses the way that feminist activists contributed to the rise of mass incarceration in the United States. That is, even while crimes against women went down, the number of men incarcerated for them went up. Of course, it is possible one led to the other, but such things are hard to separate from the general decrease in crime in America in the 1990s. Gruber's strength lies in her ability to clearly narrate historical events and give multiple perspectives on an issue, mostly focusing on debates within feminism about what exactly feminism was supposed to be: Was it supposed to be for all women, or should it be split into separate categories for specific races or sexual orientations of women? Should feminism only focus on women, or is feminism part of a larger movement of equality for everyone? Is feminism about maximum autonomy, or is feminism about the way people within communities should work with each other? And most importantly to this book, is feminism pro-incarceration or anti-incarceration?
Gruber skillfully argues the anti-incarceration angle of her style of intersectional feminism. She points out that the ways in which feminists have suggested locking up men accused of domestic violence have often hurt the women that the men were partners with, although she notes that such policies have benefited white women but not for women of color. She also spends a lot of time talking about prostitution and the battle over whether or not prostitution was pro or anti-feminist. And she spends a lot of time talking about the ways in which rape law often portrays women as the same as what conservative Christians may have portrayed them: As delicate flowers that need protection from bad men. Gruber skewers the junk science that many prosecutors used to secure convictions with flimsy evidence.
Gruber also cites some studies with questionable methodology, or gives explanations for those studies that is biased towards her interpretation. For example, "DV arrest studies would later confirm that arrest can be a good bet for white women and a losing wager for black women. One large-scale study in Milwaukee conducted in the late 1980s showed that arrest reduced violence among white, employed men while aggravating violence among black, unemployed men." Gruber uses this study to make the point that arrests often harm the black women that the black men were likely paired up with, but fails to make the connection that this is possibly because men who are poor or unemployed have less to lose from arrests, and that arrests are thus a deterrent for men who do have jobs or wealth to lose.
There is a lot absent from her spanning critique. Like the feminists she criticizes, Gruber always portrays crimes like domestic violence or sexual assault as something men do to women. While it is true that most of the cases will involve men committing the crimes against women, the exceptions are sometimes more insightful than the rule. How would things be different if she included LGBT perspectives or of women who committed crimes against men? While this book is interesting, I also see its limited potential in convincing others of its arguments, because most people don't view mass incarceration and violence against women as problems to be dealt with on an equal level, and many people would prefer that incarceration be increased.
Gruber skillfully argues the anti-incarceration angle of her style of intersectional feminism. She points out that the ways in which feminists have suggested locking up men accused of domestic violence have often hurt the women that the men were partners with, although she notes that such policies have benefited white women but not for women of color. She also spends a lot of time talking about prostitution and the battle over whether or not prostitution was pro or anti-feminist. And she spends a lot of time talking about the ways in which rape law often portrays women as the same as what conservative Christians may have portrayed them: As delicate flowers that need protection from bad men. Gruber skewers the junk science that many prosecutors used to secure convictions with flimsy evidence.
Gruber also cites some studies with questionable methodology, or gives explanations for those studies that is biased towards her interpretation. For example, "DV arrest studies would later confirm that arrest can be a good bet for white women and a losing wager for black women. One large-scale study in Milwaukee conducted in the late 1980s showed that arrest reduced violence among white, employed men while aggravating violence among black, unemployed men." Gruber uses this study to make the point that arrests often harm the black women that the black men were likely paired up with, but fails to make the connection that this is possibly because men who are poor or unemployed have less to lose from arrests, and that arrests are thus a deterrent for men who do have jobs or wealth to lose.
There is a lot absent from her spanning critique. Like the feminists she criticizes, Gruber always portrays crimes like domestic violence or sexual assault as something men do to women. While it is true that most of the cases will involve men committing the crimes against women, the exceptions are sometimes more insightful than the rule. How would things be different if she included LGBT perspectives or of women who committed crimes against men? While this book is interesting, I also see its limited potential in convincing others of its arguments, because most people don't view mass incarceration and violence against women as problems to be dealt with on an equal level, and many people would prefer that incarceration be increased.
May 11, 2025
This book is a game CHANGER. I recently graduated with a Master of Criminology. While completing my studies I experienced life threatening DV. Shortly after, I became a defendant in the Supreme Court of Queensland. My alleged offending took place 23 years ago.
The crime processing machine took 3 years to savage me, leaving puncture wounds that haven't yet healed. As I emerged from the rubble, Gruber helped me understand what had happened to me & why. A confluence of political, social & economic factors determines who & what gets investigated and prosecuted. As the author highlights, some crimes are more prone to investigative discretion than others. This results in high levels of inequality.
Making meaning going forward, I continue to read this author's academic papers over & over. Gruber's compassionate pragmatic & grounded analysis, of what can only be described as moral panic of the highest order, is essential.
The crime processing machine took 3 years to savage me, leaving puncture wounds that haven't yet healed. As I emerged from the rubble, Gruber helped me understand what had happened to me & why. A confluence of political, social & economic factors determines who & what gets investigated and prosecuted. As the author highlights, some crimes are more prone to investigative discretion than others. This results in high levels of inequality.
Making meaning going forward, I continue to read this author's academic papers over & over. Gruber's compassionate pragmatic & grounded analysis, of what can only be described as moral panic of the highest order, is essential.
January 6, 2024
well-researched commentary on a topic that too many people are reluctant to acknowledge, but the writing often felt disjointed and did not keep me interested (despite this being a topic I have deep interest in)
May 18, 2022
~controversial~ and amazing
Read
March 5, 2025Will think first and review later
September 1, 2025
mind-blowing
January 5, 2021
From First to Second Wave Karens: how "Believe Women" sloganeering led to an epidemic of Black lynching and mass incarceration...
19th Century suffragettes' push for absolutist rape law reified racist assumptions of black male sexual savagery and patriarchal idealization of white womanhood.
Almost a century later, in the throes of civil rights era, the Anti-Poverty Feminists and Anti-Patriarchy coalitions faced off over the issues of domestic violence and gender equality. Backed by moneyed interests, the Anti-Patriarchy coalition won out, resulting in 1) the battered women’s movement transformed from radical antiauthoritarian movement into pro-policing/pro-prosecution lobby; and 2) for many women of color, gutting welfare rights in lieu of employment outside the home did not confer social status or political power.
In a way Gruber's argument is not so different from Toni Morrison's take on how libbys undermined BIPOC:
http://www.nytimes.com/1971/08/22/arc...
19th Century suffragettes' push for absolutist rape law reified racist assumptions of black male sexual savagery and patriarchal idealization of white womanhood.
Almost a century later, in the throes of civil rights era, the Anti-Poverty Feminists and Anti-Patriarchy coalitions faced off over the issues of domestic violence and gender equality. Backed by moneyed interests, the Anti-Patriarchy coalition won out, resulting in 1) the battered women’s movement transformed from radical antiauthoritarian movement into pro-policing/pro-prosecution lobby; and 2) for many women of color, gutting welfare rights in lieu of employment outside the home did not confer social status or political power.
In a way Gruber's argument is not so different from Toni Morrison's take on how libbys undermined BIPOC:
http://www.nytimes.com/1971/08/22/arc...
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews